Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(WTOP) NewsFlash Federal judge rules that the NSA can spy on you all it wants, because shut up and watch Duck Dynasty, that's why   (wtop.com) divider line 159
    More: NewsFlash, NSA, federal judges, phone surveillance  
•       •       •

14888 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2013 at 12:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-27 01:06:46 PM  
18 votes:
www.infowars.com
2013-12-27 01:07:06 PM  
13 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


plenty of people did, you were called a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer for bringing it up though.
2013-12-27 01:06:54 PM  
10 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." ―Padmé Amidala
2013-12-27 01:06:52 PM  
10 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


People did, it was considered unpatriotic then.
2013-12-27 01:02:45 PM  
9 votes:
the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.
2013-12-27 01:02:50 PM  
8 votes:

mudpants: Saw that one coming.


It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?
2013-12-27 01:02:31 PM  
8 votes:
Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.
2013-12-27 01:14:03 PM  
6 votes:
I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.
2013-12-27 01:06:27 PM  
6 votes:

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


I care.
2013-12-27 01:02:42 PM  
6 votes:

mudpants: Saw that one coming.


So did the NSA. They saw you seeing it coming.
2013-12-27 01:06:19 PM  
5 votes:
TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote
.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.
2013-12-27 03:29:32 PM  
3 votes:
Fark you judge.  9/11 does not overrule the Constitution, you illiterate piece of shiat.
2013-12-27 02:12:35 PM  
3 votes:
A federal judge on Friday found that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is legal and a valuable part of the nation's arsenal to counter the threat of terrorism and "only works because it collects everything."

Look you f*cking moron. You should not base your decisions on whether will work or not if you rule against it. It is CLEARLY unconstitutional. That is what you are supposed to be ruling on. You cannot seize everyone in the country's phone records, texts, emails, skype videos, chat logs, facebook messages, etc. just because because that's the only way you can make sure you also get the terrorist's info. That kind of logic is beyond stupid. You are basically saying "We can't find a terrorist so basically all of you are now considered terrorists. Guilty until proven innocent and were gonna look thru all your stuff. That's cool right?" No. No, it's not cool. That's like saying "Someone in this country is a terrorist who wants to kill us, so we are just gonna kill you all. That's the only way we can be sure we kill the terrorist. The program won't work unless we do that."

F*ck it. I'm getting drunk.

/always good advice
2013-12-27 01:57:59 PM  
3 votes:

whidbey: duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.

What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?


Is that why the Obama Administration is vigorously defending these policies in court? Come on. We can all blame Bush for putting is on this road, but Obama is keeping us on it.
2013-12-27 01:46:30 PM  
3 votes:

browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.



I know a guy who was in the US Special forces in Afghanistan. Sometimes he had to shoot the Taliban and other affiliated Afghanis who were doing bad stuff, other times he sat and talked with them trying to negotiate peace.

I one time said that, among other reasons, they hated us for our freedom and he pretty much tore me a new asshole. Apparently, they have a lot of reasons to hate us, but enjoying our personal freedoms in the comfort of our affluent first world nation on the other side of the world isn't one of them. A long history of us killing folks throughout the Arab world, destabilizing/toppling their governments we don't like and generally being arrogant pricks who care only about what resources we can buy no matter what the cost in human lives and misery will be - and not even our own principles - is what really pisses them off. If we hadn't mucked about with their country and their neighbors as well they wouldn't be inclined to give a fark about us at all.

I did get him to agree that the freedoms that define the values of our culture do play some small part in why "they" hate us, but he is certain that it's a small part and indirect. Basically, in that we could never just stand idly by while they slaughter their own people with impugnity and turn women in to essentially livestock... Our values and freedoms make it inevitable for our cultures to clash in some way over things like that. But if we kept to ourselves and didn't muddle about in the affairs of pretty much every majority Islamic country apparently they really wouldn't give two shiats about us enjoying our freedoms back at home. Our freedoms were basically a slightly amusing curiousity to them and that's about it.
2013-12-27 01:40:37 PM  
3 votes:

Nabb1: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.

Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.


Actually, you're completely right. The failure of the Obama administration to oppose these actions is completely undefendable. He should be tried as an accomplice to domestic sedition along with President Bush.
2013-12-27 01:36:50 PM  
3 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.

When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.


Just who do you think is defending the government's case in court right now? John Ashcroft? You can live in denial all you want, I guess.
2013-12-27 01:35:07 PM  
3 votes:
The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.
2013-12-27 01:29:53 PM  
3 votes:

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.



Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.
2013-12-27 01:28:36 PM  
3 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

Russ Feingold Patriot Act

Speech. Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
I may not have agreed with Feingold  on everything but he at least tried to do  the job of a Senator and represent the interests of the American people
2013-12-27 01:24:01 PM  
3 votes:
FTA:  "In ruling, the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

Two comments...

1 - Why are we always fighting the last battle?

2 - The FBI and other organizations had everything they needed to connect the dots without communications metadata. A big farking red flag came from one of the flight schools who called to mention a student who was only interested in hand flying, not take off or landing - you know, two of the more critical phases of flight and that are generally considered to be important parts of a successful flight.

The collection of the communication metadata is useless if it is not analysed properly. The trouble is that the likelihood of that is low but the probability of abuse is high.
2013-12-27 01:10:50 PM  
3 votes:
That's why I try to insert "Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul" into every phone conversation and online post.

/just for the fun of it
//hi NSA
///Fark Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul
2013-12-27 01:08:28 PM  
3 votes:

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


People who aren't bed wetting fascists giving the government controls that Hitler couldn't have dreamed of.  But this is a fascist country now so it's to be expected that idiots will embrace it
2013-12-27 01:06:14 PM  
3 votes:
I'm shocked that one corrupt branch of our government sided with another corrupt branch of our government.
2013-12-27 01:05:38 PM  
3 votes:
A couple weeks ago a different federal judge said the opposite.
2013-12-27 01:04:08 PM  
3 votes:
Take it to SCOTUS.
2013-12-27 01:01:27 PM  
3 votes:
Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!
2013-12-28 08:48:53 AM  
2 votes:
Judge against the NSA cites the constitution. Judge for them cites 9/11. Which is more important?
2013-12-27 04:49:40 PM  
2 votes:
December 27, 2013

National Security Agency
9800 Savage Rd.
Fort Meade, MD 20755

Dear National Security Agency,

I recently learned about your spying program from arrogant people in the Guardian and the Washington Post. These articles stirred some strong emotions in me. Thank you for doing this to protect us from terrorists. Only through keeping a close eye on your own citizens are you able to stop terrorists. By my count, there has only been one successful terrorist attack on US soil since the Tragic Events of September 11th, 2000. That's a 10,000% reduction in terrorism. And, even that thing in Boston is allowable because it needed to remind us that terrorism is still a real threat.

Now, the paranoid people out there think you are taking away Fourth Amendment rights. To them, I say: "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide?" To prove I have nothing to hide and to aid the NSA in their spying program, I am giving you the passwords to my email and my social media accounts:

My AOL email password is Ronald88Reagan.
My MySpace password is Prodigy5ux.
My Friendster account is LAWLZbbq2.
And, you can access my LiveJournal with 4321Password.

In addition to these passwords, I have enclosed naked pictures of myself, including taint shots, to prove I have absolutely nothing to hide.

I feel it is important to explain some things you may have seen while "datamining" my information.

My use of the phrase "that is the bomb" is not a reference to an explosive device. It is popular vernacular for "I approve of the quality of that."
You may have also seen "I'd like to perform a terrorist attack on her!" This is not a reference to wanting to cause terror in anyone. It is just a particularly crude way of saying that a woman's appearance aroused powerful feelings of lust within me.
I may have also said, "Do you want to come over and smoke some marijuana?" This is not an invitation for cannabis use. Drugs are bad and illegal and wrong. I don't do them. Drugs could ruin one's ability to write meaningful letters. No, "smoke some marijuana" is code for "eat massive amounts of perfectly legal cheeseburgers." My wife doesn't like me eating a lot, so I have to use code when I want friends to come over to binge. I am very fat.
We use "having a safety meeting" to mean "smoke marijuana."
Now, you may have read an email about destroying an abortion clinic. That email was pretty straight forward, but we aborted that before the planning stages. We found out my buddy's daughter was teen pregnant and needed to visit the clinic. Woops. Either way, it would not be a terrorist attack because none of us are Muslim. We're Christians. The attack would be "God's Will."

I hope the above clears some things up and makes your job easier. If I can ever be of assistance, do not hesitate to contact me (you have my contact info). I'm currently unemployed, so if you need me to fill any jobs for you, please contact me about that as well. As you can see, I already have a strong understanding of how the NSA works. I look forward to hearing from you.

Openly Yours,
The First Four Black Sabbath Albums
2013-12-27 03:42:42 PM  
2 votes:
Since Al Qaeda hated us for our FreedomTM,, I guess we'll be friends from here on out.
2013-12-27 03:33:24 PM  
2 votes:

JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.


Well you'll here it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.
2013-12-27 03:24:19 PM  
2 votes:
oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.
upl.co
2013-12-27 02:44:42 PM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-12-27 02:24:24 PM  
2 votes:

oh_please: Really? REALLY???

This is why Obama has reneged on all his promises to repeal the Patriot Act, shut down Gitmo, etc., it's because of those meanies? He got up in front of everyone and said, "Sorry, fark all of you, I agree with it now." Dude, get a grip.


You'll have to excuse the Obama apologists like Whidbey.  They're so blinded by their hatred of the GOP, they can't even see the flawed leadership of the Democratic party.

The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure....enough to pass the ACA but not enough to reign in the Patriot Act?  Riggghhhhtt.  The most transparent administration ever!!!

I hate both parties, but when Democrats are elected I expect them to embrace civil liberties...and that has not really been true with Obama.  He's been defending the NSA, not excoriating them as I'd expect a Democrat to do.

I'll restate what I said earlier.  It doesn't matter WHAT side of the fence you're on politically, We The People need to reign in the power of the government in 2014.  That means electing people that WILL vote to reign in the Fed, NOT excuse them.
2013-12-27 02:23:55 PM  
2 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


They did and they were shouted down as tinfoil nutters. In fact that happened until Snowden's revelations. Even after Room 641A aka the NSA Room at one of AT&T's facilities became public knowledge people were still labled as nutter for suggesting the government was spying on the American public en masse.


slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.


Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.

i.imgur.com
2013-12-27 02:22:03 PM  
2 votes:

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


The Office of the President is a cherry-picked elite from either party who owes so many favours to those within government who helped him get elected that he dare not rock the boat.  The true top level dudes are NEVER going to let a guy through primaries unless they're 100% sure he'll "play ball" and not rock the boat.

He plays a role, like the fictional James Bond, but all he does is read the scripts.  He takes orders from the producers and director and "studio execs".
2013-12-27 02:13:34 PM  
2 votes:

snocone: the judge noted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred. "

What a nimrod. All they had to do was answer the farking phone on 9/11 when the FBI was calling.
But, there were other plans.


Ugh, what a stupid argument.  Can we stop pretending that everything is permissible if it might, somehow, possibly help catch a terrorist?

FFS, 9/11 was 12 years ago.  Move on.

/not sure if you were going truther with the "other plans" bit
//but goddamn, I hate the fact that 9/11 is being used to justify an American police state
2013-12-27 01:48:50 PM  
2 votes:

whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.


No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.
2013-12-27 01:46:25 PM  
2 votes:

whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.


And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.
2013-12-27 01:36:12 PM  
2 votes:
Gubment does what gubment wants. Big surprise.
2013-12-27 01:35:06 PM  
2 votes:
Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.
2013-12-27 01:34:02 PM  
2 votes:

Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP


Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


When the problems derived from President Bush's agenda stop happening, I will stop assigning blame to his administration.

Just because a new CEO is in charge of the factory, doesn't mean that the machines (which were neglected to boost production for the last 20 quarters) magically reset themselves to brand new condition. Sometimes, crap takes time to fix.
2013-12-27 01:28:37 PM  
2 votes:
It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.
2013-12-27 01:25:36 PM  
2 votes:
I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?
2013-12-27 01:25:20 PM  
2 votes:

whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP



Unfortunately, that is not a legitimate refuting of a valid point.  Though it does accurately represent the contents of most liberals' brains on this (and many) topics.

Obama has been in office for almost 5 years now, and he's still not responsible for anything that's taking place or going wrong, amirite?  You expect us to believe that he's not complicit with the NSA spying programs, even if he didn't initiate them?  Nothing scandalous sticks to the guy, because HURRDY HURRDY DERP media and butthurt liberals who are still in 'b-b-b-but George W Bush omg' mode.

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.
2013-12-27 01:20:14 PM  
2 votes:
No wonder Putin says he wishes he could control the state apparatus the way the US Government does.  No bully boy tactics required, half the (shiatscared) nation simply insists it's the right thing to do to defend freedom.  Change "Patriotism" to "Fascism" in no more than 5 moves without touching the Constitution once.
2013-12-27 01:17:09 PM  
2 votes:
Oh hey, lets rule as absolutely narrowly as possible and dodge EVERY SINGLE LEGAL QUESTION regarding the issue at hand, while doing absolutely nothing and twisting basic logic. Difficulty: saying that clearly congress can handle this as it's not like it's a fourth amendment question or anything.

See, everything is okay because 9/11!

/facepalm
//it's not like this judge has been biased all the way through or anything.
2013-12-27 01:11:51 PM  
2 votes:

violentsalvation: A couple weeks ago a different federal judge said the opposite.


So the questions are:
- How quickly can we get this to SCOTUS, now that there's conflicting case law?
- Is there any chance that five members of SCOTUS will be sane on this issue?
2013-12-27 01:11:35 PM  
2 votes:
Or, in other words, fark your right to privacy, and fark your right not to have non warrant wire tapping done to your phone. What's next? Warrentless searches of my car? My home? Arrests without probable cause? Jail terms without due process and legal representation?

/welcome to the new world, where the terrorists have won, and we not only bend over to suck their dicks, but we give up our rights as well
2013-12-27 01:11:15 PM  
2 votes:
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaida's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Bullshiat.

Farking bullshiat.
2013-12-27 01:11:05 PM  
2 votes:

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


Yep.  And I remember when the president was responsible for stuff from time to time.
2013-12-27 01:10:33 PM  
2 votes:
Sure will be fun when we can submit Freedom of Information Act to get the audio records of politicians phone calls.

/Until the NSA produces audio proof of a senator's sorted relationship with an underage boy, this will continue.
//One Senator made out to be the pedophile he is, and the NSA will be forced by congress to stop surveillance.
2013-12-27 01:09:30 PM  
2 votes:
My mistake, I thought a judge would know there is a fourth amendment to the constitution.
2013-12-27 01:08:38 PM  
2 votes:
This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.
2013-12-27 01:07:58 PM  
2 votes:

calbert: [static.fjcdn.com image 400x312]


People who have the appreciation for budgetary problems and also for the constitution of the United States of the Americas.

And the sexy lover of me Murder.
2013-12-27 01:05:29 PM  
2 votes:
Sure but if I start a blog called "What is U.S. District Judge William Pauley doing?" and follow him around and live tweet his day, I'll get arrested.
2013-12-27 01:04:51 PM  
2 votes:
static.fjcdn.com
2013-12-27 01:03:32 PM  
2 votes:
I blame the mews...
blogs.westword.com
2013-12-27 01:02:27 PM  
2 votes:
Yeah, pretty much.
2013-12-27 01:02:08 PM  
2 votes:
Ceiling NSA is listening to you masturbate
2013-12-28 03:55:03 PM  
1 votes:
He said the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting communications and "represents the government's counter-punch" to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.

Im sure they meant to write that into the 4th amendment but ran out of ink.
2013-12-28 02:06:20 PM  
1 votes:
It's constitutional because it's effective?

Alrighty.
2013-12-28 12:19:56 PM  
1 votes:

lohphat: cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?

Not with the current fear-mongering conservative majority bench.


For what it's worth, Judge Leon, the district judge who said the NSA had to knock off the bulk data collection, is a Bush 43 appointee, IIRC.

/conservative and liberal means nothing with respect to government control over your life
2013-12-28 11:18:01 AM  
1 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


Plenty of people realized it then.  I still think the so-called PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym people) is unconstitutional, and this judge should be very unceremoniously shamed into retiring/resigning and admitting he doesn't understand the Constitution.


They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin, according to wikiquote.

Paraphrased Below:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
2013-12-28 02:21:40 AM  
1 votes:
Didn't this country use to run propaganda campains about other countries trying to do this exact same crap?

Sad, really sad, how does democracy die? With a burp, fart, and a "duh uh?" on the couch of the stupid fat-ass American public.
2013-12-27 09:33:20 PM  
1 votes:
The ruling is total bullshiat.
2013-12-27 09:20:58 PM  
1 votes:

Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?


Because terrorism.

Just like when we screamed about it when Echelon was uncovered; and Carnivore, and COINTELPRO and on into the mists of time. And there's no reason to think it will change. Protect your own goddamn information and stop expecting the government to do it for you, because they won't. They've always got a justification and sometimes it's even a good one, and the majority of Americans still believe "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

Meanwhile, even as we've been fretting over the NSA possibly collecting our ISP metadata, Target had one of the biggest security breaches in recent memory and lost not only credit and debit card information, but "possibly more" as they admitted today--which means if you shopped at Target over the holidays your bank and credit information is likely compromised; which imo is way scarier and much more intrusive than anything the government "might" do; and worse because it's completely unregulated except by Target. And yet everyone's A-OK with that because it's "just Target".

Enjoy your privacy.
2013-12-27 09:18:15 PM  
1 votes:
Only if your rich.
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-12-27 09:01:08 PM  
1 votes:
If I was called for jury duty, and the case involved someone who murdered this judge (or anybody else involved, even remotely, with spying on Americans), my vote would be not guilty. That's right, NSA-guy-in-charge-of-monitoring-Fark, I'm talking about you; I hope somebody blows your brains out.
2013-12-27 08:51:05 PM  
1 votes:

Kumana Wanalaia: generallyso: Cold_Sassy: mudpants: Saw that one coming.

It was already here the moment the "Patriot Act" was signed into law.  Why did nobody realize it then?

They did and they were shouted down as tinfoil nutters. In fact that happened until Snowden's revelations. Even after Room 641A aka the NSA Room at one of AT&T's facilities became public knowledge people were still labled as nutter for suggesting the government was spying on the American public en masse.


slayer199: I don't care what side of the political fence you sit on, we ALL need to make this an issue in 2014 because the ONLY way this will stop is if we elect Congresscritters that will reign in the NSA.

Americans already voted for change. It didn't work, they just got more of the same.

[i.imgur.com image 500x334]

So vote republican?


If you live in a district with Diebold, you already did.
2013-12-27 08:27:25 PM  
1 votes:
From the Reuters article: (redlit)

"But he said the program's constitutionality "is ultimately a question of reasonableness," and that there was no evidence that the government had used "bulk telephony metadata" for any reason other than to investigate and disrupt terrorist attacks."

No evidence? ORLY?

Seriously wondering what they had on the guy.
2013-12-27 07:53:45 PM  
1 votes:
alice_600
When I was in journalism college the one thing I was told to do was never runaway like scared children and face justice, Why?
Because then people you need to be on your side don't believe you are standing up for what you believe in.


Manning didn't flee the country, and look at the result. It's not like there are more people supporting Manning than Snowden. They're exactly the same people. If Snowden is the comparison, Manning absolutely should have jumped ship.


whidbey
I'm sorry, but this statement is bullshiat, and calling me a "shill" only belies your total lack of an argument. There is plenty of evidence that ACA is insuring people and regulating the industry. You're going to have to do a LOT better than repeating the same crap.

That's not what I'm saying. ACA STILL leaves tens of millions of people in the lurch, and maintains the insurance corporation-dominated system which costs far more than it needs to while delivering inferior care, and we still have to do battle with a bureaucracy to get our bills paid. Scratch that, now we have to do battle with TWO bureaucracies! Sure, it MAY be SLIGHTLY better than the previous situation, but... really? This is what we get for our one big shot at really turning things around? All the outrage building up over the previous several years is gone, and we get a slightly-polished turd?

Actually, they've been active in this country. There are a host of news stories about foiled plots. More disingenuous bullshiat.

Are you drunk? Those "plots" have either been lone wolves or FBI entrapment schemes (with an informant who provides the plan, money, and fake explosives). If this is your example of why we need to let the NSA wiretap our communications, their either Al Qaeda doesn't exist or is so inept that we don't need to give a fark.

And at the very least, you could admit that Al Qaeda is still an international problem.

You mean like when I said that they're active in the West African Sahel, Syria, Yemen...?


HeartBurnKid
Oh, I want to see this. Please do show a period where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_congress#Senate

/difficulty: 60 actual Democrats, not just 60 counting independents that caucus with Democrats

Oh, right, because Bernie Sanders is going to side with the Republicans.
2013-12-27 07:50:29 PM  
1 votes:

Chagrin: Illegal except for the fact that the NSA is giving the data to the FBI, DEA, IRS, and DHS anyway.


Don't forget Israel
2013-12-27 07:27:47 PM  
1 votes:

prjindigo: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

You're gonna have to explain how we're "losing liberty" when someone watches us do it but doesn't tell the cops...

Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.  It is illegal to use such information in a law enforcement setting.


Illegal except for the fact that the NSA is giving the data to the FBI, DEA, IRS, and DHS anyway.
2013-12-27 07:07:34 PM  
1 votes:
Hey, NSA.  I know you're listening.  Please stop.  Signed, America and the rest of the world.
2013-12-27 06:43:41 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Evil High Priest: slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.

You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.

It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.


Prove me wrong instead of flinging poo, poo flinger. I was begging them to do exactly what it would have taken to put a stake through the heart of the gop. But they didn't have the guts to do it.
2013-12-27 06:33:22 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Thanks, man. And I could be totally wrong, I've been known to be. It's just how I see it. And what's more, there are posts in here that back up some of what I've been saying. that when it comes down to it, Obama isn't anything like Bush.



Oh, absolutely no argument there. And if someone says Obama's a Marxist, a socialist or some variety of the "worst president evar" in seriousness they instantly go on my "lost cause" list. They're obviously utterly disinterested in dealing with objective facts of any sort. With age and the benefit of hindsight I get more and more dissapointed in myself for voting for Bush back in the day. I won't make those same mistakes again - nor overcompensate for them either.

Obama overall seems OK to me, but he's too much of an establishment guy for me and for what we need I think. I don't love him, and I don't hate him.... but I'm certainly glad we got him instead of the alternatives. I mean, President Mitch "robber baron scumbag poster boy" Romney and Vice President Paul "I got mine" Ryan?

/shudder

Still, even if I think Obama's an alright guy, I'd be happy to press him on this NSA issue. I don't think he's done us right on it in particular. And it doesn't mean you hate him if you expect more from him on it.

Have a great weekend, dude.
2013-12-27 06:32:02 PM  
1 votes:
It is a ruse

NSA is using their tactics to spy on brown people from the middle east.

All is well.
2013-12-27 06:16:44 PM  
1 votes:
Oh, say can you see
By the drone's early flight
All the freedoms curtailed
By our agency's scheming

GPS in the cars
Trackers on every site
O'er their web-cams we watched
Via satellites beaming

And the laser's red glare
Points at them from mid-air
Secret judges indict
And our agents are there

Oh, say does that NSA PRISM yet waive
Fourth Amendment guarantees
From the cradle to grave?
2013-12-27 05:32:13 PM  
1 votes:
fark that federal judge.
2013-12-27 05:32:01 PM  
1 votes:

TofuTheAlmighty: "It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.Uh, this argument can be used against any and all whistleblowing. And this asshole sits on the federal judiciary (appointed by Clinton).


Why is this so hard to understand? The reason why people don't like Snowden isn't because of his whistle blowing it's because he ran away. He didn't go to the American press, he went to the overseas press, he went to countries that's the opposite of what he's fighting against. And the public and political figures are using this as a way to fight each other. It takes the act of one idiot to start a war and he might have been the shot that began World War Three.

When I was in journalism college the one thing I was told to do was never runaway like scared children and face justice, Why?
Because then people you need to be on your side don't believe you are standing up for what you believe in.
If you get arrested because of your sources you always act courteous and offer the police your wrists with a smile.
2013-12-27 05:13:41 PM  
1 votes:

kerrigand: Correct me if I am wrong(I trust Fark will),

But, didn't he just pretty much equate this with, being in public you really have no expectation of privacy?

What I mean, as if I really have to point this out, is that, because they collect all, and being that it's everyones, that it's public and not private?

Hmmmm, interesting.


How nice and convenient for the judge to declare for 300 million of us what our "expectation of privacy" is.

I EXPECT to be able to call the battered women's shelter, abortion clinic, hydroponic garden supplier, local fortune teller or the local chapter of the NRA without some faceless government hack being able to know about it or draw conclusions from my activities. Anything else is not freedom nor liberty, whether the government takes action or not.
gja
2013-12-27 04:42:42 PM  
1 votes:

ariseatex: I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."


It's not a string. It's a rope. For you dissenting bastards who don't know their place.
3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-12-27 04:40:50 PM  
1 votes:

Evil High Priest: slayer199: The Democrats HAD the power for the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.

You keep saying this, but there should be a huge asterix next to this statement. The only way they could have gotten whatever they wanted would have been to nuke the filibuster on day one. They failed to do that, so everything in the senate needs 60 votes. Thanks to the blue dogs, that was not possible.


It's the single-most bullshiat talking point about the Democrats for sure. Again, it's one thing to dislike the Obama administration, but spreading outright disinformation to get a point across is pretty farking pathetic.
2013-12-27 04:39:52 PM  
1 votes:
"So sorry about this mess, but there are a few missing nukes out there and we need to find them before they find us. When we find the nukes, we'll spy on foreigners again, not Americans"

This is the only excuse I can accept.

One thing that is weird though is what the fark are they doing with this data? It hasn't stopped terrorists (yah, we'll never know), I haven't heard one single case of somebody getting busted for drugs, or murder, or child porn, so... What the fark is going on? Right now it's more bizarre than scary. Say, for example, I get arrested for calling my coke dealer. Isn't my lawyer going to get me off because the evidence came from an NSA wiretap?

Maybe we are just trying to keep a step ahead of the Chinese security services? It's just very strange, the whole thing. Something doesn't add up.
2013-12-27 04:36:30 PM  
1 votes:
I think there is a pattern of thinking here that goes back to the FDR administration, resounded again in the mid-late 1960s, and has become more entrenched since Bush Sr.  Repeatedly there are an infusion of Ivory Tower elites into powerful positions in times of economic crisis or significant social change who think they have all of the solutions and that we the non-Ivy leaguers should shut up and do as our betters tell us.  It is not a partisan situation, both parties seem to fall into the same trap.  These folks seem to see us not as a means to an end or a population to represent, but one to be controlled and directed.  Unlike the regimes of the mid-20th century the technology exists to make that much more feasible, and under the guise of "terrorism" there are those seeking to have (official) permission to be able to evaluate and monitor our daily communications when they are caught doing so without permission.  As the situation in DC becomes more extreme and government moves into more facets of daily life, how else do they identify dissent and quash those who might pose a political threat?  Who among the proles might actually rally the masses and beat them in an election if things got serious enough?  And how do you find these people early to nip them in the bud before they can become a problem?
2013-12-27 04:26:10 PM  
1 votes:
farking 12 years and we're still shiatting our pants ahout 911.  farking pussies all of you.
2013-12-27 04:22:44 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure


This is simply not true. Even when everyone was present the Democrats had 58 members. There were two independents, Sanders and Lieberman, who did eventually vote yes on the ACA (in Lieberman's case only after major concessions) . For the vast majority of those two years not all Democratic senators were present. Kennedy was busy dying of cancer and after that he was busy being dead. Byrd was hospitalized for a large part of the session. The time where congress was in session and all 58 Democratic party members were present was just a handful of days.
2013-12-27 04:12:20 PM  
1 votes:

prjindigo: blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]

You're gonna have to explain how we're "losing liberty" when someone watches us do it but doesn't tell the cops...

Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.  It is illegal to use such information in a law enforcement setting.


Well, you wouldn't really know how many convictions were made, because the policy and direction has been to "recreate" the investigative trail to hide the initial NSA provided tip.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-l ie -about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-ti me-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/
 When agents receive SOD information and rely on it to trigger investigations, they are directed to omit the SODs involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD." IRS agents receiving SOD data, which presumably can include information from the NSA, have been similarly instructed. They are instructed, in other words, to create a fake investigative file, and to lie. To lie, in particular, to defense lawyers and to judges, about the source of the evidence used in criminal prosecutions.
2013-12-27 04:00:30 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Nabb1: whidbey: OnlyM3: oh_please [TotalFark]


Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap?

Yes, yes he did.

Dude, you don't even believe in climate change. How are we to take you on your word on Obama's "hypocrisy?"

I believe in climate change and I think Obama is an authoritarian and a pathological liar.

Except you don't have any reason to believe either. Fox News type talking points aren't reasons, either.

Mad?


I guess if I had sold out my principles regarding civil liberties to defend every continued abuse of the Fourth Amendment blindly because of jingoism and party fealty, yes, I would be mad.
2013-12-27 03:54:28 PM  
1 votes:
justtray
When, specifically, did Obama promise to repeal the patriot act when he was running for president?

Don't pretend you don't know how marketing works. When he said shiat like 'We will balance security against privacy,' progressives heard it as "I will repeal the Patriot Act".


slayer199
The Democrats had control the House, Senate and Presidency for the first 2 years of Obama's tenure....enough to pass the ACA but not enough to reign in the Patriot Act? Riggghhhhtt. The most transparent administration ever!!!

Technically it was only a few months when they had filibuster-proof control of the Senate, assuming that the 'nuclear option' (which was just used) is not allowed for whatever idiotic reason. I have never heard a compelling argument for why the Democrats failed to do anything important during this time yet we should still slob their knobs.


whidbey
Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Amazing. So now you are consciously adopting a bullshiat Bush-era GOP position and blaming it on Bush. On the other hand, this is basically what you guys have done with ACA, so I guess it's not inconsistent.

Also: No. "Al Qaeda" consists of Saudi mercenaries in Syria, desert bandits in the West African Sahel, and one faction of a civil war in Yemen. They are not, and never were, a serious threat to the people of the United States. Look, the fact that they aren't planting bombs along oil pipelines, which would be insanely easy and immediately burn the US economy to the ground, shows that they're not serious. I find it rather disgusting that you, of all people, are now trying to do the "BOOGA-BOOGA AL-QAEDA!" routine.

given our current right-leaning political climate.

This is a pretty good illustration of why the Democrats continue to fail and march to the right. People aren't voting for conservatives because the political climate is right-leaning. They're voting for conservatives because the Democrats are SPINELESS WORMS.

more than likely had good reason.

Of course. They must have, because if they didn't then that would make Obama look bad.


ReapTheChaos
If the NSA is really interested in how many times a month I order pizza or check my bank account balance, I don't really give a shiat.

Good luck in your quest to remain neutral on a moving train.
2013-12-27 03:50:51 PM  
1 votes:

namatad: Agent Smiths Laugh: JolobinSmokin: fullyfarked: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending

Both sides are bad.

I've never heard that before.

Well you'll here it from me.

I align myself with no party nor their ideologies. All are humans, and humans are untrustworthy, dangerous, and corruptible, thus, so are their governments.

so you are a fark independent? how cute


Nope. Not that either.

I am a misanthrope with a deep distrust and loathing for homo sapiens.

That doesn't leave much room for me to care about the arbitrary categories such primates like to assign to things.
2013-12-27 03:47:36 PM  
1 votes:
Fan-farking-tastic job catching those bombers before they bombed the Boston Marathon, NSA!
2013-12-27 03:42:43 PM  
1 votes:
never doubt the government's ability to act paranoid and emotional
2013-12-27 03:27:31 PM  
1 votes:
eurotrader [TotalFark]

I may not have agreed with Feingold on everything but he at least tried to do the job of a Senator and represent the interests of the American people

Not to be pedantic, but no. The job of a senator is to represent their state in the Federal government.
The job of representing the American people falls to the house.
2013-12-27 03:24:29 PM  
1 votes:

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


One of many reasons I'm libertarian, not Republican.

Republican Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Democrats; 4) Reelection; 5) Legislate morality
Democrat Priorities:
1) Self; 2) Party; 3) Bash the Republicans; 4) Reelection; 5) Buy votes with government spending
2013-12-27 03:15:31 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Not your farking secretary, slayer, it's an easy Google, and it's a huge list.

You are disingenuous.


Hahahah.  Because you do nothing but defend Obama no matter what.  There's a huge list of failures but I'm sure you'd deflect, spin, or deny them anyway.
2013-12-27 03:15:19 PM  
1 votes:
So the judge says that 9/11 could have been prevented if NSA had the megadata collection abilities they now have.  What did he base this conclusion on?  Probably information presented to him by NSA which is classified so that no one else can see it and draw a different conclusion.  Sounds fair to me.
2013-12-27 03:10:05 PM  
1 votes:
Hardly surprising. I'm sure they'll bring out many more prominent appointees and officials who are in the pockets of those who want to sustain the status quo here.

I've been trying to think about what the endgame is in this entire situation, because unless the Supreme Court makes another legendarily awful decision on the basis of not really understanding the facts (like they did with Citizens vs United, which is one of the worst rulings they've ever made), chances are good the NSA is going to get reeled in by SCOTUS or eventual Congressional mandate to preserve the fourth amendment.

But if that happens, this activity isn't going to stop; it's just going to masquerade under a different name. What I see as being likely is that some benign government program that requires registration (Social Security, Selective Service, etc) will be used secondarily as an opt-in process for data collection. Once you've opted in, you can't easily opt out. If you are a conscientious objector, you're investigated and perhaps even harassed. Within a generation, signing away these rights becomes a common activity because, after all, it's the path of least resistance and so few of us have anything to hide.

That sort of thinking would have sounded paranoid and crazy to me a few years ago, but right now, it seems inevitable.
2013-12-27 03:08:52 PM  
1 votes:

ToastTheRabbit: I think wat bothers me MOST is the fact that this "broad" surveillance really seems like the LEAST efficient way to accomplishing their goals.

If you have far more data than you could ever hope to sniff through.... why continue collecting shiat you will never be capable of vetting?

I am not a political guy... I have my booze, tv, steam account and enough money <just> to pay bills and rent... Typical compliant happy citizen... but even I say WTF?

Wouldnt a government need this type of collection if they were trying to spot signs of revolution in their people?



Yep. If this had anything to do with terrorism it would have been declared an abject failure after they were handed the Boston bombers on a silver platter and still failed to prevent the attack: it doesn't get any better than that and they still failed. If they can't succeed after having the perpetrators pointed out to them there is no possibility of succeeding under less ideal circumstances which renders the whole boondoggle an utter failure - unless their goal isn't addressing terrorism but perhaps the commission of economic espionage, blackmail, and eviscerating organized dissent.
2013-12-27 03:08:18 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: BMulligan: Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

BINGO.

How far are we? Roughly 150 posts and you're the first person to accurately understand the situation.

This isn't even a partisan issue. There's idiots on both sides of the aisle that are literally too stupid to comprehend this. I just wish they were less vocal about their technological retardation.

You get favorited now.


And then there's this:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-i s- metadata-nsa-surveillance#meta=0000000

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/phew-it-was-just-metadata-not-t hi nk-again/
2013-12-27 03:07:15 PM  
1 votes:

Perpetuous Procrastination: whidbey: slayer199: whidbey: Ah you're just above all this, aren't you?

I hate both parties and have voted 3rd party since '92.  I'm not necessarily above it, but I'm not blind to the failings of either party...unlike yourself.

There are a few farkers here that are ardent leftists, that have been extremely critical of Obama on a number of civil liberties issues...whereas you do nothing to defend, defend, defend...and failing defense, blame Bush (buh-buh-buh BUSH!).  I don't agree with them on most issues, but at least I could respect them for maintaining the integrity of their ideology irrespective of party politics.  You sir, have none of that.

Dude, if you can't see that Bush got us where we're at, then you're as good as someone fervently supporting his failed political administration.

And what's more, you totally ignore the many many accomplishments of the past 5 years. I don't care to agree with you. You have more in common with the social conservatives.

Every time I see you in a thread I add another "[insert subject here] can do no wrong" to your favorite list. Surprising it took this long to get a president up there.

As a politically left-leaning individual, I find that folks like you are a huge part of the political problem in this country.


I think that if we recognized the underlying psychological concepts of humanity we might be able to pull out of this hyperpartisan rut.

We are very partisan people to the point of extremism, and this isn't just in the government sphere. We tend to do the same in religion, business, private clubs, gangs, etc. The problem is is that there needs to be healthy partisanism, not polarizing.
2013-12-27 03:03:52 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: No we farking don't. It's due process. Deal with it.


You call the FISA Court due process?  A secret court that approves 99% of the requests?

Right...  be on your way citizen.
2013-12-27 03:03:09 PM  
1 votes:
Amazingly specious reasoning. I don't recall gun registries being collected after Columbine, after Sandy Hook. I don't recall there being any special software consultant registries after that plane flew into the IRS building in Texas. In fact, I seem to recall a doubling-down on gun rights and ownership, as well as a collective shrug that some AMERICAN nutbag flew a plane into the IRS building. I expect lawyers to resort to special pleading, but judges should be a lot smarter than that.
2013-12-27 03:02:59 PM  
1 votes:
"He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific." "

Yeah. Up till then, the warning signs were just too damn subtle.

cdn.historycommons.org media.heavy.com
2013-12-27 02:50:12 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: 9/11 could have been handled way differently. Instead, it turned into an embarrassing dick-waving failure that cost this country trillions of dollars, dead soldiers, dead Afghanis and Iraqis, and set this country even lower in the eyes of the world.

You just can't admit that, can you? You can't take a look and understand why we are in the shiat we're in now.

To you, Obama is just another dude like Bush. He HAS to be.


I'm not the one pretending that Al Queada wasn't an international threat pre-9/11.  OF course, you yourself have faulted Bush for not stopping 9/11 when that memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" was given to Bush.  I suppose, if you had been in his shoes, you'd have taken the threat more seriously...especially given your understanding of Al Queada's lack of international ambitions.

I think anyone that automatically condemns Bush, or Obama, is acting without thought.  Someone who condemns one but not the other though, for the same or similar actions, is not just lacking thought, but may be incapable of it.
2013-12-27 02:49:58 PM  
1 votes:
libs be like: "it's bullshiat that the government wants to use 9/11 as a cover all but let's not reinvestigate it and instead take what the government said about 9/11 at face value cuz you're a conspiracy theorist if you want the truth!"
2013-12-27 02:46:47 PM  
1 votes:
Gotta love the libs here bashing House Republicans for trying not to stop this when it is being carried out by the Democratic administration.

Besides they did try to defund it with the Amash amendment. Which was defeated. Dems voted to defund it 111-83 and Repubs voted 134-93 against it.

Face it, the parties are pretty split on this, and this is a case where your simplistic "Republicans bad, Democrats good" arguments don't work.

Slutter McGee
2013-12-27 02:43:34 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?


Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.



I don't ignore that at all. I consider Bush to be WAY worse than Obama, and in fact, I can't stand the "both sides are bad" false equivalence BS.   With that said, Obama came into office promising to change a lot of the horrible policies / practices from the Bush administration.  Unfortunately, he has not lived up to those promises in a number of ways - his justice department has basically ignored widespread criminal fraud in the banking sector, and his foreign policy - while much, much better than Bush's foreign policy - is still being carried out in a manner that tramples on civil liberties.  From the extensive snooping on Americans and foreigners, to extrajudicial execution via drone strikes, to his failure to close Gitmo, he has continued a lot of bad policies that started with Bush.  I voted for Obama, but just because I voted for him doesn't mean I support everything he does.  In many ways he has been far too conservative.

Now, to Obama's credit, unlike Bush he hasn't invaded a country based on false pretenses and outright lies.  So that's good.
2013-12-27 02:43:15 PM  
1 votes:

Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.


Wow - that's got to be one of the most ridiculous jumps in logic I have seen in a long time.   I'm very religious and so aremost of my friends and not one of us wants the NSA to have this kind of power.  If anything, religious people fear a secular government that would use this power to stamp out their religion altogether.  Probably shouldn't have said that - cause now that probably makes you a fan of the NSA.

Liberty is a Christian value believe it or not.
2013-12-27 02:41:35 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: RanDomino: whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.

Actually the "evidence" suggests that Al Qaeda really are enemies now, thanks to Bush.

Keep ignoring that while you continue to post above and outside the ideology.

You are starting to sound a bit Truthy there.

Nope. Just telling it like it is. We hit the hornet's nest instead of opting for peaceful negotiation, and now it's escalated into something a lot worse.

Again, none of this is a stellar revelation. Thanks to Bush, Al Qaeda is a real international threat now.


So, are you saying that in his first 9 months of office, Bush enraged Al Queada so much that they flew airplanes into our buildings?  Or surely you are referring to the embassy bombings that took place before he took office in Kenya.  Or maybe you refer to the USS Cole bombing.  Seeing as how these were in 3 different countries, I'd call that international.  Of course that only counts the attacks on American interests.  I'm pretty sure their agenda over the years has included many different countries and their interests...even before Bush ran for president.

C'mon man.
2013-12-27 02:41:08 PM  
1 votes:
The real question is would the NSA - or other government organizations - even give a fark if this or that court said it is illegal?
2013-12-27 02:40:56 PM  
1 votes:
whidbey derping to eleven
2013-12-27 02:39:21 PM  
1 votes:
You would think with everything the NSA was doing they could have stopped any of the mass shootings that have happened since 9/11.

/worthless government spying on citizens is worthless
2013-12-27 02:25:50 PM  
1 votes:

mongbiohazard: have to agree with some other posters that this isn't really a fair assesement. You probably don't remember my posts from other threads lately, but I can assure you I'm no Obama "hater", if anything I usually reserve my antipathy for the right side of the political spectrum these days. I'm pro-ACA and generally view Obama as a fairly boring establishment figure whose greatest fault is not being aggressively revolutionary enough for my tastes, generally speaking. I find myself defending Obama a lot just because of how batshiat, bugfarking insane our political right has gotten, and their criticisms are almost never rooted in anything which could be mistaken for reality.


Fair enough. I can get behind this.

That said - Obama could, and should, be doing more to curb the surveillance state we're building ourselves into. He's given a few speeches with a few platitudes for us, but he seems to be more than satisfied to let these programs just continue chugging along as they wish. He's the chief executive... if he really wanted to he could probably address many concerns through executive orders tomorrow, and vastly narrow the scope of our surveillance state's operations.

The farked up thing is that if he did any of this, it would cause a major shiatstorm with the hardliners.

I believe Obama realized that he's only going to accomplish so much as President, and ending the War Machine wasn't going to be one of those accomplishments.

Chalk it up to inexperience in dealing with hardliners, knowledge we're not privvy to, whatever.

To me, it just reiterates that we have a much bigger problem in our government, and it's the hardliners who want this country to be an aggressive empire.
2013-12-27 02:25:07 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


You do realize that Obama and Bush did completely different things, right? Another farker (can't remember who) summed it up perfectly some months ago with this handy summary of their respective surveillance policies:

Bush - warrantless wiretaps
Obama - warrantful non-wiretaps

Granted, Bush himself ended the warrantless wiretapping program while he was still in office, and I believe he did so before the lawsuits against it could really go anywhere.
2013-12-27 02:22:44 PM  
1 votes:
whidbey
Or it's far more likely that he knows something we don't.

When evidence fails, there's always magical thinking to the rescue.
2013-12-27 02:16:20 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.

No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.


I have to agree with some other posters that this isn't really a fair assesement. You probably don't remember my posts from other threads lately, but I can assure you I'm no Obama "hater", if anything I usually reserve my antipathy for the right side of the political spectrum these days. I'm pro-ACA and generally view Obama as a fairly boring establishment figure whose greatest fault is not being aggressively revolutionary enough for my tastes, generally speaking. I find myself defending Obama a lot just because of how batshiat, bugfarking insane our political right has gotten, and their criticisms are almost never rooted in anything which could be mistaken for reality.

That said - Obama could, and should, be doing more to curb the surveillance state we're building ourselves into. He's given a few speeches with a few platitudes for us, but he seems to be more than satisfied to let these programs just continue chugging along as they wish. He's the chief executive... if he really wanted to he could probably address many concerns through executive orders tomorrow, and vastly narrow the scope of our surveillance state's operations.

He seems to be either afraid or unwilling to rock the boat too much. At this point though, with the damage our political leadership has done to us over the last several decades we NEED some boat rocking. It's long overdue, and entirely appropriate IMHO.
2013-12-27 02:14:24 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.


Let me help you out, since the premise of your argument is wrong.

Did you see these posts? They're a page, maybe two back, respectively.

Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.

Telephone metadata has not been considered to be under Fourth Amendment protection since 1979's Smith v. Maryland.


Now that we've concluded that metadata collection is in no way illegal or a violation of any rights, we can close this thread and all the ignorant people whining about it will change their opinion and admit they were wrong?

LOL, ya right. Keep on derping guys. You guys are all so anti-establishment and cool with your fantasies and conspiracies. You're so busy assigning blame you don't even realize you don't even have an argument.
2013-12-27 02:10:12 PM  
1 votes:
I have decided that Whidbey is correct, and I'm sure he will agree with me here.  The President knows more than we do, and therefore, he is more able to decide what is right and wrong than we peons.  Ergo, not only is Obama correct for doing what he's doing, but so was Bush.
2013-12-27 02:04:24 PM  
1 votes:

Claude Ballse: The terrorists didn't win. The lost to an entirely different group that took over the role of terrorism: the NSA. Absolutely they hate our freedom, because it gives us powe over them.

The answer isn't fighting this in courts of law, electing new officials, or anything of the sort. Because there will always be this slight if hand game where if we rule one "program" illegal, they'll just start up another one thst gets tangeled up in the legal system that we the have to fight.

No, the only way to get rid of this shiat is to purge religion from our government once and for all. You have tens of millions of people that already believe in some invisible sky god, and think that angels watch over them. The NSA is no different that the tenants of your modern religions. They've already been raised to accept this and encourage it. For most, this is just more of god's work. Because how can you convince someone that an anonymous brown person a world away isn't a threat when they already fear demons thst don't even exist?

Purge the bilnd faithful for the seeing skeptics, and our problems will be taken care of very quickly.


img.fark.net
2013-12-27 02:03:57 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.

No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.


You would have a point if he had the car on cruise control instead of flooring the gas pedal.
2013-12-27 02:03:04 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


I have not one word of defense of Obama for the NSA bullshiat.
2013-12-27 01:59:50 PM  
1 votes:

BMulligan: Collecting metadata raises no significant Fourth Amendment issues and is, as far as I know, completely lawful. Accessing the actual content of communications is a completely different thing, and should always require a warrant.


BINGO.

How far are we? Roughly 150 posts and you're the first person to accurately understand the situation.

This isn't even a partisan issue. There's idiots on both sides of the aisle that are literally too stupid to comprehend this. I just wish they were less vocal about their technological retardation.

You get favorited now.
2013-12-27 01:58:17 PM  
1 votes:
It has been a given since the inception of serious SIGINT in the `50's.  Attempts to misuse? Can you say RMN? (though he worked the IRS much harder)  Church Committee in the mid `70's pretty much laid out what the NSA had been doing - intercepting millions of telegrams via Western Union - with `plausible deniability' on the parts of the Western Union Execs, i.e., `we didn't know' (even though the `collection' was performed weekly by a NSA courier and a low level WU dweeb).  And, of course, MaBell (all your landlines are belong to us-and friends)..     https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent - csi/vol43no3/pdf/v43i3a04p.pdf    And it wasn't just `metadata'.

If one wishes to worry about an actual impact on one's own life owing to `big data', concern should be focused on private collection entities.  Interesting hearing, recently on just this before the Senate Commerce Committee:   http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/229200

The Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, tried to `sum up' the testimony:

"Since before 9/11 I've been on the Intelligence Committee and. every day, I wake up to 7 newspapers with nothing but NSA headlines.  And, I'm here to tell you, as one of the authors of FISA the Patriot Act and all the rest of it, that the NSA is so secure in its protection of privacy as compared to this group that we are talking to, these data brokers, it's not even close.  This affects, as was pointed out, anybody, everybody.  Who knows?  NSA knows,  They are only likely to interact at a .000001 percent of people that they conclude need further observation.  This is everybody, anybody, but more than that divided into race, economic activities, education, and there's something -  I can't prove it is wrong - but there's something lethal about it..."

Sure, NSA could be `shrunk' - The Gov. could then rely on the private brokers who are busy cataloging every individual's digital tailings and, for whom, FISA is fiddlesticks.
We're all available to be `dry gulched' into some correlative inevitability or other, and will probably ride right into it smiling - done in by predictive analytics rather than a 45.70.
2013-12-27 01:58:17 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.

From what I can tell, he's not happy about it, but we are in a position where it's become necessary.

To me, that means that we now have real enemies because of the policies of the past 10 years.

I think it sucks that we're still doing the war machine, but Obama is not a dictator, and he's also not one to just stop the car on a dime. We're stuck with this shiat because of what the hardliners wanted.

So, that sounds like you endorse the government surveillance.  Regardless of if we needed it then, or now, for some measure of protection, it is wrong.


No, I think it's total bullshiat that we're stepping it up., it is wrong, but I also understand why it's happening.

Obama has done some very laudable things in his Presidency, but I really don't expect him to play some trump card that shuts down the operations, especially given the history of the past 10 years.

He's just driving the car.
2013-12-27 01:52:21 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: whidbey: I_C_Weener: Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

Japanese have a proverb: "Fix the problem, not the blame."

Actually, I have no idea if that is their proverb or not.  But Sean Connery did say it in "Rising Sun" and he was an honorary ninja from his days as 007.

We're well aware of the problem. But you can't even admit to yourself why we're in this mess. It has to be Obama's fault.

No.  Its Bush's, along with Congress.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

If bringing Bush back to President would solve it, I guess we could do that.  Or, maybe, just maybe we can use the guy who got elected (partially) on the promise that he'd reverse this trend.  But, I'll blame Bush if that is what it takes for you to admit that Obama don't care about domestic surveillance.


I wonder if he would.

In this ultrapartisan age no one can be seen agreeing with the enemy.
2013-12-27 01:52:16 PM  
1 votes:
The terrorists have won
2013-12-27 01:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

duffblue: whidbey: snocone: whidbey: Chummer45: snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Hey, Bush got us here with his fake intelligence and insistence on attacking Afghanistan and legitimizing Al Qaeda.

You "both sides are bad" types LOVE ignoring that.

That makes some sort of sense?
Somewhere there is this little bell chiming, "two wrongs just prove the idiot", or fool me shame for once, or,,,

Or "Bush actually got us into this mess and that's why we're doing this shiat."

The one combination you just won't consider.

And bush hasn't been in office for almost five years. Five years.

Five years.


What does that have to do with the fact that Obama is still cleaning up his f*ckups?

You really can't put the history together, can you? Can't or won't?
2013-12-27 01:47:04 PM  
1 votes:

Bit'O'Gristle: It will go to SCOTUS and get squashed. There is no way, no way that you can say that tracking everyones phone records is "a national defense" Its a violation of our rights to privacy, and that is it. Agreeing with this stupid ass ruling is like saying that "some guy in a brown house was a terrorist, so we have to search all brown houses without warrants" Because derp.

/What the hell has happened in this country that we have become so pussified that we are willing to give up our individual rights? It's been proven that the government will time and time again take away your "rights" when it suits their political end. Look at WW2, the japanese americans were thrown in jail for just being japanese. They had 0 rights, just "right this way!: Into the internment camps. Look at black civil rights, slavery, look at womans suffrage. I have news for you...you don't have "god given rights" you have rights given by the government, and if they can take them away at will, they aren't rights, they are "privileges". Your home is no longer your castle, they can make you sell it to serve the greater good "eminent domain" they have "border checkpoints" where they unlawfully make you state if you are a citizen or not, there are cities that do "stop and frisk" with no other reason that they can be "suspect" of you, whatever that means. I guess it means if you are black or hispanic. Its a sad day in America when a FEDERAL judge says that the right to privacy is outweighed by "the war on terror".

/gets a drink.


Devil's advocate: If there are automated systems to store the data and no person actually accesses any individual's specific data without a warrant or reasonable suspicion or whatever the standard is, are your rights really violated? I'm sure there's precedent on this. I honestly don't know what the answer is. Complicating the matter is the question of who owns the data. Does it belong to the citizen, the communications provider, both? Does one of these parties have the right to share it without the other's consent?
2013-12-27 01:37:25 PM  
1 votes:

snocone: Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.

It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?



Seriously - all the dumb, tribal, "my guy is better than your guy" crap just distracts everyone from the actual issues, and ensures that politicians aren't held accountable.
2013-12-27 01:33:32 PM  
1 votes:

Chummer45: Phineas: whidbey: HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

You're expecting us to buy into the theory that Obama is powerless, and a victim of conversatives?  If you truly, honestly believe that,, then you're dumber than I would have thought.  I mean, i know liberals are by definition very weak-minded and easily conned, but geez, this takes it to a new level of retardation.


Uh.... yeah Obama does a lot of stuff that is BS that I disagree with.  And you can make the same points about all the suddenly born-again "libertarians" who suddenly started caring about this stuff when Obama got elected.

Here's an idea - how about we stop framing every policy issue as "oh yeah? Well my guy is better than / not as bad as your guy!"

There is plenty of bad policy that was started by Bush and now is being continued by Obama.  Arguing about who had a crappier record is pointless and doesn't resolve anything.


It is the same record, played over and over, actually.
Different faces and names. Even different colors for your amusement.
Makes no difference.
Wonder why?
2013-12-27 01:31:22 PM  
1 votes:

oh_please: Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.


Look, if you want to get Obamacare passed and keep it, you can't let a few things like your other campaign promises get in the way.  Even if you had a complicit Congress for 2 years of your term, and since then have managed all manner of programs against the Republican grain.

He hasn't even condemned the NSA's use of these programs.

My liberal mother believes that it is because once you are president you learn that you don't have the control you thought you'd have.  In other words, presidents can't affect policy on some big things.  Unless they are Republican, then everything is their fault.
2013-12-27 01:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: GORDON: whidbey: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?

HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP

Excellent retort.

It's exactly what was called for. I hope you're not offended,


To be offended, you would have to have worth to me.  Your use of a played out sarcastic inference that the argument of another person is below the ability to communicate tells me that you aren't worth caring about because you have nothing of value to add to the conversation beyond snide insults.

Good day.
2013-12-27 01:28:19 PM  
1 votes:
David Simon made the point earlier this year that this has been done for years on a much smaller scale and that it has always been OK'd by the courts. What we're talking about here is the metadata. Who called whom and for how long. This isn't about the contents of the communications.

Basically, the idea is that the metadata can not be considered private because it's something that you are sharing with a third party, the telephone companies. How this previously came up was with things like drug investigations. So, say the police knew that some drug dealer guy was using his cell phone in some specific area. They would get all the metadata that bounced off the closest cell tower in some given time. That included the metadata of you and me and any other law abiding citizens who happened to be in the area. It was ruled that it was OK for the police to collect the metadata in these situations.

So, that was just expanded to the entire nation, given the scope of the threat of possible terror attacks.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just saying what I think is.
2013-12-27 01:26:07 PM  
1 votes:
Didn't Obama promise to end all this crap? Guess not.
2013-12-27 01:25:47 PM  
1 votes:

Starshines: This is a good thing.  The sooner there is a circuit split the sooner this issue goes to the Supreme Court.

/Thank God for Edward Snowden.


And the sooner we have SCOTUS rule the Fourth Amendment no longer exists.
2013-12-27 01:24:23 PM  
1 votes:

snocone: browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.

I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?


And you'll note who is implementing this solution, right?
2013-12-27 01:24:07 PM  
1 votes:
I see that he copypasta'd from the Bush administration playbook.

pbs.twimg.com
2013-12-27 01:19:54 PM  
1 votes:
From reading TFA it appears that the judge used the legal rationale of "It's useful to the government, therefore it's legal".
2013-12-27 01:19:48 PM  
1 votes:

browntimmy: Well, the terrorists hate us for our freedom, right? So if we give it all up, problem solved.


I don't recall the "terrorists" saying that.
I do recall our "elected officials" saying that, eh?
2013-12-27 01:19:33 PM  
1 votes:

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


No real conservative thinks that way... that is a Progressive attitude. this is total .... I want my farking country back!
2013-12-27 01:19:05 PM  
1 votes:

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.

So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?


HURRDY HURRDY DERP DERP DERP DERP
2013-12-27 01:18:48 PM  
1 votes:
Judges do not consider the letter of the law or the constitution, only their own politics. No piece of parchment is going to protect us from the ruling class doing whatever gets them off.
2013-12-27 01:17:48 PM  
1 votes:

JolobinSmokin: Republican controlled house does absolutely nothing about this thru legislation while bashing Obama.


So how come Obama hasn't just penned and signed an "executive order" to put a stop to it?  I mean, he circumvents the Constitution for everything else he doesn't like.  Why not this?
2013-12-27 01:16:45 PM  
1 votes:

ToastTheRabbit: indarwinsshadow: I was all prepped to make fun of America...and then thought "hey. That's not funny in the slightest. What happened to democracy, freedom of the press and association and the right to privacy". My apologies to American farkers for my sh*tty first attitude. I don't think what's happened is good in the slightest. My country is going through a similar situation were Adolf Harper thinks it's ok that everyone's business is the gov't and we have very very little input on how we want our country to run. Looks like it's a North American thing. How did we let ourselves get here, and is it possible to wrestle our rights back?

not really, with all other countries doing the same things to their people.... we'd be on our own.


And that would be because corporations laugh at your silly nationalism and leverage it for PROFIT.
2013-12-27 01:14:50 PM  
1 votes:

quizzical: TFA:   Pauley said the fact that the ACLU would never have learned about an order authorizing collection of telephony metadata related to its telephone numbers but for Snowden's disclosures added "another level of absurdity in this case."
"It cannot possibly be that lawbreaking conduct by a government contractor that reveals state secrets -- including the means and methods of intelligence gathering -- could frustrate Congress's intent. To hold otherwise would spawn mischief," he wrote.

The government might have been doing something illegal, but because it was illegal for Snowden to reveal that fact, , no one can take action to investigate the possible illegality of the government's actions?  Bullshiat.


Summary of judgment: This is a super neato system that gives the government enormous abilities to collect and monitor everything and you can always trust the government and the government would never abuse this so that means it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because shut up.
2013-12-27 01:14:42 PM  
1 votes:

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


You know how Franklin was the one who was the first to originate that quote?

/except he wasn't
//but keep repeating it often enough and it'll become fact
2013-12-27 01:14:26 PM  
1 votes:

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


While I disagree with the NSA program in its entirety, this historical quote has, and always has been, absolute crap.  Every law is a giving up of freedom and liberty for security.  It's the basis of any and all civilized society, in definition and in practice.
2013-12-27 01:13:28 PM  
1 votes:

cgraves67: If this goes before the SCOTUS, would it imperil the whole Patriot Act?


Not if you're even remotely familiar with the current court. Spoiler Alert: Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are douchenozzles.
2013-12-27 01:13:25 PM  
1 votes:

make me some tea: Take it to SCOTUS.


The fascist majority will gladly uphold the government's iron grip on us, just like it felates corporations.
2013-12-27 01:09:41 PM  
1 votes:

blacksharpiemarker: [www.infowars.com image 482x360]


LAUGHTER OL that is not what was said by he.
2013-12-27 01:08:57 PM  
1 votes:
So, the government can freely watch you...

wont even be spying anymore eventually they will do random warrantless contraband house searches on the American people...
2013-12-27 01:07:16 PM  
1 votes:
I miss the days when my first thought when seeing "NSA" was "No Strings Attached."
2013-12-27 01:04:52 PM  
1 votes:

make me some tea: Take it to SCOTUS.


LAUGHTER OL hard to figure out how this one will do the occurrence!
2013-12-27 01:04:52 PM  
1 votes:
Is someone still shiatting their pants over 9/11?
2013-12-27 01:04:36 PM  
1 votes:
Disappointing, but not surprising.
2013-12-27 01:04:22 PM  
1 votes:
Of course a judge will do that.  The NSA has pictures of the judge with that goat back in '86
2013-12-27 01:03:08 PM  
1 votes:

meow said the dog: Conservative valuations. OM MAGOODNESS 9/11 MADE UP ORGANIZATION OF TERRORISTS MUST DO THE SAFETY KEEPING HOMELANDING SECURITY!


No Laughter OL on this one .. that is for the certainty.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report