If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Let's say this Twinkie represents the number of lies the NSA has told us about tracking the location of our cell phones. Based on this article... that's a hell of a big Twinkie   (theatlantic.com) divider line 83
    More: Fail, NSA, Americans, cell phones, Deputy Attorney General, MetroPCS Communications Inc., Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department  
•       •       •

7664 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2013 at 5:41 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-15 05:11:20 PM
I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.
 
2013-12-15 05:45:43 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


I don't see that as a response from an apologist, but as from people who were derided as paranoid and conspiracy theorists not 2 years ago.
 
2013-12-15 05:46:34 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Funny that they are the same people who call other tin foil hat wearers.
 
2013-12-15 05:46:51 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


They are still better then the "I believe what the CIA tells me" camp.
 
2013-12-15 05:47:21 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Well, sorry you were too farking rock stupid to see what was right in front of your eyes.
 
2013-12-15 05:48:27 PM

Smoking GNU: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

I don't see that as a response from an apologist, but as from people who were derided as paranoid and conspiracy theorists not 2 years ago.


I see them as part of Cyber Command's psy ops department
 
2013-12-15 05:48:55 PM
I phone the NSA whenever I lose my car keys.

They always know right where they are and it's easier than me having to look around for them.
 
2013-12-15 05:51:09 PM
a big assed twink?
 
2013-12-15 05:52:10 PM
I meant "big ass twinkie"
 
2013-12-15 05:52:45 PM
Sooooo, are we talking a twinky the size of the Chrysler Building or something the size of a city bus, that weighs 40 tons? I must know! How many Rhode Islands is the twinky in length? I'm betting it would be more effective to measure said twinky in Texases.

/ Texass? Texi? Whatever
 
2013-12-15 05:53:09 PM
yeah, well... who you gonna call?
 
2013-12-15 05:54:58 PM

Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"


Big ass-twinkie?
 
2013-12-15 05:55:26 PM

uttertosh: yeah, well... who you gonna call?


It doesn't matter. The NSA will hear the call anyway.
 
2013-12-15 05:55:29 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
 
2013-12-15 05:57:10 PM

thurstonxhowell: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

Well, sorry you were too farking rock stupid to see what was right in front of your eyes.


Does that mean we should keep going on like this or not?
 
2013-12-15 05:58:51 PM
Lucius thinks this stuff the NSA is doing is wrong.

cloudfront-assets.reason.com
 
2013-12-15 05:58:58 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-15 05:59:03 PM

aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.


To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.
 
2013-12-15 06:00:01 PM

Yakk: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

They are still better then the "I believe what the CIA tells me" camp.


Anyone who belives anything the CIA says should try reading a book or two.

CIA is nothing more then international terrorists. Dont worry though, they have lots of domestic operations to.


/just watched some show about them. Still pissed off about it
 
2013-12-15 06:05:21 PM

aerojockey: Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.


The bit about getting cellphones to report locations even while powered off was kind of novel. Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption". He's told us a lot of things we didn't know, even if you were already in the "The government is recording all my phone calls!" camp.

Mind you, the conspiracy nuts that were believing these things with no evidence whatsoever are still nuts. They just happened to be, in some cases, correct.
 
2013-12-15 06:06:37 PM
I'm not worried -- I have AT&T.
 
2013-12-15 06:07:37 PM
the U.S. official said the data doesn't provide sufficient intelligence value to justify the resources that would be required to use it.

Basically, These are not the droids you are looking for
 
2013-12-15 06:09:35 PM
incendi:

Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption".

I haven't been keeping up.  Is there an enumerated list?
 
2013-12-15 06:09:44 PM
i1164.photobucket.com
What about the Twinkie?
 
2013-12-15 06:11:56 PM

JasonOfOrillia: Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"

Big ass-twinkie?


How many Curicks is that?
 
2013-12-15 06:15:35 PM
A friend and I killed a twinkie one time. Crushed it to death, then buried it in an unmarked grave in eastern Colorado. We were high on peyote at the time.
 
2013-12-15 06:17:57 PM
They're lying... but it's for our own good. Thank them and go about your business citizen. Also, while you're moving along, can you pick up that aluminum can and toss it in the trash?
 
2013-12-15 06:18:59 PM
The NSA collects data so it can be used to combat terror. Film at 11.
 
2013-12-15 06:20:33 PM

BlackMtnMan: A friend and I killed a twinkie one time. Crushed it to death, then buried it in an unmarked grave in eastern Colorado. We were high on peyote at the time.



Somewhere near Flagler there's a mass grave.
 
2013-12-15 06:21:09 PM

Gaddiel: aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.
 
2013-12-15 06:29:42 PM
www.todaysawesomesauce.com

blog.vzones.com


I don't have much to say. I've had things from my past fall out of computers because I think a spook was sure I'd be a useful member of the military industrial establishment someday.

/Srsly, I had a bail bondsman completely disappear with the charges.
//Fell off the face of the earth.
///Might have been the spook.
 
2013-12-15 06:34:20 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Less "Snowden didn't tell us anything new" in this case and more "didn't Snowden tell us they were doing this quite a while ago?"

I swear I heard all this stuff about incidental overseas tracking of Americans already.
 
2013-12-15 06:36:11 PM

Delta1212: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

Less "Snowden didn't tell us anything new" in this case and more "didn't Snowden tell us they were doing this quite a while ago?"

I swear I heard all this stuff about incidental overseas tracking of Americans already.



Not what this is about.
 
2013-12-15 06:37:41 PM
Really, I'm having trouble mustering any concern over this, given that any fool with a teaspoon of gray matter could have--and did--see this coming three decades ago. Did you think that when cops were tracking murderers and kiddy diddlers by tracing their cellphone pings off of transmission towers that somehow did didn't affect YOU? Because I saw them doing that shiat on CourtTV in the mid-90s. Did you think that when police began locating stupid thieves who posted pics of their hauls on Facebook and YouTube that nobody else was keeping track of it? Corporations have been monitoring social media since at least the late 90's, when Disney used to catch shoplifters by looking for large garage sales selling "Lots of Disney stuff CHEEP!!"

Everyone freaking out about it now--you're twice idiots for first of all not thinking this would happen and second for somehow making a distinction between the data collection done by the NSA and the data collection done by Google and Target. It's all equally bad and equally subject to abuse. And just because the corporations aren't going to arrest you doesn't mean anything--they're also not subject to any laws, even after the fact.

If you're worried about loss of your 4th Amd. rights, you should be; but all this nonsense about "The NSA lied! Obama/Bush/Clinton etc. lied!" is pure whargarble. It is what it is, and the only way to cure it is to get yourself off the radar and minimize your signature. Don't expect the government to stop what they're doing because it inconveniences YOU.
 
2013-12-15 06:39:12 PM

♫ THE CLAPPER ♫

/And yes, apologists suck.
 
2013-12-15 06:42:10 PM
This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.
 
2013-12-15 06:43:22 PM

Gaddiel: To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.
 
2013-12-15 06:45:39 PM

tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.


Nor does it mean the converse.
 
rka
2013-12-15 06:58:51 PM

Gaddiel: Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.
 
2013-12-15 07:02:22 PM
I like to think that in 20 years, the government will be the equivalent of a hoarder.

"No Congress! I will not get rid of Auntie Mildred from Topeka's phone records! I know she's been dead since 2007, but I need it! Please don't make me get rid of those!"
 
2013-12-15 07:03:07 PM

aerojockey: Gaddiel: To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.


There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.
 
2013-12-15 07:05:10 PM
The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.
 
2013-12-15 07:06:00 PM

oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.


What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.
 
2013-12-15 07:08:49 PM

rka: Gaddiel: Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.


One of the aforementioned companies allows TLA access to source code for networks sniffing / monitoring products (beyond lawful intercept) after code check-in but before code-signing.  It was an open uncomfortable secret.  This was going on at least ten years ago when I was working on said product.
 
2013-12-15 07:15:30 PM

Gyrfalcon: Gaddiel: aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.


Lawyered.
 
2013-12-15 07:20:59 PM
I'll only be outraged and think this is wrong when it's done by a presidential administration that I do not agree with. Otherwise, it's all okay.
 
2013-12-15 07:22:41 PM

BafflerMeal: tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.

Nor does it mean the converse.


How could anyone imply or infer that "no conspiracy theories are true" given the context of this conversation?
 
2013-12-15 07:26:58 PM

JasonOfOrillia: Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"

Big ass-twinkie?


It's what twinks crave.
 
2013-12-15 07:31:08 PM

aerojockey: oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.


If things worked as the constitution dictated, the government couldn't get that data from Verizon without convincing a judge they had probable cause. This system naturally provides a check on surveillance and also creates a cost that stops the government from surveilling everyone. Now they can do track you indefinitely because you happened to get within 100 yards of a terrorist or because your NSA significant other wants to see if you're cheating or for any other reason.

Equally troubling, they can data mine locations to figure out who you're associating with and where you've been going. A computer might decide that you're a terrorist or a communist or whatever based on your movements without any prior investigation or evidence. In addition to 4th amendment concerns, this has scary first amendment implications related to freedom of association.
 
2013-12-15 07:35:14 PM

tetsoushima: BafflerMeal: tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.

Nor does it mean the converse.

How could anyone imply or infer that "no conspiracy theories are true" given the context of this conversation?


They will try.  They always do.
 
2013-12-15 07:35:54 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


I'm not entirely sure you are using apologist correctly here.

I was actually going to say something different:

I'll just wait for the "We did it to protect our freedoms" apologists to show up.
 
2013-12-15 07:45:25 PM
That's one big Twinkie.
www.wearysloth.com
 
2013-12-15 07:49:50 PM
i970.photobucket.com

51 posts in and I'm the first with a picture of the Twinkie from the scene in question.
 
2013-12-15 07:57:05 PM
I see there is a significant reading comprehension issue here. The debate a few months ago was.. "Verizon and others are giving the government data, does this data contain location information or just call logs", NSA said it didn't contain location information.
These new revelations state that NSA has obtained location information from international telecom snooping, in it many domestic calls were also in there. So, no, Verizon didn't give NSA location information, NSA obtain it themselves.
 
2013-12-15 08:12:18 PM
Goddammit, NASA, just get back to exploring space and leave our cellphones alone!
 
2013-12-15 08:30:18 PM
I think marshmallows make a better analogy.
smilingbagel.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-15 08:38:57 PM
Thankfully, NSA is totally unhackable and this information would never fall into the wrong hands
 
2013-12-15 08:52:09 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Well, golly gee, I had no idea that intelligence agencies would like rather than give up their secrets. Who knew?
 
2013-12-15 08:58:53 PM
The government can stop this anytime they want.

Right?

any day now......

any day..

BSABSR?
 
2013-12-15 09:20:47 PM

whcrow: BlackMtnMan: A friend and I killed a twinkie one time. Crushed it to death, then buried it in an unmarked grave in eastern Colorado. We were high on peyote at the time.


Somewhere near Flagler there's a mass grave.



No, Flagler is Kit Carson way. Sterling is where the twinkie lies. You may be thinking of Sand Creek.
 
2013-12-15 10:01:18 PM

Paelian: I'm not entirely sure you are using apologist correctly here.


Yeah well, I'm on a ton of cold medicine right now.
 
2013-12-15 10:42:58 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Yet, he is also a traitor and should be killed.

And Obama did not know about any of this until it was on CNN, but he is not lying or incompetent. You're just racist.
 
2013-12-15 10:46:23 PM

fireclown: The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.


Well, now Obama is President. Those vocal screams for liberty you heard in the 2000s were really just partisan shills.  Watching Fark apologists, helps me understand how the Germans could eventually go along with someone like Hitler.
 
2013-12-15 11:15:44 PM

Mrbogey: They're lying... but it's for our own good. Thank them and go about your business citizen. Also, while you're moving along, can you pick up that aluminum can and toss it in the trash?


static2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-15 11:19:24 PM

Nemo's Brother: fireclown: The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.

Well, now Obama is President. Those vocal screams for liberty you heard in the 2000s were really just partisan shills.  Watching Fark apologists, helps me understand how the Germans could eventually go along with someone like Hitler.


You act like you're the first generation to ever get mad about this. The deafening meh's you're hearing are from people like me who grew up in the COINTELPRO era, and got mad about Carnivore and Echelon, and  a dozen other ominously named programs. We've seen the outrage begin, peak, and vanish despite our ongoing anger and frustration, and there's no reason to believe it will be different. And we've seen people like you finger-point and say "How could you let things go this long?!" and then ignore us when we tried to explain why things went this long, as if things like lack of laws to cover this and gaps in legislation and people's stubborn refusal to change their habits to prevent government snooping were irrelevancies.

But to reiterate for like the 19th time: Warrantless wiretaps are not illegal and they're not new. The laws have been argued over in the courts since Olmstead v. US in 1927 and Katz v. US in 1967 and things still aren't fully resolved. The issue of what tech should and shouldn't be covered by the 4th Amd. is still being struggled over in the courts--it's just not as straightforward as non-attorneys seem to imagine. I know you want it to be, but it isn't. And people continue to want everything to be convenient and online and available and instant access and yet private and free of intrusion; and nobody is willing to accept that the two may be mutually exclusive: You may not be able to have both instant online access that is 100% private. It may be that you must either give up privacy or instant access--and nobody wants to hear that.

If you build a house with glass walls and transparent furniture, the neighbors are not obligated to avert their eyes to avoid seeing you naked; you are obligated to either put up drapes or wear clothes if you wish to maintain your privacy--whether the viewers are private citizens or the mailman. And nobody is going to be sympathetic  to your plight if you whine that the government can see everything you do inside your glass house if you take zero steps to keep your doings private except insist that the government must shut its eyes. If you want to rail against people who weren't angry enough about not being able to build glass-walled houses in the past, you're unlikely to garner many supporters there, either.

/rant off, but this is really pissing me off
 
2013-12-15 11:31:04 PM

Nemo's Brother: fireclown: The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.

Well, now Obama is President. Those vocal screams for liberty you heard in the 2000s were really just partisan shills.  Watching Fark apologists, helps me understand how the Germans could eventually go along with someone like Hitler.


Back then we had activists and major politicians outraged that the feds would track library checkouts. Now they collect all your location and met a data and nobody bats an eyelash.
 
2013-12-16 12:40:22 AM

incendi: The bit about getting cellphones to report locations even while powered off was kind of novel. Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption". He's told us a lot of things we didn't know, even if you were already in the "The government is recording all my phone calls!" camp.


What Snowden's results mean is people in charge of information security can say to their bosses with a straight face 'We can't use Amazon's cloud services unless you want the NSA passing the General Electric's Japanese Vice President of Asia/Pacific Sales confidential information related to our current negotiations with Mitsubishi'
 
2013-12-16 01:02:13 AM

Dharma Bumstead: I'll only be outraged and think this is wrong when it's done by a presidential administration that I do not agree with. Otherwise, it's all okay.


God dammit that's the most truthful thing ever posted on this site. In six years I've never seen anything that cuts to the bone and will be so blindly ignored.
 
2013-12-16 01:51:47 AM

Mrbogey: Now they collect all your location and met a data and nobody bats an eyelash.



The attention whores give it up freely now through apps.

Look where I was!
Look what I read!
 
2013-12-16 01:53:00 AM

aerojockey: oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.


If the government can do something terrible, they will do something terrible?

Well, that explains the internment camps.

And all the other stuff, of course.
 
2013-12-16 01:58:44 AM

Gyrfalcon: Nemo's Brother: fireclown: The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.

Well, now Obama is President. Those vocal screams for liberty you heard in the 2000s were really just partisan shills.  Watching Fark apologists, helps me understand how the Germans could eventually go along with someone like Hitler.

You act like you're the first generation to ever get mad about this. The deafening meh's you're hearing are from people like me who grew up in the COINTELPRO era, and got mad about Carnivore and Echelon, and  a dozen other ominously named programs. We've seen the outrage begin, peak, and vanish despite our ongoing anger and frustration, and there's no reason to believe it will be different. And we've seen people like you finger-point and say "How could you let things go this long?!" and then ignore us when we tried to explain why things went this long, as if things like lack of laws to cover this and gaps in legislation and people's stubborn refusal to change their habits to prevent government snooping were irrelevancies.

But to reiterate for like the 19th time: Warrantless wiretaps are not illegal and they're not new. The laws have been argued over in the courts since Olmstead v. US in 1927 and Katz v. US in 1967 and things still aren't fully resolved. The issue of what tech should and shouldn't be covered by the 4th Amd. is still being struggled over in the courts--it's just not as straightforward as non-attorneys seem to imagine. I know you want it to be, but it isn't. And people continue to want everything to be convenient and online and available and instant access and yet private and free of intrusion; and nobody is willing to accept that the two may be mutually exclusive: You may not be able to have both instant online access that is 100% private. It may be that you must either give up privacy or instant access--and nobody wants to hear that.

If you build a house with glass walls and transparent furniture, the neighbors are not obligated to avert their eyes to avoid seeing you naked; you are obligated to either put up drapes or wear clothes if you wish to maintain your privacy--whether the viewers are private citizens or the mailman. And nobody is going to be sympathetic  to your plight if you whine that the government can see everything you do inside your glass house if you take zero steps to keep your doings private except insist that the government must shut its eyes. If you want to rail against people who weren't angry enough about not being able to build glass-walled houses in the past, you're unlikely to garner many supporters there, either.

/rant off, but this is really pissing me off


How is "I'd like access to information and services" and "don't monitor my actions while I am using them" mutually exclusive?

Just because I'm using your toilet doesn't mean that you get to watch.
 
2013-12-16 01:59:06 AM

sendtodave: aerojockey: oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.

If the government can do something terrible, they will do something terrible?

Well, that explains the internment camps.

And all the other stuff, of course.



The voting booth will be the button we push in this national Milgram experiment come to life.

As long as my party is doing it.
 
2013-12-16 02:01:17 AM

Giltric: Mrbogey: Now they collect all your location and met a data and nobody bats an eyelash.


The attention whores give it up freely now through apps.

Look where I was!
Look what I read!


Oh, well, if some people choose that privacy doesn't matter, then privacy doesn't matter!

What a silly argument.
 
2013-12-16 02:01:47 AM
The outrage is funny because it's beyond simple to avoid all this. Leave your damn phone at home.
 
2013-12-16 02:14:39 AM

incendi: aerojockey: Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

The bit about getting cellphones to report locations even while powered off was kind of novel. Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption". He's told us a lot of things we didn't know, even if you were already in the "The government is recording all my phone calls!" camp.

Mind you, the conspiracy nuts that were believing these things with no evidence whatsoever are still nuts. They just happened to be, in some cases, correct.


images.buddytv.com
 
2013-12-16 04:35:42 AM
We would NEVER spy on you.
OK. We spy on you.
And everyone else.
So, there's that.
Get over it.
 
2013-12-16 08:12:11 AM

Gaddiel: aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


And it was concrete before. I knew this in 2003 when i was in media law classes. The laws states that anything you willingly say publicly on the internet is fair game. We are making mountains out of a pebble.
 
2013-12-16 09:12:06 AM
So when do we get rid of cell phones. I'm thinking everyone getting together and throwing them into the Boston Harbor.
 
2013-12-16 11:07:06 AM

uber humper: Smoking GNU: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

I don't see that as a response from an apologist, but as from people who were derided as paranoid and conspiracy theorists not 2 years ago.

I see them as part of Cyber Command's psy ops department


Which, as we all know, is merely a propaganda wing of the Illuminati.
 
2013-12-16 11:10:10 AM

Deep Contact: So when do we get rid of cell phones. I'm thinking everyone getting together and throwing them into the Boston Harbor.


Only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.
 
2013-12-16 11:22:29 AM
If they tell you they're not doing it, sure as shoot they are.

After all, everyone's a terrorist.
 
2013-12-16 11:23:54 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: If they tell you they're not doing it, sure as shoot they are.

After all, everyone's a terrorist.


And all the sinners, saints
 
2013-12-16 03:41:36 PM
Good news, everybody...

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,"wrote Leon


Government lawyers and the judges who found the NSA program legal pointed to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, which found no search warrant was needed by police to install a "pen register" which recorded the numbers dialed on a particular phone line.

But Leon said the three-decade-old precedent was not applicable to a program like the NSA's because of its sophistication and because telephone use has become far more intense in recent years.

"The ubiquity of phones has dramatically altered the quantity of information that is now available and, more importantly, what that information can tell the Government about people's lives," the judge wrote. "I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones."
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report