- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I was being sardonic, it's quite easy to read.
That tells us almost nothing. It doesn't say whether warrants were issued or not. It doesn't say whether metadata was stored or content was analyzed. You're just reading it the way you want to.
Errr...no. The bottom line is that you and I disagree on what spying is. Me, with vast experience in it; you, with...
There's no straw man about it. You acted like the two are unrelated and at odds, not me.
One word was misspelled. If you couldn't easily overcome that, I dunno what to tell you.
I'm fine, just poking fun at you. On the other hand, it appears that metadata storage and intelligence collection has you very mad. That's okay, it's not your responsibility, let the professionals handle it.
Well you aren't going to get me to say too many nice things about the TSA, but the idea that that counts as collection simply isn't tenable. You seem to be simply listing everyone involved in the IC and claiming that they are spy agencies, and then conflating them with collection against US Persons.
Is facial recognition fundamentally different when it is performed by software than by a person, in a manner that makes it collection? I mean, if we think Abu McJihad is going to be wearing a suicide vest at the Cowboys game (no idea why he would target the Cowboys), isn't it smarter to have something that can rapidly scan a crowd with greater precision than a couple of dozen FBI guys out there walking around with a picture, hoping to randomly run into the guy?
The check/balance should be the inclusion and requirement for approval by multiple branches of government. If that does not happen, I agree, we have lost the C&B and need to restore it post haste. If it does, however, then we've fulfilled that Constitutional requirement.
It is also worth noting that it is content is subject to 4th Amendment protections (that's why we keep pointing that out) - not metadata. That is why, for example, the Post Office is allowed to require you to put a return address and "to" address on your letter, but isn't allowed to just read your mail.
This is what I'm pointing out:
NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners - Forbes
"“It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” the Guardian’s copy of the order reads. “This Order does not require Verizon to include telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries.”"
This is intended to sound ominous, when it's not. Foreign collection is already covered under Title 50. Nor (again) does collection of metadata risk violating 4th Amendment protections.
:shrug: those who abused lost their clearances, their jobs, and careers. That's pretty fair for someone who basically googled his girlfriend on a classified database.
Ah. Are you into 9/11 trutherism now, as well? At least they have evidence, as opposed to complete dependence on simple conspiratorial distrust.
Look. Don't trust the government. You shouldn't. You're an American - it's something we're not supposed to do. But you should have evidence before you accuse it of something, or you discredit any good you would want to do.
Don't you follow The Onion? Twitter is just another collection program run by the NSA :mrgreen:
Yeah. With more citations like Putin's mouthpiece?
:shrug: if you want me to research the case, I will. But I'm not really sure what you think it proves.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the three branches of government lack oversight? They have to be each others' oversight - that's the point of checks and balances.
Sure it does, it talks about the secret court and permissions
oh, my bad, I forgot, Mr. Bond, that you are a super secret agent squirrel..
homey, I've held clearances you haven't heard about. lol In reality, if you were all that, you would know enough discussingt ones "Vast experience" with it "spying, would be cnsidered taboo, especially if you are still involved.
Then, sir, quote me, where I stated such an opinion.
The point I have, is you combine all these things we are doing to American citizens in the name of "Safety" has more to do with surveiling.
If this is how you wish to represent yourself, I will not stand in your way. bad quotes screw with the flow and creates work for the other, a typo, is simply a typo. I think you know that.
I didn't skip this. I'll get back to it. I gotta run brother!
[/QUOTE]Secret courts can issue warrants.
I could be Q for all it matters: the point is I have actual experience with this. So if we're quibbling over definitions...
but lmao "taboo". People will limited experience always think it's a big deal. I drove to the tunnel in Kunia five days a week for over three years, I went to Iraq on NSA-cut orders; no one worth their salt that wanted to know wouldn't know that I worked at NSA. Trying to hide that would be a sure sign of someone who doesn't know how things work. I'm sure you had crazy, crazy clearances though!!! OOOOOOooooh I can only imagine!!!!
Right here:
You said it like the two are unrelated. Like anyone could be safe on a patrol without surveilling the AO.
The typo was in the quote. Why you continue to wrap yourself around the axle on this gives the reader a hint as to why you choose to wrap yourself around the axle regarding metadata collection.
indeed, spying on my fellow americans by my government is something I am quite irate about. I didn't shed blood for my country so it would turn around and spy on us.
I wonder what crazy, unheard of clearances you could have while not even knowing that like a third of NSA is active duty military folks, and not some hotshot assignment.
Anyway, yes, survelling an area and safety aren't unrelated. That you would imply they are looks to be near the root of your issue with this. Snowden didn't do you any favors, I assure you, no matter who stridently you might think he did.
Well you aren't going to get me to say too many nice things about the TSA, but the idea that that counts as collection simply isn't tenable. You seem to be simply listing everyone involved in the IC and claiming that they are spy agencies, and then conflating them with collection against US Persons.
Is facial recognition fundamentally different when it is performed by software than by a person, in a manner that makes it collection? I mean, if we think Abu McJihad is going to be wearing a suicide vest at the Cowboys game (no idea why he would target the Cowboys), isn't it smarter to have something that can rapidly scan a crowd with greater precision than a couple of dozen FBI guys out there walking around with a picture, hoping to randomly run into the guy?
The check/balance should be the inclusion and requirement for approval by multiple branches of government. If that does not happen, I agree, we have lost the C&B and need to restore it post haste. If it does, however, then we've fulfilled that Constitutional requirement.
It is also worth noting that it is content is subject to 4th Amendment protections (that's why we keep pointing that out) - not metadata. That is why, for example, the Post Office is allowed to require you to put a return address and "to" address on your letter, but isn't allowed to just read your mail.
This is what I'm pointing out:
NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners - Forbes
"“It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” the Guardian’s copy of the order reads. “This Order does not require Verizon to include telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries.”"
This is intended to sound ominous, when it's not. Foreign collection is already covered under Title 50. Nor (again) does collection of metadata risk violating 4th Amendment protections.
:shrug: those who abused lost their clearances, their jobs, and careers. That's pretty fair for someone who basically googled his girlfriend on a classified database.
Ah. Are you into 9/11 trutherism now, as well? At least they have evidence, as opposed to complete dependence on simple conspiratorial distrust.
Look. Don't trust the government. You shouldn't. You're an American - it's something we're not supposed to do. But you should have evidence before you accuse it of something, or you discredit any good you would want to do.
Don't you follow The Onion? Twitter is just another collection program run by the NSA :mrgreen:
Yeah. With more citations like Putin's mouthpiece?
:shrug: if you want me to research the case, I will. But I'm not really sure what you think it proves.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the three branches of government lack oversight? They have to be each others' oversight - that's the point of checks and balances.
I guess if you are involved in the problem, rationalization is the only way to go, brother. *shrug*
Like I said, you have yourself a wonderful day.
The irony of that is...significant.
You seem to have an idea of freedom vs safety wherein absolute freedom is the goal. it's not. It never was and never should be. It's a balance between the two. Asking yourself if something is a "freedom stance" is no more useful than asking yourself if it's a "safety stance". Neither absolutes are optimal.
It is ironic: You have decided that it's "bad" and will now go to any extent to rationalize it.
And you continue to both use strawman incorrectly and presume that any paucity of freedom is a bad thing. That's childish: you're not free to kill people on a whim, is that bad because your liberty to do whatever you want is infringed?
I would think somewhere around high school we would've learned that absolutes either way are unattractive.
You've strongly implied it. "Stance of freedom"? What does that even mean? Are "stances of freedom" supposed to be good and those that aren't supposed to be bad?Strawman, giving me a position, then arguing against it.
I've never argued for absolutes, Nore that any "paucity of freedom is a bad thing" nor have I argued that dumb knowledge/safety garbage your falsely attributed to me.
not once did I suggest that people should be allowed to kill people because of "freedom", I've never argued such absolutes, and that wouldn't be "Freedom" anyway. the fact that you say this demonstrates either you are being dishonest in our discussion, or I overestimated your intelligence.
You've strongly implied it. "Stance of freedom"? What does that even mean? Are "stances of freedom" supposed to be good and those that aren't supposed to be bad?
If you're not arguing for absolutes then refrain from saying something is anti-liberty or anti-freedom, because we both know that just because something is anti-freedom or anti-liberty doesn't mean it's bad. You seem to be very strongly implying that that's the case.
And we've already agreed that anti-liberty and anti-freedom aren't necessarily bad- something I needed to make examples of in order to get you to admit, mind you. So you need to do a better job of arguing your point.
I'll break this down for you, step by step, with no assumptions: when you asked about the "freedom stance" did you mean to imply that such a stance (getting frisked by TSA) was not representative of freedom?
Once we get an answer, I'll pay another question. I'll lead you down the critical thinking path here.
Hahaha.
It appears you just didn't follow the conversation and thought it was because I lacked intelligence, but you're now grasping it. That's interesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?