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.

(NPR)   That independent privacy board that Obama appointed to look into NSA's data collection has concluded everything the agency does is totally legal and effective and they'd really like it if NSA would delete those copies of their search histories now   (npr.org) divider line 83
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

3414 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2014 at 4:09 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-03 02:31:18 PM  
Hmmm...narrow charter is narrow.
 
2014-07-03 03:47:46 PM  
Why even have a review if you won't accept any answer other than "it's illegal?"
 
2014-07-03 04:11:07 PM  
I'm shocked, SHOCKED.
 
2014-07-03 04:12:11 PM  
Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately?

anyone.?

Bueller?
 
2014-07-03 04:12:38 PM  
The boss has been embarrassed enough all ready and has run out of manufactured diversions... this one had to be rubber stamped.
 
2014-07-03 04:12:48 PM  
So a study that deliberately excluded the illegal part found that the part we already knew was legal is still legal?
 
2014-07-03 04:14:36 PM  
Read a good article on this yesterday
 
2014-07-03 04:15:43 PM  
Everything Hitler did was 100 percent legal too. ..might want to look at the laws first
 
2014-07-03 04:15:49 PM  
Is there anyone who thinks Obama is a good president? The most positive thing I've seen in a while is "at least he's not bush"
 
2014-07-03 04:16:34 PM  

duffblue: Is there anyone who thinks Obama is a good president? The most positive thing I've seen in a while is "at least he's not bush"


Hey!  That got Obama his Nobel Peace Prize.
 
2014-07-03 04:16:38 PM  
But, on the positive side...their computers survived the inquiry without crashing.

So, there's that.
 
2014-07-03 04:17:20 PM  

nmrsnr: Why even have a review if you won't accept any answer other than "it's illegal?"


Explain to me in your own words what's illegal and why. I'm not saying what they're doing is 'Right', but classifying it as 'Illegal' misses the point and poisons the debate.
 
2014-07-03 04:17:23 PM  
I have a relative who sets up his browser to not accept cookies and limits scripting in browser. Also will not bank online or buy anything online. All in the name of privacy and security. I want to tell him it just doesn't matter.
 
2014-07-03 04:18:35 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: But, on the positive side...their computers survived the inquiry without crashing.


Wait 'till tax season.
 
2014-07-03 04:19:00 PM  
Followu? Or repeat?
 
2014-07-03 04:19:50 PM  
So I guess we don't need that Supreme Court thing anymore, since presidential appointees now decide what's constitutional.

Did anyone ask them what they think of this Hobby Lobby business?
 
2014-07-03 04:23:02 PM  

Voiceofreason01: So a study that deliberately excluded the illegal part found that the part we already knew was legal is still legal?


I know! Thank God it was done, right? Loy of held breaths being exhaled on that one.
 
2014-07-03 04:27:58 PM  
Over on Boing Boing they're saying anybody visiting Boing Boing gets special attention from the NSA, so I got that going for me, which is nice....

/Boing Boing blocked in my Navy office....
 
2014-07-03 04:28:04 PM  

vudukungfu: Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately?

anyone.?

Bueller?


It's hard to make a 4th amendment argument sick when they're not making prosecutions based on what they find (or they manage to obfuscate the initial source of their chain of evidence).
 
2014-07-03 04:29:31 PM  

MFAWG: nmrsnr: Why even have a review if you won't accept any answer other than "it's illegal?"

Explain to me in your own words what's illegal and why. I'm not saying what they're doing is 'Right', but classifying it as 'Illegal' misses the point and poisons the debate.


I don't think they're doing anything illegal... which is exactly what the report says. The only way this is a "fail" is if Subby and people who think like him already had the answer they wanted, and were not interested in any result that opposes their pre-conceived opinion. I also don't like what the government is doing, but if you think that "classifying it as illegal misses the point" then explain to

vudukungfu: Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately? anyone.? Bueller?


that it isn't a 4th amendment issue, because apparently he's missing the point, too.

If the concern isn't that it's illegal, then why does anyone care what the report says? The fact that its legal will not change whether you like it or not.
 
2014-07-03 04:29:39 PM  
[Post Redacted]

/nothing to see here, citizens
 
2014-07-03 04:30:46 PM  
In order to deem something illegal, especially considering the complexity of this issues (moral, ethical, whatever) you need to have predefined criterion or limits of legality.

This line in the sand, prepared by independent team A can be compared to the findings of another independent research team B, and interpreted by Team C.

By using the double-blind concept (blind to conclusions or blind to info to be judged), an straightforward comparison can be made.

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-03 04:33:08 PM  

nmrsnr: MFAWG: nmrsnr: Why even have a review if you won't accept any answer other than "it's illegal?"

Explain to me in your own words what's illegal and why. I'm not saying what they're doing is 'Right', but classifying it as 'Illegal' misses the point and poisons the debate.

I don't think they're doing anything illegal... which is exactly what the report says. The only way this is a "fail" is if Subby and people who think like him already had the answer they wanted, and were not interested in any result that opposes their pre-conceived opinion. I also don't like what the government is doing, but if you think that "classifying it as illegal misses the point" then explain to

vudukungfu: Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately? anyone.? Bueller?

that it isn't a 4th amendment issue, because apparently he's missing the point, too.

If the concern isn't that it's illegal, then why does anyone care what the report says? The fact that its legal will not change whether you like it or not.


The problem is that what they're doing is legal, and nobody seems willing to change that.

Clear enough?
 
2014-07-03 04:34:54 PM  

paygun: So I guess we don't need that Supreme Court thing anymore, since presidential appointees now decide what's constitutional.

Did anyone ask them what they think of this Hobby Lobby business?


Supreme Court justices are presidential appointees...
 
2014-07-03 04:36:09 PM  
Their style, rhetoric, punctuation and word-choice is astonishingly ineffective.  They attempt to sound authoritative but fail. I therefore question their motives, thoroughness, methodology, qualifications and disagree with their conclusions.
 
2014-07-03 04:44:43 PM  
Great. I've slipped into Groundhog's Day and all I got was this lousy article.
 
2014-07-03 04:48:46 PM  

duffblue: Is there anyone who thinks Obama is a good president? The most positive thing I've seen in a while is "at least he's not bush"


I would like to point out that he's also not Romney, Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Dick Cheney. Or Hitler (probably).
 
2014-07-03 04:54:08 PM  
1. Is following an unconstitutional law illegal?
2. Is breaking an unconstitutional law illegal?
 
2014-07-03 04:56:51 PM  
You all voted for this incomperent shiatstain, dont you dare complain.
 
2014-07-03 05:00:20 PM  

Phineas: You all voted for this incomperent shiatstain, dont you dare complain.


I don't understand this.  People have to put aside their criticisms and accept the entire person and everything they did or do because they voted for him or her?

That's just dumb.
 
2014-07-03 05:01:08 PM  
The more things (Hope and) Change, the more they stay the same...
 
2014-07-03 05:03:56 PM  
Oh noes, not the PPD-28 review process!
 
2014-07-03 05:15:43 PM  
They're spies like us.
 
2014-07-03 05:16:44 PM  
Suck it libs and conservatives!
 
2014-07-03 05:26:38 PM  

Phineas: You all voted for this incomperent shiatstain, dont you dare complain.


...because Romney would have shut this all down right away?
 
2014-07-03 05:28:49 PM  

Phineas: You all voted for this incomperent shiatstain, dont you dare complain.


was there something new to be complaining about?
 
2014-07-03 05:30:13 PM  
allow me to resolve this very quickly.  the problem is the blind grant of authority we've given to the federal gov't, and in particular the military-intel community, over the past 80 years.

(***warning: conservatives will hate this point****) it chills my soul every time i hear someone say "but this isn't for a criminal prosecution, so the fourth amendment doesn't apply."

the EXCLUSIONARY aspect of the fourth amendment might not apply, but that doesn't mean the government can do whatever they want, as long as they don't prosecute.

(***warning: liberals will hate this point***) the federal government cannot act without an express grant of power.  there is no more authority to snoop on your own citizens then there is to mandate that people get healthcare or set up a federal retirement scheme.  even if the fourth amendment did allow searches without probable cause the government couldn't do it without an underlying authority to do so.  and there's no broad grant of power to allow continuous collection of information because of amorphous threats.

maybe if all you ted nugent fans out there weren't so busy blindly screaming SUPPORT THE TROOPS every time there's an important national security issue to be decided, and all you rachel maddow lovers weren't so preoccupied with screaming SUBSIDIZE MY BIRTH CONTROL whenever it comes election time, there'd be an appreciation of the fact that the federal government can't do what it wants, whenever it wants, as long as the bill of rights isn't (allegedly) violated.

the federal government is an oversized, bloated juggernaut and you hippies on the left and you bible thumpers on the right made it this way.  you've been so busy pushing your personal pet projects, whether it's subsidies for israel because you think jesus is coming back tomorrow, or federal money to pay for free groceries for people too lazy to work, that you've happily accepted the notion that the federal government exists so that it can give us stuff, rather than the correct idea that we created it so it can do a few things that are limited and very closely watched by diligent voters.

there are very few real conservatives left in washington.  anyone who claims to be a conservative, yet at the same time insists on more spending for unnecessary aircraft carriers, unchecked federal suveillance powers, or religious adventurism, is a liar or a hypocrite.

and there are very few true liberals.  how liberal can you be if you're willing to applaud blindly as the president executes american citizens without due process, utilizes executive orders unconstitutionally, equivocates about legalizing a relatively harmless weed that the government has no authority to bad, and is funded by wall street to the point that after the biggest banking failure since the depression, no one was prosecuted?

i'm off to eat some pizza.  at least pizza is still delicious, despite the upsetting complacency of the masses.

and fireworks.  i still love fireworks.
 
2014-07-03 05:38:26 PM  
What's the issue?

If you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to be afraid of.
 
2014-07-03 05:40:40 PM  

Phony_Soldier: Suck it libs and conservatives!


I did. Your mother loved it ..
 
2014-07-03 05:41:42 PM  

rustypouch: What's the issue?

If you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to be afraid of.



nothing criminal but oh soooo embarrassing!
how can i face my government when they know i touch myself?
 
2014-07-03 05:48:02 PM  
No, it's cool because the president is a Democrat.
 
2014-07-03 05:51:50 PM  

machoprogrammer: No, it's cool because the president is a Democrat.


do you say that because you believe a Democrat is less likely to use potentially defamatory information against you?
 
2014-07-03 05:56:19 PM  

qorkfiend: paygun: So I guess we don't need that Supreme Court thing anymore, since presidential appointees now decide what's constitutional.

Did anyone ask them what they think of this Hobby Lobby business?

Supreme Court justices are presidential appointees...


subject to approval of the Sentate.  kind of an important part of the whole process
 
2014-07-03 05:57:45 PM  

vudukungfu: Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately?

anyone.?

Bueller?


Lulz

The Patriot act supersedes the Constitution
The 4th amendment hasn't exist in over a decade
 
2014-07-03 06:08:00 PM  
Private citizen anonymous
 
2014-07-03 06:08:48 PM  

Pick13: vudukungfu: Has anyone seen a copy of the 4th amendment lately?

anyone.?

Bueller?

Lulz

The Patriot act supersedes the Constitution
The 4th amendment hasn't exist in over a decade


And remind me which president passed the Patriot act? Since the status of the country is all dependent on the president. Who was that again?
 
2014-07-03 06:12:09 PM  

Isitoveryet: machoprogrammer: No, it's cool because the president is a Democrat.

do you say that because you believe a Democrat is less likely to use potentially defamatory information against you?


I was being sarcastic
 
2014-07-03 06:19:15 PM  
ACLU Statement before the U.S. Privacy Board
August 1, 2013

Dear Chairman Medine:

Thank you for inviting the American Civil Liberties Union to participate in the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's July 9, 2013 public workshop on Legal and Constitutional Perspectives of the recently disclosed NSA surveillance programs.

Please accept the enclosed written statement of the American Civil Liberties Union explaining our strong opposition to these programs, and outlining necessary reforms. In particular, we urge the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to support legislative and administrative changes to:

1. End the suspicionless, dragnet collection of Americans' communications and records by amending Section 215 of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

2. End the secrecy surrounding the law and policy of surveillance by requiring disclosure of FISA Court opinions that evaluate the meaning, scope, or constitutionality of the foreign-intelligence laws, statistics about how these authorities affect every day people, and amend non-disclosure requirements so that they are limited in scope and duration.

3. Ensure meaningful judicial review of surveillance programs by creating a more adversarial process before the FISA Court and providing for review of these laws in traditional federal courts.

Findings of the Privacy Board:
July 02, 2014

NSA security agency's Internet spying is legal and constitutional.

Now who're you gonna believe? Me? Or your lyin' eyes?
 
2014-07-03 06:25:54 PM  

nickdaisy: allow me to resolve this very quickly.  the problem is the blind grant of authority we've given to the federal gov't, and in particular the military-intel community, over the past 80 years...


You get one of those awesome Fark labels for your posts.
 
2014-07-03 06:26:34 PM  

machoprogrammer: Isitoveryet: machoprogrammer: No, it's cool because the president is a Democrat.

do you say that because you believe a Democrat is less likely to use potentially defamatory information against you?

I was being sarcastic


so was I!
we may have opened up a worm hole somewhere.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 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