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.

(NBC News)   Thank God Obama has carried on the policies of GW Bush. He has kept us all safe by making sure they know who we have friended on Facebook. And, since he doesn't discriminate, he does it to EVERYBODY   ( usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Hero, George W. Bush, NSA, NYT, United States, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, FISA Amendments Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, intelligence assessment  
•       •       •

1086 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2013 at 9:03 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-29 02:01:04 AM  
Next thing you will tell me is that they have a copy of the shiatty autoplay list on your abandoned MySpace account
 
2013-09-29 05:24:57 AM  
So does google and facebook.
 
2013-09-29 08:30:57 AM  

sithon: So does google and facebook. everyone who has the capability


But that's just business being business. Our beef should be with government, sort that and the rest will sort itself.

The scary part about the three letter organizations is they apparently transcend presidencies, the legislative branch and the courts.

It would appear that all three branches of our government, no matter who is in control of them at any given time, serve to justify these organizations and whatever tactics they pursue, at any cost (political or otherwise)...

instead of detailing and justifying their validity and constitutionality to the American public we are only given denial or insistence. Lip service.
 
2013-09-29 09:07:36 AM  
"instead of detailing and justifying their validity and constitutionality to the American public we are only given denial or insistence. Lip service."

Isn't this what you're worthy of? Are you not content?
 
2013-09-29 09:09:29 AM  
At the exact same time, people would be complaining if they missed such obvious connections and a terrorist attack struck.
 
2013-09-29 09:12:09 AM  
Real terrorists don't use the internet and only use untraceable burner phones.
 
2013-09-29 09:12:49 AM  
The Useless Information Bureau.
 
2013-09-29 09:14:03 AM  

Lost Thought 00: At the exact same time, people would be complaining if they missed such obvious connections and a terrorist attack struck.


You mean like they have consistently done with every legitimate threat?

I know they've "stopped terrorists"

(and by that they mean they've managed to convince crack heads living on the street that the bag of clay they want to give the crack head, for free, is a bomb they can use to lash back at society two seconds before they slap on the cuffs and declare "op success!")

but they haven't actually stopped any terrorists.
 
2013-09-29 09:18:14 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Lost Thought 00: At the exact same time, people would be complaining if they missed such obvious connections and a terrorist attack struck.

You mean like they have consistently done with every legitimate threat?

I know they've "stopped terrorists"

(and by that they mean they've managed to convince crack heads living on the street that the bag of clay they want to give the crack head, for free, is a bomb they can use to lash back at society two seconds before they slap on the cuffs and declare "op success!")

but they haven't actually stopped any terrorists.


Awww, that's just so adorable.
 
2013-09-29 09:22:11 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Lost Thought 00: At the exact same time, people would be complaining if they missed such obvious connections and a terrorist attack struck.

You mean like they have consistently done with every legitimate threat?

I know they've "stopped terrorists"

(and by that they mean they've managed to convince crack heads living on the street that the bag of clay they want to give the crack head, for free, is a bomb they can use to lash back at society two seconds before they slap on the cuffs and declare "op success!")

but they haven't actually stopped any terrorists.


I'm not really trying to say what they are doing is right or wrong, just that they (the three letter agencies) are stuck between conflicting mandates and ultimately somethings going to give.
 
2013-09-29 09:25:16 AM  
Obama does it because he loves us. Republicans do it because they hate us and want to eat our babies.
 
2013-09-29 09:29:24 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I'm not really trying to say what they are doing is right or wrong, just that they (the three letter agencies) are stuck between conflicting mandates and ultimately somethings going to give.


Thats a fair opinion.
I guess what I was trying to say is, it seems more like they manufacture their own mandates as it suits them. The tail that wags the dog.
 
2013-09-29 09:31:28 AM  
But I thought Nicholas Saint Anne wanted to be my friend...
 
2013-09-29 09:32:46 AM  

mikaloyd: Obama does it because he loves us. Republicans do it because they hate us and want to eat our babies.


As soon as the Republican House passes a bill getting rid of the spying, you will have a point.
 
2013-09-29 09:32:50 AM  

Codenamechaz: Awww, that's just so adorable.


When you're done dismissively cuddling with my post,

feel free to present any evidence to the contrary.
 
2013-09-29 09:32:53 AM  

mikaloyd: Obama does it because he loves us. Republicans do it because they hate us and want to eat our babies.


That's just partisan and short-sighted. All politicians eat babies. I'm sure Harry Reid goes through three a day.
 
2013-09-29 09:37:37 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Lost Thought 00: I'm not really trying to say what they are doing is right or wrong, just that they (the three letter agencies) are stuck between conflicting mandates and ultimately somethings going to give.

Thats a fair opinion.
I guess what I was trying to say is, it seems more like they manufacture their own mandates as it suits them. The tail that wags the dog.


They might, to an extent. Certainly various career individuals within them advocate for their visions of what the policy should be, and those people and those debates outlast any individual administration. I'd stop at ascribing evil to them, though. In my experience they are generally well intentioned, if perhaps overally hardened by battles long past
 
2013-09-29 09:38:32 AM  

MurphyMurphy: any evidence to the contrary.


Wait, I forgot. My bad.

We did catch those teenagers in Florida who were definitely guilty of both being angry and somewhat knowing karate.
 
2013-09-29 09:42:16 AM  
How the fark are people ok with this?
 
2013-09-29 09:43:34 AM  
Can we just go ahead and start calling them "The Obsidian Order" yet?
 
2013-09-29 09:44:32 AM  
I don't use Facebook.
 
2013-09-29 09:45:51 AM  

machoprogrammer: How the fark are people ok with this?


Seriously.

I guess divide and conquer really does work.
 
2013-09-29 09:48:35 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I'd stop at ascribing evil to them, though. In my experience they are generally well intentioned, if perhaps overally hardened by battles long past


Well, ultimately it's not their fault even if the product of their actions could be argued as evil.

The problem is like I said, they appear to have no real civilian oversight and their goings on seem to be beyond any popular political influence. Through classes of legislature and administration after administration they operate on their own wavelength.

Now, by their nature perhaps they should, to an extent. They are tools and we don't necessarily want to strip them of all their effectiveness by submitting them to the gubmint derp (such as we have this week).

But it's a careful balancing act. Too much is secret and they will inevitably grow beyond what most would consider appropriate for a "free nation" and arguably beyond constitutionality completely.

Now this is not a failure on their part. It's actually to the contrary. But it is a failure on our part as the stewards.
Though whether it's due to your perceived mixed mandate or my perception that we've allowed these groups to become too productive and self-motivated... /shrug
 
2013-09-29 10:00:52 AM  

Wolsey: Can we just go ahead and start calling them "The Obsidian Order" yet?


That's racist.

*ducks*
 
2013-09-29 10:12:47 AM  
MurphyMurphy:

but they haven't actually stopped any terrorists.

You need to define what you mean by 'stopped'.  If you include prevention as part of that definition, then I would disagree with your conclusions.   Surveillance and the threat of getting caught in planning certainly prevents a percentage of planning for attacks from ever happening in the first place and 'stops' those likely attacks.  Much like surveillance of property prevents or 'stops' burglary.

Your conclusions don't figure in that many more people would try attacks if there was not a deterrent of surveillance.
 
2013-09-29 10:14:17 AM  

MurphyMurphy: sithon: So does google and facebook. everyone who has the capability

But that's just business being business. Our beef should be with government, sort that and the rest will sort itself.


...I would put a rating out, but it sounds like you really believe that.

/Personally, I'd worry more about what the corporations do with my info than the government.
 
2013-09-29 10:15:33 AM  

machoprogrammer: How the fark are people ok with this?


Why shouldn't they be? They're all right with it when Google does it...
 
2013-09-29 10:22:38 AM  

IlGreven: MurphyMurphy: sithon: So does google and facebook. everyone who has the capability

But that's just business being business. Our beef should be with government, sort that and the rest will sort itself.

...I would put a rating out, but it sounds like you really believe that.

/Personally, I'd worry more about what the corporations do with my info than the government.


Belief doesn't enter into it, it's just the nature of each beast.

Government has the capacity to regulate business and hold it accountable to the laws it creates. Businesses will simply do whatever is within their capability and in their interests.

You can rebuff both, but I going to go ahead and operate on the assumption that you'll have more success passing a law limiting what Google can and can't do as opposed to getting everyone to boycott Google.

As to which groups capabilities and motivations are more worrisome, I think you're right to fear the corporations.

notto: You need to define what you mean by 'stopped'


I mean, conclusive proof of a specific action that was capable of being carried out and in the process of being enacted BEING STOPPED

Not whatever myths and fantasies you choose to pretend might be a result of us puffing up our chests.
 
2013-09-29 10:26:03 AM  
MurphyMurphy:

I mean, conclusive proof of a specific action that was capable of being carried out and in the process of being enacted BEING STOPPED

Not whatever myths and fantasies you choose to pretend might be a result of us puffing up our chests.


So, a cherry picked version of reality.

If you are suggesting that the possibility of being caught due tosurveillance and investigation doesn't prevent attacks, you are either being naive or purposely obtuse.
 
2013-09-29 10:31:06 AM  

notto: MurphyMurphy:

I mean, conclusive proof of a specific action that was capable of being carried out and in the process of being enacted BEING STOPPED

Not whatever myths and fantasies you choose to pretend might be a result of us puffing up our chests.

So, a cherry picked version of reality.

If you are suggesting that the possibility of being caught due tosurveillance and investigation doesn't prevent attacks, you are either being naive or purposely obtuse.


Right?

Look at how well it stopped all the people that have actually committed acts of terrorism.
 
2013-09-29 10:32:10 AM  

IlGreven: machoprogrammer: How the fark are people ok with this?

Why shouldn't they be? They're all right with it when Google does it...


People want it, they just don't want it on themselves, just everyone else.

/By the way, pretending that the NSA only started spying on us during the Bush years is naive.
 
2013-09-29 10:46:48 AM  

MurphyMurphy: Codenamechaz: Awww, that's just so adorable.

When you're done dismissively cuddling with my post,

feel free to present any evidence to the contrary.


The burden of proof is on you in this situation.
 
2013-09-29 11:05:12 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: But I thought Nicholas Saint Anne wanted to be my friend...


Probably is a nice dude. One guy I talk to, Frederick Benjamin Ingle, just LOVES asking me about porn. What I enjoy, where I go, and what specifically are the ages of the actors involved. It's a little weird, but he's a nice guy. He must think I'm a mechanic because almost every day, he mentions bringing his van.

Oh well, you need all kinds to make the word go round.
 
2013-09-29 11:11:18 AM  
Social networks have been whoring out your information for years so what's new?
 
2013-09-29 11:11:41 AM  
sithon
So does google and facebook.

Which one can threaten to ruin your life with made-up threats of being prosecuted as a terrorist supporter in order to get you to become a 'confidential informant' to facilitate entrapment schemes?


Lost Thought 00
I'm not really trying to say what they are doing is right or wrong, just that they (the three letter agencies) are stuck between conflicting mandates and ultimately somethings going to give.

You are being way too generous. They aren't stopping any actual terrorists. They're just persecuting random people in order to try to convince jittery octogenarians that they're Getting The Bad Guys. Seriously, if there were as many terrorists as they claim to be stopping, we'd be seeing a lot more actual attacks. In order to buy their line, you have to believe 1) there are terrorists on every street corner and 2) every single one of them is being stopped.


machoprogrammer
How the fark are people ok with this?

We lack the power to stop them.


notto
Surveillance and the threat of getting caught in planning certainly prevents a percentage of planning for attacks from ever happening in the first place and 'stops' those likely attacks.

But the surveillance isn't actually that effective. Anyone who uses facebook, non-encrypted e-mail (or even encrypted e-mail, probably), and traceable phones wasn't seriously a threat anyway. It's still extremely possible to pull off practically anything with even the most basic security protocols. What's been stopped is amateur hour, and even then all it takes is some diesel fuel and fertilizer. This domestic spying is nothing but security theater and disruption of dissent.
 
2013-09-29 11:21:02 AM  
 
2013-09-29 11:29:27 AM  

Lost Thought 00: At the exact same time, people would be complaining if they missed such obvious connections and a terrorist attack struck.


like for instance in Sept of 2001. and Boston in April 2013.

it is my considered opinion that any plot that is foiled is dumb luck and a coincidence of a data pattern rather than an objective finding.

also what RanDomino ^ said. it's make work for the defense industry and a jobs bill that no one is willing to stop. given the economy that may be a good thing.
 
2013-09-29 11:29:49 AM  
 
2013-09-29 11:30:50 AM  
when i posted this was at the top of the page: "You can trust us, we're from the internet " how apt :)
 
2013-09-29 12:03:50 PM  

thamike: The burden of proof is on you in this situation.


What would you like me to prove?

That we haven't caught any terrorists?
You cannot prove a negative, that's farking Logic 101.

You can prove, however, if we HAVE caught one.

It's got nothing to do with burden of proof
It does, however, have everything to do what is possible in this place we call reality.
 
2013-09-29 12:06:42 PM  

MurphyMurphy: What would you like me to prove?

That we haven't caught any terrorists?
You cannot prove a negative, that's farking Logic 101.


Which is exactly why you made a declarative negative statement and then leaned back and demanded people prove you wrong.  It wasn't lost on me, I just wanted to make you aware of how ridiculous it is.
 
2013-09-29 12:14:12 PM  
Yakk:  /By the way, pretending that the NSA only started spying on us during the Bush years is naive.

Style is important, at all times (SOS-see ref.)...   That said, I worry more about being dry-gulched into a correlative inevitability that results in constant ads popping up for shredded coconut husks from Suriname (out here at the far end of the `long tail' of marketing - but, hope those marketeering maven's muddled `designers' aren't also private contractors for the NSA) How much of the swept up data is sifted by anything other than algorithms?

Quote from Church Committee/`73 (sound familiar?):
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/ChurchB3_ 10 _NSA.pdf
"D.  The  Participation of the  Companies
None of the telegraph companies could find any record of an agreement with NSA or its  predecessors wherein the companies would provide copies of telegrams to the Government, or which reflected anything about arrangements with NSA.  No one  interviewed by the Committee had any recollection or knowledge that the Government had given the companies specific assurances to ensure their cooperation in 1945,1947,1949, or at any time thereafter.

Apparently only a few people in each  company - apart from those who physically turned over the material-had any knowledge of the NSA arrangement. These were primarily mid-level executives charged with the operational aspects of the companies' business.  All assumed that the arrangement  was valid when it was made and thus continued it.  No witness from the telegraph companies recalled that there had ever been a  review of  the arrangements at the executive levels of their respective companies.  Furthermore, none of the participating companies was apparently aware  that information other than foreign traffic was  extracted  from the messages they were providing.  Yet  no official  at any of  the three companies could recall his company asking NSA what it was doing with the information it was furnished and,  specifically,  whether NSA was reading the telegrams of the companies' American customers.

Finally, both the telegraph companies and NSA deny that the companies ever received anything for their cooperation in SHAMROCK, whether in the form of compensation or favoritism from the Government.   All claim they were motivated by purely patriotic considerations"
 
2013-09-29 12:15:22 PM  

thamike: Which is exactly why you made a declarative negative statement and then leaned back and demanded people prove you wrong.


....And the only thing you can do with that is prove the affirmative. Are you suggesting otherwise?

thamike: It wasn't lost on me, I just wanted to make you aware of how ridiculous it is.


oh, I see. helpful troll

sure thing Ace ;-)
 
2013-09-29 12:20:48 PM  

MurphyMurphy: ;-)


Wink taken.
 
2013-09-29 12:27:50 PM  
wanting proof is "ridiculous"  ;-)
 
2013-09-29 12:35:52 PM  

MurphyMurphy: wanting proof is "ridiculous"  ;-)


"Prove God doesn't exist."

"I can't."

"Therefore he does."

"Prove it."

"Why should i have to prove anything?"

winkblinkwinkblinkblink
 
2013-09-29 12:45:24 PM  

thamike: MurphyMurphy: wanting proof is "ridiculous"  ;-)

"Prove God doesn't exist."

"I can't."

"Therefore he does."

"Prove it."

"Why should i have to prove anything?"

winkblinkwinkblinkblink


Who the fark is proving God exists here?

You might want to step back and examine the discussion you entered into the middle of, be so helpful/clever.

They are spying on people. ("Collecting data" whatever you want to call it.)
They then validate this by telling us they are keeping us safe by stopping the terrorists.

I suggest that no terrorist has been caught yet, as far as I can tell (yes, this would be an assumption, a fairly safe one as there has yet to be an argument for the affirmative) and that evidence to support the claim they are stopping the terrorists might be warrented.

You interject to point  out that I have "declarative negative statement" and then "leaned back" demanding to be proven wrong.

And I'm the one being ridiculous?

Sure dude, let's just break it down to term of proving if God exists. It's make way more sense that way.
 
2013-09-29 12:47:28 PM  

MurphyMurphy: a fairly safe one as there has yet to be an argument for the affirmative


Sorry, proof*

silly, ridiculous, proof
 
2013-09-29 12:48:28 PM  
But since you asked for any evidence to the contrary:


Najibullah Zazi subway bombings--foiled
2002 White supramecist plot--foiled
William Krar plot--foiled
Brooklyn Bridge plot--foiled
Los Angeles Yom Kippur plot--foiled
Sears Tower plot--foiled
White Supremacist sarin gas/C4 plot--foiled
Fort Dix plot--foiled
etc. etc.

You can't mumble something about selling lumps of clay to crackheads and claim some sort of intellectual superiority.
 
2013-09-29 12:53:26 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Sure dude, let's just break it down to term of proving if God exists. It's make way more sense that way.


it was analogous to the logical argument about proving a negative in the face of a ridiculous affirmative.  If you want us take everything literally, let's look at your original statement:


I know they've "stopped terrorists"

(and by that they mean they've managed to convince crack heads living on the street that the bag of clay they want to give the crack head, for free, is a bomb they can use to lash back at society two seconds before they slap on the cuffs and declare "op success!")

but they haven't actually stopped any terrorists.


You could have just said that using the sweeping justification for any and all surveillance and counterterrorism efforts--no matter how unnecessary and wasteful--that it's all a successful plan to thwart specific attacks, is preposterous.

But no, you just went with the equally ridiculous counterpart to what the NSA says.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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