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.

(Guardian)   The NSA is in the final stages of ignoring all efforts to rein it in and continue with business as usual   (theguardian.com) divider line 58
    More: Followup, NSA, Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, mass surveillance powers, mass surveillance, secret polices, FBI director, FISA Court  
•       •       •

1227 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 3:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 02:49:26 PM  
I am going to warn you people right now.  If you keep going after the NSA, you're going to incur the wrath of the NSSA.  They're the people above the NSA.  And if you keep going?  You're going to piss off the people who run the NSSA, the NSSSA.  The National Super-Sekrit Security Agency created the simulation you are currently living in, and they will delete the code whenever they feel like it.  So knock it off.  I am a billionaire in this simulation and I do not want people ruining thatBold font gets my point across.
 
2014-01-10 03:19:44 PM  
images.dailytech.com
 
2014-01-10 03:24:42 PM  
Some random quotes from another thread - sorry I didn't save the users who posted them.

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.

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.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.
 
m00
2014-01-10 03:31:12 PM  
I'm pretty sure their final scope will be classified, and we'll get assurances from the administration that they aren't doing domestic warrant-less spying anymore. But we'll find out in 2 or 3 years that they will be. Then the Republican who is just elected will simply continue/expand the program.
 
2014-01-10 03:31:37 PM  
This is not a repeat from every day since 1952.
 
2014-01-10 03:32:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I am going to warn you people right now.  If you keep going after the NSA, you're going to incur the wrath of the NSSA.  They're the people above the NSA.  And if you keep going?  You're going to piss off the people who run the NSSA, the NSSSA.  The National Super-Sekrit Security Agency created the simulation you are currently living in, and they will delete the code whenever they feel like it.  So knock it off.  I am a billionaire in this simulation and I do not want people ruining that.  Bold font gets my point across.


Nope, not doin' it for me.  How about capital letters?
 
2014-01-10 03:35:32 PM  

justtray: Some random quotes from another thread - sorry I didn't save the users who posted them.

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.

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.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

I can also put forth court cases. Doesn't mean the logic behind them can't be revisited, especially with changing moods/technologies.
 
2014-01-10 03:36:17 PM  
So you're saying their days of not taking us seriously are finally coming to a middle?
 
2014-01-10 03:36:52 PM  
Just add this whole ramping up of the NSA to unimaginable levels, to Bush jr's international warrant for his arrest.

/Collecting any data of anyone without legal justification and individual warrants for each person, is a crime.

//Members of Congress being arrested Monday for violating North America's 'gang laws'. Oh wait, thats for the non-millionaires only.
 
2014-01-10 03:38:04 PM  
I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........
 
2014-01-10 03:38:20 PM  
Sanctioned or not, these jokers will continue to do whatever they want with no oversight.
 
2014-01-10 03:43:50 PM  
Meh, call me when they block access to a bridge lane or two, or three.
 
2014-01-10 03:45:25 PM  

TopNotched: I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........


Then why would you support letting a left wing nut have that power?  They're all fascists these days.  Or are you saying that only your evil is ok?  Because that's the kind of thing that gets the world into wars
 
2014-01-10 03:48:20 PM  

Do you know who Garblox is: justtray: Some random quotes from another thread - sorry I didn't save the users who posted them.

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.

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.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

I can also put forth court cases. Doesn't mean the logic behind them can't be revisited, especially with changing moods/technologies.


It's being revisited as we speak. Of the two dueling cases, the non-fascist judge said that the case is so different than the way the NSA collects data that it really doesn't apply. The case is about the metadata of one person who was a suspect in a case and the government asked permission from the phone company. This is quite different than a dragnet of almost everyone's metadata for the purposes of data mining.
 
2014-01-10 03:48:47 PM  

Do you know who Garblox is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

I can also put forth court cases. Doesn't mean the logic behind them can't be revisited, especially with changing moods/technologies.



You're comparing Dred Scott with Smith v. Maryland?  I'm betting you are 1) not a lawyer and 2) not familiar with the facts and holding of Smith.  If you were more familiar with that case you'd notice that it isn't nearly as anachronistic as you (erroneously) assume.  The key holding in that case was that information shared with a third party (e.g. phone numbers received by a telecommunications carrier) in order to facilitate a private communication are not, in and of themselves, protected by the Fourth Amendment.  The pen register in Smith recorded phone numbers entered by the accused...which is what the telephone company was receiving...but not the content of the phone calls (which was between the accused and the victim).
 
2014-01-10 03:50:33 PM  
The important thing is that none of us should ever forget that the *real* criminal in all of this is Snowden.

Every time you stop and wonder why the high level officials who have committed treason and violated their oath to uphold the constitution haven't been prosecuted, just remember one thing: Snowden is the real bad guy. You need to be angry at him.
 
2014-01-10 03:51:26 PM  

Prophet of Loss: Sanctioned or not, these jokers un-American piles of crap will continue to do whatever they want with no oversight.



/adjusted that for you
 
2014-01-10 03:52:03 PM  

s2s2s2: Meh, call me when they block access to a bridge lane or two, or three.


They may have already done so, but any evidence of such activity is classified.
 
2014-01-10 03:54:29 PM  

justtray: Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.


Well, sure. Because then they'd have to disclose how they got it, which would mean either undermining national security (because no one knows that the NSA is tapped into the lines of communication, right?) or revealing that they ALSO know about your cockporn habit.

So instead they provide "relevant details" to LEOs for them to construct, in parallel, the same things the NSA got (semi-)lawfully with a pristine 4th-Amendment-safe set of evidence.

Evidence they'd never have thought to collect without the NSA's thoughtfulness.
 
2014-01-10 03:56:43 PM  
• Deputy director: bulk data collection is an 'insurance policy'

Well that's cool and all, another insurance policy would be placing a camera in everyone's home and implanting a listening device in every American's throat. Unfortunately for you, those things, along with what you're currently doing, are unconstitutional and the Constitution overrides all your "national security overrules all" bullsh*t.
 
2014-01-10 03:59:48 PM  

jigger: It's being revisited as we speak. Of the two dueling cases, the non-fascist judge said that the case is so different than the way the NSA collects data that it really doesn't apply. The case is about the metadata of one person who was a suspect in a case and the government asked permission from the phone company. This is quite different than a dragnet of almost everyone's metadata for the purposes of data mining.



Which is wonderful if we're looking for a rationale or cause to heighten the level of scrutiny and possibly breach one's Fourth Amendment protection in order to obtain incriminating evidence.  The Court in Smith found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy as respects the numbers dialed into ones phone since those numbers are, as a result, provided to the phone company where they are used to facilitate the call and are recorded for the purposes of billing the caller.  Without a reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no "search".  The government is more or less free to gather information so long as it doesn't conduct a "search" that violates one's reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
2014-01-10 04:03:53 PM  

s2s2s2: Meh, call me when they block access to a bridge lane or two, or three.


Yes, the world has the capacity to handle only one criminal act at a time.

You were mugged? So sorry, we can't take a report, because Snowden.

You died because your governor took a page out if these Tony Saprano playbook and closed one of the busiest roads in the world with no warning during rush hour? So sorry, we can't investigate, because sniwden.
 
2014-01-10 04:04:57 PM  
Still laughing bitterly at the people who A: think this is anything remotely new, B. think the government will do anything more with it than shove it into the digital equivalent of a filing cabinet, and C: think there's a goddamn thing we can do about it.

The government's been collecting data for decades at least, whether it's via monitoring mail at the post office, keeping phone records, or this sort of metadata collection. All of those were known before Snowden if you were paying any sort of attention. None of that makes it OK, of course, but we were apathetic enough for long enough that it's taken root. The absolute best we can hope for is that the NSA tightens its security to prevent more leaks.
 
2014-01-10 04:06:31 PM  

Arkanaut: Mike_LowELL: I am going to warn you people right now.  If you keep going after the NSA, you're going to incur the wrath of the NSSA.  They're the people above the NSA.  And if you keep going?  You're going to piss off the people who run the NSSA, the NSSSA.  The National Super-Sekrit Security Agency created the simulation you are currently living in, and they will delete the code whenever they feel like it.  So knock it off.  I am a billionaire in this simulation and I do not want people ruining that.  Bold font gets my point across.

Nope, not doin' it for me.  How about capital letters?


Aaah, I don't know, it made me smile. He's got spunk.
 
2014-01-10 04:08:42 PM  

JK47: jigger: It's being revisited as we speak. Of the two dueling cases, the non-fascist judge said that the case is so different than the way the NSA collects data that it really doesn't apply. The case is about the metadata of one person who was a suspect in a case and the government asked permission from the phone company. This is quite different than a dragnet of almost everyone's metadata for the purposes of data mining.


Which is wonderful if we're looking for a rationale or cause to heighten the level of scrutiny and possibly breach one's Fourth Amendment protection in order to obtain incriminating evidence.  The Court in Smith found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy as respects the numbers dialed into ones phone since those numbers are, as a result, provided to the phone company where they are used to facilitate the call and are recorded for the purposes of billing the caller.  Without a reasonable expectation of privacy then there is no "search".  The government is more or less free to gather information so long as it doesn't conduct a "search" that violates one's reasonable expectation of privacy.


Does the ISP or cell phone company have an expectation of privacy here?
 
2014-01-10 04:09:17 PM  
Here's a blueprint for real reform from Binney, Drake, and other old-timey whistleblowers.  Wait until the 17th, then compare it to the weak sauce the admin announces.  The advocates of a domestic surveillance state  are still trying to confuse the public that the only thing being collected is so-called "metadata".  Even some recent MSM articles speak as if only metadata is at stake.  The two recent district court cases discussed above only limit themselves to metadata because that is all the complainants were able to readily prove was collected.
 
2014-01-10 04:09:49 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TopNotched: I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........

Then why would you support letting a left wing nut have that power?  They're all fascists these days.  Or are you saying that only your evil is ok?  Because that's the kind of thing that gets the world into wars


Let us know when we get an actual left wing nut into the Whitehouse, because this country has never had one.  We just replaced a far right wing corporate whore with a moderate right wing corporate whore.
 
2014-01-10 04:10:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: justtray: Total number of convictions made against U.S. Citizens based on information provided by the NSA: 0.

Well, sure. Because then they'd have to disclose how they got it, which would mean either undermining national security (because no one knows that the NSA is tapped into the lines of communication, right?) or revealing that they ALSO know about your cockporn habit.

So instead they provide "relevant details" to LEOs for them to construct, in parallel, the same things the NSA got (semi-)lawfully with a pristine 4th-Amendment-safe set of evidence.

Evidence they'd never have thought to collect without the NSA's thoughtfulness.


The article you linked to is based on a single anecdote (check out the original Reuters story). In this one case, the prosecutor heard from someone else that the data originated from NSA, and decided not to go forward with the case, knowing that any decent defense attorney would have torn his case to shreds if he'd tried to proceed ("Why did they stop my client?").

Given that A) no one was prosecuted, and B) even this single case where someone tried to prosecute someone, the idea that the NSA was involved is based on hearsay, I think justray's zero convictions of US citizens comment seems pretty valid.
 
2014-01-10 04:12:04 PM  

justtray: Some random quotes from another thread - sorry I didn't save the users who posted them.

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.

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.

This has been established jurisprudence since long before most Farkers were born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Phone call metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. This is very old news. This current court case (and the one back in the 1970s) were NOT about call contents. There is nothing about wiretaps in this case. This is not about listening to your call contents.

Liberty did not die today. This isn't a big farking deal. Calm the fark down.


Yeah, that "zero" is what they admit to. I'm pretty sure there have been a number of really shady drug bust with "anonymous tips" that *really* look like they're coming from something like the NSA metadata collection program...
 
2014-01-10 04:18:17 PM  

The Larch: You died because


..heart attack, old.
 
2014-01-10 04:28:31 PM  
We also don't appear to have an expectation of privacy with the contents of out calls/emails either.

Remember this story? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends - to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

Ed Snowden says he could listen in on anyone's phone call that he wanted. Is he making it up?
 
2014-01-10 04:44:04 PM  

jigger: We also don't appear to have an expectation of privacy with the contents of out calls/emails either.

Remember this story? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends - to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

Ed Snowden says he could listen in on anyone's phone call that he wanted. Is he making it up?


Your link indicates that Nadler was told that analysts can listen to phone calls at will, followed by Nadler's spokesman saying "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."

Snowden said a lot of things. I wouldn't take them all at face value.
 
2014-01-10 04:48:07 PM  

Rent Party: Smeggy Smurf: TopNotched: I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........

Then why would you support letting a left wing nut have that power?  They're all fascists these days.  Or are you saying that only your evil is ok?  Because that's the kind of thing that gets the world into wars

Let us know when we get an actual left wing nut into the Whitehouse, because this country has never had one.  We just replaced a far right wing corporate whore with a moderate right wing corporate whore.


OK.  2008.  We've also had them with Wilson, FDR and Johnson.  Not that many people have the guts to accept that we've had some real shiatbirds and fascists cocksuckers as president
 
2014-01-10 04:51:01 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Rent Party: Smeggy Smurf: TopNotched: I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........

Then why would you support letting a left wing nut have that power?  They're all fascists these days.  Or are you saying that only your evil is ok?  Because that's the kind of thing that gets the world into wars

Let us know when we get an actual left wing nut into the Whitehouse, because this country has never had one.  We just replaced a far right wing corporate whore with a moderate right wing corporate whore.

OK.  2008.


If you think Obama is any kind of liberal, you're a moron.   The dude governs to the right of Reagan.

We've also had them with Wilson, FDR and Johnson.  Not that many people have the guts to accept that we've had some real shiatbirds and fascists cocksuckers as president

But we've never had a left wing nut.  And that's what I asked for.
 
2014-01-10 04:55:37 PM  

LordJiro: C: think there's a goddamn thing we can do about it.


There is something we can do about it. Unfortunately, however, it both starts and ends with Congress, and the NSA doesn't appear to be too high on people's priority lists come election time.
 
2014-01-10 04:55:44 PM  
I highly recommend checking this out. Everything you thought the nsa was up to, and lots lots more.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/jacob-appelbaum-30c3-protect- in fect-militarization-internet-transcript.html
 
2014-01-10 04:57:53 PM  

Evil High Priest: I highly recommend checking this out. Everything you thought the nsa was up to, and lots lots more.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/jacob-appelbaum-30c3-protect- in fect-militarization-internet-transcript.html


Meant to add this bit:

You must watch this talk, even if some parts are a bit technical for mere mortals. No matter how bad you think the NSA's information surveillance and capture is, I can just about guarantee that this will show you that it's an order of magnitude worse than you imagined.

Jacob Appelbaum makes clear that the degree to which the NSA not only controls the Internet but on a routine basis inserts all sorts of surveillance tools into not just computers and smart phones but also communications infrastructure. He also provides an extensive list of service providers, manufacturers, and devices that have either been compromised or are active collaborators.

Appelbaum debunks the idea that you as an individual can take comfort in the idea that you are too small and insignificant to be of notice to the NSA...

If nothing else, watch the section starting at 48:30. Oh, and in case you missed it, the NSA can compromise "air gapped" (as in never connected to the Internet) computers. And don't miss the part that starts at 56:00. And see the related Der Spiegel article  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nsa-uses-powerful-toolb o x-in-effort-to-spy-on-global-networks-a-940969.html
 
2014-01-10 05:09:06 PM  

Evil High Priest: Appelbaum debunks the idea that you as an individual can take comfort in the idea that you are too small and insignificant to be of notice to the NSA...


If they get a warrant, the NSA has a lot of ways of spying on someone, as does every other law enforcement agency.

I agree that an 'air gap' will not save you from the NSA, or a police raid, (or other, less savory groups) if they have reason to believe there is evidence on your machine.
 
2014-01-10 05:17:21 PM  
The President should be impeached for violating the forth amendment of the constitution.
 
2014-01-10 05:17:30 PM  
Tyranny mitigated by incompetence.
 
2014-01-10 05:21:01 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: TopNotched: I'm OK with this, as long as we don't have some rightwingnutloon running the show, which could very well happen, so tread cautiously........

Then why would you support letting a left wing nut have that power?  They're all fascists these days.  Or are you saying that only your evil is ok?  Because that's the kind of thing that gets the world into wars


"It's OK when our side does it"
 
2014-01-10 05:31:52 PM  

draypresct: jigger: We also don't appear to have an expectation of privacy with the contents of out calls/emails either.

Remember this story? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends - to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

Ed Snowden says he could listen in on anyone's phone call that he wanted. Is he making it up?

Your link indicates that Nadler was told that analysts can listen to phone calls at will, followed by Nadler's spokesman saying "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."

Snowden said a lot of things. I wouldn't take them all at face value.


You see how that's part of an update. Nadler says one thing. Story comes out. (the administration reiterated) Nadler spokesman "corrects" the record. So now in the story there is one paragraph followed by another one that sort of contradicts it. Weird, huh?

I can't find where Snowden himself ever said $200,000, but if he did, that means he just made up a bunch of stuff and then skipped the country to live as a fugitive? Seems highly unlikely.
 
2014-01-10 05:33:15 PM  

Rent Party: But we've never had a left wing nut. And that's what I asked for.


If FDR doesn't do it for you, who would?
 
2014-01-10 05:35:07 PM  

draypresct: Evil High Priest: Appelbaum debunks the idea that you as an individual can take comfort in the idea that you are too small and insignificant to be of notice to the NSA...

If they get a warrant, the NSA has a lot of ways of spying on someone, as does every other law enforcement agency.

I agree that an 'air gap' will not save you from the NSA, or a police raid, (or other, less savory groups) if they have reason to believe there is evidence on your machine.


Even if there is no evidence on your PC, if the NSA says there is, your conviction is Guaranteed.
 
2014-01-10 05:37:57 PM  

jigger: Rent Party: But we've never had a left wing nut. And that's what I asked for.

If FDR doesn't do it for you, who would?


What, specifically, made FDR a left wing nut?

Was it that "forcing the Lend Lease Act" through congress over the screaming objections of Republicans?   Was it building the bomb?   What made him the libbyest liberal that ever libbed?

It's social security, isn't it.  Surely a left wing nutty program if ever there was one.

/ Moron.
 
2014-01-10 05:40:48 PM  

mcreadyblue: draypresct: Evil High Priest: Appelbaum debunks the idea that you as an individual can take comfort in the idea that you are too small and insignificant to be of notice to the NSA...

If they get a warrant, the NSA has a lot of ways of spying on someone, as does every other law enforcement agency.

I agree that an 'air gap' will not save you from the NSA, or a police raid, (or other, less savory groups) if they have reason to believe there is evidence on your machine.

Even if there is no evidence on your PC, if the NSA says there is, your conviction is Guaranteed.


Well you've certainly Convinced Me.
 
2014-01-10 05:41:17 PM  

jigger: Rent Party: But we've never had a left wing nut. And that's what I asked for.

If FDR doesn't do it for you, who would?


I think Carter is the libby-est lib President that ever libbed, so to speak, but could very well be wrong.
 
2014-01-10 05:43:47 PM  

Mobutu: jigger: Rent Party: But we've never had a left wing nut. And that's what I asked for.

If FDR doesn't do it for you, who would?

I think Carter is the libby-est lib President that ever libbed, so to speak, but could very well be wrong.


Probably.  But that's relative to the rest of them.

Carter was a deeply conservative Christian.
 
2014-01-10 05:54:06 PM  
The NSA is nearly a sovereign itself at this point.
 
2014-01-10 05:55:52 PM  

Mobutu: jigger: Rent Party: But we've never had a left wing nut. And that's what I asked for.

If FDR doesn't do it for you, who would?

I think Carter is the libby-est lib President that ever libbed, so to speak, but could very well be wrong.


Carter? I was a kid when he was president, but I don't remember so much libby, lib lib. Unless you mean classical liberalism (real liberalism), like freer markets and the like.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

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