Slashdot Mirror


The NSA: Never Not Watching

Trailrunner7 writes "For many observers of the privacy and surveillance landscape, the revelation by The Guardian that the FBI received a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to require Verizon to turn over to the National Security Agency piles of call metadata on all calls on its network probably felt like someone telling them that water is wet. There have been any number of signals in the last few years that this kind of surveillance and data collection was going on, little indications that the United States government was not just spying on its own citizens, but doing so on a scale that would dwarf anything that all but the most paranoid would imagine." And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

568 comments

  1. I would have had a frsoty post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    But the NSA intercepted the packets and caused a bit of latency..

    1. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      Nope you succeeded. They Accelerated it along the tubes for you giving you first priority for your world changing views. Of course because you are just demonstrating their power and influence.

      P.S. fuck this country, I was recently googling how to allegedly emigrate without "sanction" and where too. I hope they saw.

      P.S.P.S. I know I am barred from participating in government, law, or military service. There is NOTHING I can do for you people except rant and troll and flame the fucking system.

    2. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well i believe the puppet on the right has My interests at heart...hey wait a minute, there is one guy working both puppets!"..Bill Hicks.

      Can we PLEASE just accept that the whole "left versus right" thing is nothing but kayfabe to give the sheep the illusion of choice? I mean why do you think Obama kept ALL the crap about Bush that the left hated? because its the same corporate masters behind the curtain pulling the strings, he was told to STFU and read the cue cards and play his part. Ventura said being a politician was no different than wrestling, you pretend to hate the guy while the camera rolls and when it stops you have lunch together. Why do you think Goldman Sachs has stayed in control of the fed no matter if there is a D or R in the white house? Why do you think the press drums up and pushes the hell out of "issues' like gay rights when most don't give a fat fuck about that either way? because these things the corps don't give a fat fuck about either, so no matter what the population chooses it won't affect them.

      So can we PLEASE finally end the lie that voting is gonna do jack shit in a two party system? Obama kept every bit of the jack booted bullshit dubya started and then some, and no matter whom you "choose" (which is in and of itself a scam, look up "Jon Stewart Ron Paul" to see how many hoops the press went through just to make sure that Paul had no chance during the primary, or the behind the scenes video Alex Jones got of the RNC where the outcome of the voice vote shows up on the prompter BEFORE the vote was called) all you are gonna get is coke in a can versus coke in a bottle, only pre-approved corporate shills need apply.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I mean why do you think Obama kept ALL the crap about Bush that the left hated

      So do you think it would be Democrats, Republicans, or neither that is going to let suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists become a regular part of American life? A lot of what you raise boils down to that. No American political party is going to take a step that allows terrorists with a car bomb easy access to crowds of Americans, whether they be in a plaza, a shopping mall, or a stadium. If they do that, the voters will punish them not not electing them. That simple issue explains more than you or Bill Hicks. And it isn't like there hasn't been hundreds of arrests and convictions for terrorism related offenses either. There have been plenty of arrests for plans or attempts to use vehicle bombs to kill people in the United States by terrorists in the last ten years.

      Once you get past that, past the physical safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, which covers a fair amount of ground, things open up a bit. Both parties want to stay in power, and of necessity court those who will fund them, so that will result in some similar behavior. But to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties in terms of the policy goals and philosophy is ridiculous. The Democratic Party passes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, without votes from Republicans. They own it, whether it is a sweet success, or the trainwreck it looks like it may be.

      There are plenty more like that in which the two parties would pursue different paths. Fiscal policy doest matter? Tax rates (cuts for the rich?)(pay your fair share?)? Gay rights doesn't matter? "Climate change" doesn't matter? Carbon taxes don't matter? Voter's rights and fair elections don't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? Approach to business and labor regulation doesn't matter? You didn't get this right, there are distinct differences between the parties. That is especially the case as the two parties have become more polarized. That parts where they are the same are obvious and trivial. Neither party is going to pursue a path that it believes will result in large numbers of Americans being killed if it can be avoided, and both parties want to stay in office.

      Between Alex Jones and Ron Paul, your political interests tend to run to the fringe, and anyone else is a shill. If you want to keep banging the drum for Ron Paul, more power too you. But James Trafficant probably needs some love too. If you were interested I'd be happy, to use Trafficant's words, to beam you up, if I could.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the behind the scenes video Alex Jones got of the RNC where the outcome of the voice vote shows up on the prompter BEFORE the vote was called

      Reminds me of the not-behind-the-scenes videos of the DNC where the voice vote on adding God to the platform succeeded despite support being in a clear minority...

    5. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 2

      suicide bombings and truck bombings by terrorists

      Don't discount the possibility of such events being staged in the form of false-flag ops in order to justify an Orwellian surveillance society. Do you honestly think that a government which inoculated blankets with smallpox and withheld medical treatment from syphilis patients is above killing a few fellow Americans all in the name of consolidating power? Don't be so fucking naive.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    6. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Democratic Party passes the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare

      Oh, and another thing. The ACA is based on model legislation authored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. Whilst there are member of both parties who are ideological outliers (e.g., Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold when he was in office on the left, and some of the Teabaggers on the right), the bases of both parties are overwhelmingly similar. Hence the colloquialisms 'Demopub' and 'Republicrat'. To quote Chomsky: 'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.'

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    7. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      One of the key fallacies of the "false flag" is that you can keep a big operation that kills lots of people secret in a free society. The 9/11 "Truthers" never really address that. Simply consider the fact that the CIA only waterboarded three (3) terrorists, the most recent of which was more than 10 years ago. Nobody died, nobody was injured. The hue and cry over it would make you believe it was still going on and the total was 30,000, not 3. There are plenty of other leaks that damaged national security of a similar nature.

      Beside, there is no need to run a false flag terrorist operation. There are plenty of local volunteers, and foreigners willing to try. The real challenge isn't running a false flag, the real challenge is stopping all of the real attempts at a terrorist attack. Of course you know about Boston, but there is the following which will soon mean that the Boston bombing wasn't the first terrorist attack since 9/11, and the short sample after that.

      With Nidal Hasan bombshell, time to call Fort Hood shooting a terror attack?

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

      Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

      Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.

      Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

      U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.

      Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

      Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery.

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

      1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

      A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives.

      2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

      A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa.

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011

      Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

      A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle.

      FBI’s Top

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't be bitter.

      Multi-party democracy gives those who would otherwise pick up a rock or rifle a sense of vested interest in the system. If massive scandals break out, the economy tanks or his basic rights are summarily rescinded, the average citizen can simply channel his anger into voting for another party without questioning the good of the system as a whole. This is a good and useful thing that is the bedrock of political stability, not just in the US but much of the rest of the first world.

      What that party can actually do once in power is constrained by the sprawling bureaucracy of the state, international treaties, the banking system, deep ties to special interests and the difficulty of rolling back entitlements. These constraints have become more complicated and numerous over time. This is bad and frustrating, but there is no evil conspiracy involved: just many things that, together, hem in successive administrations to make their actions so similar to those of the previous administration.

      That said, the US must remain committed to two-party democracy because there is no alternate calming mechanism, nothing else that can offer a comparable illusion of citizen particpation. Agitating for fundamental change—or even worse, starting a revolution—would risk throw out a great good just because it is currently afflicted with some nasty flaws.

    9. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by Applekid · · Score: 1

      One of the key fallacies of the "false flag" is that you can't keep a big operation that kills lots of people secret in a free society.

      I changed your quote to match your argument, looks like it was just a typo.

      The first step in dismantling that the kind of skepticism that would find "false flag" operations is calling people "conspiracy nuts", which the mainstream is certainly happy doing. It's worth reminding folks that MK-ULTRA was a conspiracy theory too, until, oops, they found some documents that proved it happened and it sudden because simple historical fact.

      We're not a free society. If you don't immediately buy in to the official story, you're a crazy. I don't know if it's always been that way (I figure it has been, but I don't know), but a free society would openly discuss these ideas, instead of just playing hear no evil.

      In a lot of ways, that's why free speech in the US is still so free. It's because speech has very little power here. Critical thinking has been bred out of society through public schools, so the facts are whatever is written on a paper shoved in front of us by an official.

      The funny thing is that if you want to find places where speech still has power, they are nations where speech is very censored, China, Cuba, North Korea, former eastern bloc, because the countrymen have not yet been sufficiently trained to automatically reject things that are uncomfortable to think about, like government torture, murder of citizens, intentional starvation, etc. They are still capable of believing it.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    10. Re: I would have had a frsoty post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how did "everyone" keep the massive NSA data gathering secret up to this point? Seems that it is indeed possible to keep secrets on a large scale. If you believed your phone call was being monitored last week you were paranoid and would be mocked. This week you are main stream. Why? Because the main stream media is reporting it.

    11. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

      I lost faith in Obama at Telecom Immunity. So pretty much from the very start. And it hurt. I really "hoped" he'd be different. Look! A politician who actually makes a case and actually tries to convince the opposition! And then kow-tows to Monsanto, lets Goldman Sachs off the hook, actually enhances the Patriot Act, and does nothing to reform a Justice Department clearly compromised by the Bush Administration (probably started before that). Oh well, at least everybody sucks at security so at least we're guaranteed to hear about how screwed we are well before 2037.

    12. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Hell why waste all that typing when you can knock it out of the park in a single sentence? Watch...Gulf of Tonkin...BAM! 58,000 Americans dead, countless people over there dead and maimed to this day from millions of pounds of bombs and mines...never fucking happened, total false flag!

      Game over,government itself admits GoT was a "non incident"..made a hell of a lot of guys at the top rich as sin though, so not like the ruling class gives a fuck about dead peasants.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:I would have had a frsoty post by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Look up "history of CIA and US Military interventions map" and see why they hate your guts and want you dead, the reason is because WWII never fucking ended! It really didn't, the CIA set off bombs in Italy, started wars, toppled governments, the reason they fucking hate you is because we won't stay the fuck out of anything!

      And FYI but I never voted for Paul, i fucking hate libertarians, i just thought it was fucking sorry that you had the entire MSM went into overdrive to make sure the American people had NO say or choice in the matter, if you have the balls look up the video i mentioned, even Stewart which is as liberal as they come was fucking shocked at how bad the rigging was. in one scene they even treat Paul like Voldemort, doing this giant tapdance to say who the first, second and FOURTH place was and NOT ONCE in the entire fucking broadcast do they even fucking say there is a third place, much less who took it!

      So i'm sorry but if you are actually buying their bullshit I feel sorry for you, i truly do. You must have to work your fucking ass off to stay that willfully blind and ignorant...I mean WTF do you say about the Gulf Of Tonkin which even the government admits didn't actually happen, why the fuck aren't they up on war crimes? You have an AG that gave fucking weapons to drug cartels...why the fuck isn't he charged with treason?

      Use your fucking eyes man, try reading a little besides state sponsored bullshit, the amount of shit they have already admitted to makes fucking watergate look like a parking violation but our MSM just fucking ignores it or even worse tries their damnedest to change the subject, look at all the nasty shit wikileaks got (including the US government covering up for a PMC that not once but TWICE sold little kids as fuck toys to get better deals) and what did we hear about? How Assange must be an asshole! Well who gives a wet fuck about Assange, how about the fucking crimes we got right here in black and white, how about that?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's what authorizes legitimate government. Anyone think this is authorized? 4th amendment? Anyone?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

      Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.

    2. Re:Constitution by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did), there's no 4th-amendment violation, at least under current Supreme Court interpretations, because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you), so their consent is sufficient. They're the ones that have a 4th-amendment right against unreasonable search & seizure of their records. So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.

    3. Re:Constitution by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?

      Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

    4. Re:Constitution by Antipater · · Score: 2

      IIRC courts have ruled in the past that metadata does not require a warrant. Of course, this brouhaha might create some political impetus to change that.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    5. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...particularly describing the ... things to be seized.

      But, it's not seizure if they just take a copy (just like it's not theft if I just download a copy ;-)

    6. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this situation is that none of the things being seized fall under 'persons, houses, papers, or effects'. The items in question are technically the data logged by a business describing the operation of their systems. The fact that this data pertains to the persons and their effects is inconsequential, as they are not the ones recording or in possession of the data.

    7. Re:Constitution by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      Back when the courts ruled this it was hard to collect that metadata on every single person on the planet.

      Now it seems like its a possibility. Or at least large swaths of the population. And to easily rank and filter it by association. Making useful maps of who doesn't like who were they live and how they are organized. Making shit like IRS targeting be able to go far beyond single non-profit organizations.

      There is a fucking blacklist blackballing anyone from employment in this fucking country. And unless you are lucky and the small guy who is barely struggling to hold on to their business has room for you you are FUCKED. Or unless you have very specific skills like construction or are part of your own good o'le boy network.

      People who aren't networked. Low skill or unskilled. And generally have not fucked up, but are looked down apon by the "Bilderbergs" are fucking screwed and tatood.

      Might as well give everyone gold fucking stars to wear on their shirt collars.

    8. Re:Constitution by jameshofo · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do wtih your rights because they're requesting it from a company that holds the information about you, kinda like the information VISA holds on your transaction data, you may have bought and paid for that but you dont ownt he info....

      --
      Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    9. Re:Constitution by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Regardless, "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is a lot broader net than any constitutional warrant. I don't see anything in that clause describing this widespread of a search as valid for a warrant to be issued per the protections described in the fourth amendment.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    10. Re:Constitution by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Verizon agreed to hand over the records

      Verizon got informed that they were required to comply, I don't think there was much room for them to disagree.

      When someone comes to you with a National Security Letter (or whatever they're called), you don't even have the legal right to tell someone about it without facing (probably secret) charges.

      But, I gotta say, you make it sound even more depressing -- we're not spying on you, we're asking them to provide us with information about you.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great argument. Be sure to bring that up when the system collapses. It's bullshit and anyone defending the practice is part of the problem. Whatever, I don't have kids. Good luck for those that do. Looking your children in the eye, knowing that you let the country they were born into turn to crap. Feel good about yourself.

    12. Re:Constitution by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      NSA Warrant Submission:

      Place to be searched: Verizon Databases
      Things to be seized: Everything

      --------------------

      Warrant issued.

      Your Friend,
      Judge Rubberstamp

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Constitution by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't agree, they were forced. They were even advised that seeking a lawyer's advice before complying would be a crime.

      You got to wonder, if they had quietly refused, what would have happened to them? After all, trying them in public could compromise the secrecy of this order. Even punishing them would be tricky, you couldn't tell anyone why you were doing it. What would the family get to hear? "My son the Verizon employee is in prison for disobeying unspecified secret orders"? or simply "One day, my son disappeared at work and hasn't been seen since" ?

      Is that the future in the US? It is unless they change course on these insane secrecy demands, because it's simply not possible to implement without such measures as soon as anyone stands up to it.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    14. Re:Constitution by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because telling Bin Laden the date and time we were coming for him probably isn't a good idea?

      Some things must be secret. A perfectly open democracy wouldn't get a lot done - just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.

      There needs to be a balance and I fully agree that balance is wildly off after 9/11. Too many judges aren't telling the Gov't to f'off when they play the 'national secrets' card. Congress is *supposed* to have oversight of the FISA court, but as noted above, grandstanding on all sides renders that pretty ineffective.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    15. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"

      It's long past time to divest Judge Rubberstamp of his position. The government does not have probable cause for such a search.

      Congressperson Rubberstamp should go as well. Unfortunately, the populace is stupid, and so we will continue to see such erosion of privacy based upon the flimsiest of disingenuous excuses.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    16. Re:Constitution by Vintermann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They see public opinion as just another battlefield. Truths that may lead the people to oppose "necessary" action, e.g. wars, will be suppressed. Government embarrassment is a grave threat to national security that cannot be tolerated.

      They've dug themselves so deep into authoritarianism that they see no safe way out, and so they just have to keep digging.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    17. Re:Constitution by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may choose to disagree with a NSL, and go to court, of course. But being a "free country", corporations are not obliged to do so. They simply have no clear moral or legal responsibility to protect their corporate property, such that you will feel happy about your privacy.

      Really, this is nothing. What about the corporate-owned property called your credit card records? That is up for sale, it is only not easily available because the banks know this stuff is valuable, and they plan on getting their piece of the big data-informed commerce pie by holding tight. But they are allowed to sell it to the gov't for nothing, if they so choose.

    18. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did)

      Coercion is not "agreement."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    19. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Would you please provide X" is not an "ask" when it is followed by a directly associated "or you'll go to jail."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    20. Re:Constitution by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      just look at Congress and ask yourself why a lot of the stuff that *does* get done is primarily negotiated in closed rooms.

      That's exactly the problem.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    21. Re:Constitution by khasim · · Score: 1

      Because telling Bin Laden the date and time we were coming for him probably isn't a good idea?

      Seriously? You think that the NSA had metadata on bin Laden's calls? But not the content of those calls?

    22. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I the President, affirm under Oath, that someone, somewhere is probably doing something illegal and the entire country, the people in it and their electronic data will be reasonably searched.

    23. Re:Constitution by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Well then let's class-action lawsuit them into hell.

    24. Re:Constitution by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?

    25. Re:Constitution by turp182 · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the telecommunications companies have immunity from prosecution for such requests being fulfilled (it was even retroactive at the time to squash active lawsuits).

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-telecoms-win-immunity

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    26. Re:Constitution by Nickodeimus · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there something about indefinite detention in some bill or other they recently passed? I forget. Thought i heard something about that.

    27. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this situation is that none of the things being seized fall under 'persons, houses, papers, or effects'.

      I think that's a very naive statement. Your papers are those things that record your thoughts, actions, legal obligations, correspondence, etc. Your bank records are your papers. Your heating bills are your papers. No one has any right to that information but you and the institution you're dealing with, and if the institution gives it up in any form but aggregated, non-specific statistics, I'd say they violated your confidence. Data about actions you take with another entity is clearly personal and only those involved can make the decision to go public with that information. Here, the phone company has been coerced: do this or jail, fines, etc. Notice when they've been trying to coerce Google, google has been saying, "this is wrong" and trying to fight said taking (and it IS a taking) in the courts?

      If the phone company had done this voluntarily, I'd say, trash our phones. But it's not them. It's the feds. Unfortunately, with a population of idiots, quislings and sheep, that's not going to get fixed any time soon.

      If you wish to maintain your privacy, we now have concrete confirmation that the telephone is not to be used. Something else to keep in mind is that what is not a crime today, may be a crime tomorrow, and neither the feds or the states have shown restraint when inflicting ex post facto laws upon the citizens.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    28. Re:Constitution by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because telling Bin Laden

      Everybody of significance involved in planning 9/11 is dead, at least those listed by the non-redacted portion of the 9/11 Commission Report.

      What's going on now is not that. Maybe we should be asking what it is, exactly?

      According to some, it's a hunt for every person in the world who may not in the future submit to the will of the US Government. War without End, in other words.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    29. Re:Constitution by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Spot on sir.

    30. Re:Constitution by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Fascism has nothing to do with efficiency. Nazi Germany pretty much lost WWII in part because Hitler used divide and conquer within his own supporters, and so there was infighting at every level. That infighting crippled German production until half way through the war they realized "oh shit, the USSR is out producing us in just about everything that matters" and put someone competent like Albert Speer in charge, instead of that flamboyant, fat fuck Goering.

      Efficiency is important, and we need it to have an effective government. I do agree that you have to balance efficiency with the rights of individuals, but a reasonable classification program is not going to lead to totalitarianism.

      The problem is that the classification system is broken and everything and their mother is at least TS/SCI these days. So people are upset about "secrets". I am also upset, but I tend to confine my upset with material that has no justification for classification.

    31. Re:Constitution by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Would you please provide X" is not an "ask" when it is followed by a directly associated "or you'll go to jail."

      or you'll get audited by the IRS

      or you'll have OSHA drop by

      or you'll have the NLRB prevent you from opening an office in another state...

      The regulatory power of the executive is enough of a threat.

    32. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't there something about indefinite detention in some bill or other they recently passed? I forget. Thought i heard something about that.

      No you didn't.

      Now if you'll just come along with us, sir.

    33. Re:Constitution by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Sure, but they can just rendition you to some hell hole rather than prosecute you.

    34. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because the records are considered to be owned by Verizon (not you),

      No they're not.
      http://www.fcc.gov/guides/protecting-your-telephone-calling-records

    35. Re:Constitution by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well then let's class-action lawsuit them into hell.

      They were complying with a 'lawful' demand, so on what basis could you sue them?

      Until a court says this practice is illegal, I don't see a lawsuit getting any standing. Given that the Executive Branch these days seems to define what is legal without a court to back them up, even less so.

      As soon as you filed the paperwork, men in dark suits and glasses would quietly inform the court that for national security purposes this was to be dropped.

      When they make up what is legal on the fly, you really don't have a lot of recourse.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    36. Re:Constitution by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their CEO would get jailed for back dating stock options or some other "crime."

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    37. Re:Constitution by alexo · · Score: 1

      My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET?

      I was about to reply:

      Because terrorism.
      And child porn.

      but pixelpusher220 beat me to it.

    38. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this situation is that none of the things being seized fall under 'persons, houses, papers, or effects'. The items in question are technically the data logged by a business describing the operation of their systems. The fact that this data pertains to the persons and their effects is inconsequential, as they are not the ones recording or in possession of the data.

      Your "papers" are any type of documentation or "paperwork", it doesn't matter if the information is written on paper, vellum, papyrus, animal skin, or stored electronically, it's the same thing. And yes, the courts have ruled in support of that definition.

      But it's completely irrelevant as the information we're discussing is considered part of your calling records, and there are a variety of laws which protect that information specifically.
      Would You Like to Know More?

    39. Re:Constitution by syntheticmemory · · Score: 1

      Don't be a "critical tool"

    40. Re:Constitution by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Was Goering really fat? Is this true? He certainly wasn't portrayed that way in Schindler's List or in Downfall... Just curious where you got this.

    41. Re:Constitution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      That infighting crippled German production until half way through the war they realized "oh shit, the USSR is out producing us in just about everything that matters" and put someone competent like Albert Speer in charge, instead of that flamboyant, fat fuck Goering.

      A couple of things:

      1) Speer didn't get that job "halfway through the war" - more like "seven months after invasion of USSR" or "three months after Pearl Harbor". Note that Germany was still pretty much winning then (Stalingrad was almost a year in the future, North Africa wouldn't be settled for more than a year).

      2) Speer didn't replace Goering either. Previous guy was Fritz Todt (what a great name "Hi, I'm Death. MISTER Death to you"....)

      3) And it wasn't the USSR that was outproducing Germany then, it was the USA. The USSR wasn't outproducing Germany for a couple more years....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    42. Re:Constitution by Aaden42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between negotiating in a closed room and trying to keep the results of that negotiation private. I've no problem with congress critters sequestering themselves in a smoke filled room to get a bill drafted. The results of the negotiation need to see the light of day before it's passed. Trying to hide the contents and just ram it through without public comment (as was tried with ACTA) is an entirely different thing.

      Granted, FISA is a somewhat different situation.

    43. Re:Constitution by myth24601 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "They were even advised that seeking a lawyer's advice before complying would be a crime."

      I would love to see how that would play out in court.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    44. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for a state court to directly persue the persons carrying them out. In fact, throw the local federal judge who authorized it in the slammer. Watch the tone change fast.

    45. Re:Constitution by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, look him up. He was very overweight while he was in charge. He did lose 60 pounds while in custody in Nuremberg before his suicide, but that was for a brief period at the end.

      I don't remember him being in Schindler's List, and I never saw Downfall, so I couldn't say how he was portrayed there.

    46. Re:Constitution by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why use it in court.
      Use data to find you enemies. (Democrat / Republican / Tea Party)
      Use IRS and EPA and ICE and FBI to harm you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    47. Re:Constitution by griffjon · · Score: 2

      Ask Nicholas Merrill about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill . If he can do it, so can Verizon.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    48. Re:Constitution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Well then let's class-action lawsuit them into hell.

      Read your contract agreement. You likely signed away your right to do that.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    49. Re:Constitution by anyanka · · Score: 2

      I don't have his measurements, but you can judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1977-149-13,_Hermann_G%C3%B6ring,_Adolf_Hitler,_Albert_Speer.jpg

      He's certainly slimmer than Speer.

    50. Re:Constitution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't want anymore USB sticks or pizza, thank you.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    51. Re:Constitution by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

      Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.

      what does it matter? if they use this to pinpoint you first and then just get other data to prosecute you with. it's not like they have to tell you that they got initial interest through this method.

      what, you think that the usa government has played by any rules for about fifteen years now ? note that if nsa shares this data with any police officers for any actual crime prevention is a whole another matter.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    52. Re:Constitution by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Those NSLs did not just go to Verizon.
      They went to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
      We know one company just handed it over from a leak. We know one company is fighting NSLs.
      So we know the rest they already have.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    53. Re:Constitution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is only because no one can ever go against this great administration. Liberals love big government and dictators, just admit it fool? Or will you blame the Tea Party next? Why not, vile liberals and fake conservatives will be our down fall. Keep on kissin it.

      If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    54. Re:Constitution by stackOVFL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is interesting as I recently exchanged emails with Fienstien (D-CA). It was about the 2'ed but her logic was the same. You don't have "absolute" rights! You have rights that can be and are limited under the laws that those folks in DC have been passing without your knowledge. In my conversation with her I got the solid belief that my rights end where they impose any heartache on the government doing whatever the government wants to do. If a limitation to our rights does not exist it will soon after that right stops the government from doing something. You are "free" only up to a point beyond that you're under arrest.

    55. Re:Constitution by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      let's quote Sen. Lindsey Graham

      "This was created by the Congress, and if we've made mistakes and we've gotten outside the lane then we're going to get inside the lane. But the consequence of taking these tools away from the American people through their government would be catastrophic."

      Do I even need to comment?

    56. Re:Constitution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET? If there's a legitimate need for the government to access them then why not be open about it?

      Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

      It's secret because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Also because if people don't know it's happening they won't take steps against it. Also because if people knew the real extent of these types of activities, they'd be up in arms.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    57. Re:Constitution by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      We actually have proof that Google has fought at least one NSL already.
      So I think you can do it. You just have to have some balls and be Rich and Powerful to even think about it.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    58. Re:Constitution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These types of powers are for use against political dissenters, as the social and economic condition of the US continues to deteriorate.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    59. Re:Constitution by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      This isn't just in theory, look what happened to Qwest when they dared to disagree.

    60. Re:Constitution by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

      No offense, but it seems like your understanding of the Supremacy Clause is somewhat lacking.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    61. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the future in the US? It is unless they change course on these insane secrecy demands, because it's simply not possible to implement without such measures as soon as anyone stands up to it.

      No need to worry there friend. There's been no sign that anyone in the US will stand up to it.

    62. Re:Constitution by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

      Assuming that he had a supercomputer to crunch the data, knew the algorithms the NSA/FBI uses, implemented them properly, and then understood the results and what conclusions we would come to -- then yes, your supposition is reasonable.

      Otherwise, your nuts.

      --

      I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
    63. Re:Constitution by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?

      Because PATRIOT Act.

      Amusingly, I recently had someone tell me to my face that the CIA is forbidden from operating inside the US and therefore does not. What can one do with that level of naiveté?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    64. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Also, congress knows this and has even written legislation to support it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    65. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do agree that you have to balance efficiency with the rights of individuals, but a reasonable classification program is not going to lead to totalitarianism.

      The first "reasonable" classification program might not lead to totalitarianism, but the 100th will see us well along the road. Liberty; security: prioritize carefully.

    66. Re:Constitution by Antipater · · Score: 1

      Was Goering even shown onscreen in either of those movies? I haven't seen Schindler's List in a long time, but in Downfall he was only talked about, as he was not in Berlin at the time.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    67. Re:Constitution by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Slow down Hoss. The point is that some things need to be done in secret, not that we did or didn't have Bin Laden's info. The point is we couldn't tell him what we were doing ahead of time because he wouldn't have been home to catch.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    68. Re:Constitution by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And you think everybody running to the press every 5 minutes is going to get things done any better? Look at all the 'gang of #'s that have worked in Congress. You take away the spotlight or dim it somewhat and now people can behave a little more reasonably than they might in wide open session.

      Ideally everything of final decision is public, but sometimes its better not to see the sausage being made.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    69. Re:Constitution by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Speer did take over Organization Todt, but Goering was in direct contention for the organization and the Armaments ministry (and every other title he could get his hands on). And yeah, Todt was a great name for a Nazi.

      As for the timeline, Todt died on February 8, 1942, which was admittedly less than exactly 3 years into the war, but close enough to halfway through for a tossed off comment.

      The USA did out produce Germany, however, the USSR (and all the Allies) had a more intensive armament plan than Germany did until about 1944. While it is uncertain that German production improvements would have been enough considering the concurrent lack of raw materials and fuel, it certainly didn't help that Germany produced over-engineered machinery and weapons that could not be produced quickly. Hitler himself interfered with designs choices in ways that did not help, in much the same way that he eventually screwed up strategic military planning.

      Germany *did* have a much higher total GNP than the USSR ever had, but the USSR had lost a lot of general industrial capacity due to the invasion which skews that. However, the program of evacuation of specialist munitions and defense factories to the Urals meant that what remained of Soviet production capacity was concentrated on weapons, and was never interrupted by a German strategic bombing campaign (as Germany had no strategic bombers anyway). Between that, and producing simple, effective, and easier to assemble equipment, the USSR was able to attain a significant war effort after the initial chaos of the invasion.

      Anyway, point being, there was nothing efficient about fascism, although there was (and is) a lot that is efficient about Germany and Germans. This is likely how fascism got it's reputation for efficiency, but if you look at Italy and Spain, there was very little that was very efficient about those two fascist states.

    70. Re:Constitution by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Good to see someone with a reasonable reply :) The results and even logic by which representatives come to a decision should be public, but the process can be harmed if people play to the cameras all the time.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    71. Re:Constitution by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      And you think everybody running to the press every 5 minutes is going to get things done any better?

      If it slowed them down an extraordinary amount so they were able to pass fewer bad laws, then yes.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    72. Re:Constitution by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The question was why the FISA courts and such are secret. The point being that you can't talk openly about your plans to apprehend someone (or hoover up their communication) because any one who found themselves the subject of such surveillance would then change their behaviors.

      It's not that Bin Laden would need access/encryption/etc because if it's 'public' then he just has to read the paper.

      If you read in the paper than someone was planning to raid your house...wouldn't you likely move or prepare a defense?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    73. Re:Constitution by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      Obama has long ignored the bill of rights...and more.

    74. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only faggots like you would keep quiet, you are an enemy of freedom, you rat bastard!

    75. Re:Constitution by jcr · · Score: 2

      Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

      The fourth amendment doesn't say that the government may violate our privacy as long as they don't use what they find in a criminal prosecution. It says that we are not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    76. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's long past time to divest Judge Rubberstamp of his position. The government does not have probable cause for such a search."

      Of course it does. I have it on good (secret) intelligence that someone, somewhere in the world is plotting a terrorist act to occur somewhere in the US, and that they are communicating with US citizens in order to make it happen. We think they may be using a US car rental agency as part of the plot. Unfortunately we're not exactly sure which car rental company they've contacted, or what number they are phoning from, or what their destination is, or who their associates might be, but one of our agents definitely overheard them at a foreign cafe while talking on their cell phone saying [roughly translated] "Going to America for a road trip with my US cousin is going to be da bomb! Don't worry. I'm paying for the car rental. See you soon!"

      The "soon" is also why there is great urgency to our request. It's probably best to just give us access to all domestic phone activity to be on the safe side, okay?

      Signed,
      The NSA

    77. Re:Constitution by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 1

      Why is nobody outraged about the fact that Verizon is collecting this data? The NSA isn't spying on you, Verizon is!
      The only reason the NSA needed a warrant is because the government is too broke to just buy it from the phone companies and web providers like any number of marketing companies already do.

    78. Re:Constitution by jcr · · Score: 1

      If Verizon agreed to hand over the records (as it appears they did),

      Sure, people are very agreeable when threatened.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    79. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... advised that seeking a lawyer's advice ...

      Ahh, no right to defense or due process. This differs from every dictator by how exactly? Even if it includes most of the population, dictators are focused on a specific demographic. Is FISA doing that?

    80. Re:Constitution by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Which one is fighting them?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    81. Re:Constitution by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The constitution means squat if we don't ensure that violators are sanctioned.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    82. Re:Constitution by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Here is a story on one that was fought.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    83. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fourth amendment doesn't say jack shit about criminal prosecution or treat information differently, depending on whether or not it is intended to be used as evidence in a court. It says that the government is not allowed to perform certain types of searches; it doesn't say anything about the applicability of whatever evidence might be gained through an illegal search. That was invented by later case law.

      I believe the NSA's and presidents' arguments for this, is that the fourth amendment either doesn't apply to a phone call, or that its conditions have been adhered to.

      If I worked at the NSA, I might say...

      These are records that Verizon has. If they consent to their records being taken, then we have no problem. Or if our FISA warrant (forget Verizon's consent) narrowly describes what we want (the records on Verizon's computer) where the probable cause (which is rather easy to establish) that someone somewhere left evidence on Verizon's computer, then it'd be a valid warrant. The idea of this approach is that the people making the phone calls are irrelevant; the party whose rights we could conceivably be infringing (if we didn't follow due process) is Verizon. It's their data we want. It's not their customers' data that we want.

      A phone call isn't a person, house, paper, or effect. The case law is against this argument, but only because earlier judges accepted earlier analogies for why a phone call (something that didn't exist in 1789) is like a paper. But analogies can always be argued; just ask Slashdot. ;-)

      Anyway, once you get past the fourth amendment prohibiting it, then the things which authorize the government to do it (i.e. make it not be a tenth amendment issue) are limitless. You can always call it regulating interstate commerce. People picking their noses, is interstate commerce.

    84. Re:Constitution by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Everybody of significance involved in planning 9/11 is dead,

      No, far from it. As far as I know, these plotters are very much alive and in custody:

      Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
      Ramzi Binalshibh
      Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi
      Abi Abd al-Aziz Ali
      Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash

      And there appears to be a sleeper cell to track down:

      Boston Marathon Bombings: FBI Hunts Terror 'Sleeper Cell' Linked to Tsarnaev Brothers

      But a little of the pressure may be off since it looks like the Boston bombing will shortly no longer be the first major terrorist attack since 9/11.

      With Nidal Hasan bombshell, time to call Fort Hood shooting a terror attack?

      Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Army major facing court-martial for a mass shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, plans to argue that he acted in defense of the Taliban in Afghanistan. So much for the official US line that the shootings were an act of workplace violence, critics say.

      --------

      According to some, it's a hunt for every person in the world who may not in the future submit to the will of the US Government. War without End, in other words.

      According to some? I often find what "some say" to be disingenuous and an easy way to work in libelous statements without direct attribution while providing no useful direction.

      Much better to be concrete about it when you can. I generally consider government surveillance of those in direct contact with terrorist groups to be legitimate. In light of the ongoing misuse of government power by the IRS to suppress political opposition groups, religious groups, and donors to political opposition groups, with possible involvement from EPA, FBI, and OSHA, the Justice Department probes on reporters, the stonewalling before Congress, the administrations attempt to ban weapons little used in crime - semiautomatic rifles, the very wide dragnet by NSA is potentially very troubling. I wonder who is receiving the intelligence produced from the analysis, and for what purpose?

      It is very much time to write your political representatives. Make sure to at least mention the IRS action against opposition groups, and as much of the above as you care to. Hopefully it isn't too late and things simply look worse than they are. At this moment I'm not placing bets.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    85. Re:Constitution by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      but a reasonable classification program is not going to lead to totalitarianism.

      It does sound tin-foil-hat-like, but that word "reasonable" more often than not seems to be the opening people in power use for doing something questionable, doesn't it.

      It sound reasonable to IRS leadership when they went after so-called charities that could've been more like political groups in 2011. On the surface it doesn't sound reasonable, right up until the actual people working within the IRS used the reasonable policy to stonewall (and thus oppress) certain groups that just so happened to oppose the current administration. There were shades of totalitarianism there - and they darken a little more every time the government isn't called to the carpet for it by an interested and invested public.

    86. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute. If you think the NSA and Google aren't sharing data on a huge scale you're painfully naive. Do you realize how many employees they share?

    87. Re:Constitution by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

      Not much, actually: once police are tipped off what they should be looking for, the data can be re-requested with a regular warrant and then used in court. As a defendant, you wouldn't even know that the whole thing started with FISA data.

    88. Re:Constitution by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, the populace is stupid, and so we will continue to see such erosion of privacy based upon the flimsiest of disingenuous excuses.

      The population is not stupid. But there's only so much ordinary people can do when the entire state, civic, and industrial apperatus has been seized by an essentially criminal class.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    89. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know they put in a warrant for that data now -- do you feel like you could avoid their search better than just not using a cell phone because you have that info?

      You cant just slap secret on everything, dates and locations perhaps -- wide sweeping requests like this one -- please...

    90. Re:Constitution by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      And that's depressing. Because you know, Eric Schmidt isn't exactly some hardcore civil libertarian. My guess the demands would have had to be pretty damn bad for Google to even consider fighting them.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    91. Re:Constitution by MiG82au · · Score: 1

      You're not making any sense, the requests are constant so there's no warning given to enemies.

    92. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wishful thinking on your part I'm afraid.

      " We can't present this in open court as it will expose National Security Secrets, thus the entire court proceeding will be conducted in secret. "

    93. Re:Constitution by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Am I missing the sarcasm, or are you mixing them up? Goring is on the left of Hitler in the foreground, Speer is the furthest right.

    94. Re:Constitution by mi · · Score: 1

      So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.

      And even if Verizon had the inclination (and the balls) to fight it, they would've suddenly found themselves the subject of scrutiny by the IRS, the SEC, the Labor Department, the FCC, and, possibly, some other friendly government agencies.

      Is not it great, we have so many regulations, the Executive branch does not even need to bother the Judiciary to get its way? I, for one, do appreciate, they decided to bother this time, but, really, they did not have to...

      Oh, and in only a couple of decades, as the government's control of healthcare extends further and deeper, the same benevolent Executive officials will have the power to decide, who lives, and who dies:

      We regret to inform you, but upon the review of your life support system in accordance with XIXIXIXX section C part Y, it was determined, that the ongoing cost of the care outweigh the benefits. As a result, the assisted breathing/feeding tube (circle all that apply) will be turned off at 11:59pm EST, tomorrow.

      That the individuals supporting the regime in power will be deemed eligible for remaining on life-support for, on average, 50% longer than the opposition, will be nothing other than a coincidence, of course.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    95. Re:Constitution by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      They have immunity under FISA.

    96. Re:Constitution by achbed · · Score: 1

      Ask Nicholas Merrill about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill . If he can do it, so can Verizon.

      Except Verizon would have to re-task corporate lawyers onto a years-long case that they have little chance of winning. It's much cheaper to simply do a database dump of the billing system every day and send it along. And the shareholders prefer cheaper when dealing with anything.

    97. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When it became clear that any US Public Library's circulation records could be obtained by these letters, many libraries shredded all their circulation records.

      It's one way to deal with it.

      Score one for public librarians, rabid defenders of free and unfettered information.

    98. Re:Constitution by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I work for a phone company. You are VERY wrong. The fines for us releasing this kind of information without a warrent are so serious that many people that I work with refuse to take positions where they have access to this kind of data. One poorly written SQL query and you're getting walked out the door. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for even small infractions.

      The ECPA also added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications
      *snip*
      The 'electronic communication' means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce
      *snip*
      Title II of the ECPA, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), protects communications held in electronic storage, most notably messages stored on computers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act

      The information the NSA is collecting is the data portion of your conversation.
      This is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment.

    99. Re:Constitution by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      You don't need to sue them, you can simply not do business with them and they will have no data to collect. No one forced you to do business with these corporations. The ability for them to sell your data is made clear in the user agreements. Whether or not you read them, it's pretty much common knowledge.

    100. Re:Constitution by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      Don't sue the bus driver because you stepped in from of the bus.

    101. Re:Constitution by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where is the outrage over Verizon already collecting this data? Hmm? And selling it?

    102. Re:Constitution by Dave+Emami · · Score: 5, Insightful

      let's quote Sen. Lindsey Graham

      "This was created by the Congress, and if we've made mistakes and we've gotten outside the lane then we're going to get inside the lane. But the consequence of taking these tools away from the American people through their government would be catastrophic."

      Do I even need to comment?

      Part of the problem is that there is no penalty to legislators and executives for violating the Constitution. This is not a mere "mistake" as the Senator portrays it. He's breaking his oath of office and the law (the Constitution being the highest US law and a set of meta-laws). By way of comparison, let's assume that I stole someone's car, and then get caught. I am not just forced to give them their car back and call it even (or "get inside the lane" as Senator Graham puts it). The legal system punishes me for the act of stealing the car in the first place. The same sort of thing should happen when a law is ruled unconstitutional -- the Representatives and Senators who voted for it, and the President who signed it, should suffer a significant punishment. When the Communications Decency Act got overturned, it should have resulted in President Clinton, Senator Exon, and 504 other politicians spending ten years in Leavenworth breaking rocks. None of this "we'll pass it and then let the Supreme Court decide if it's constitutional" crap.

      Granted, you'd have to change how Supreme Court justices are appointed, otherwise presidents and Congress would have an incentive to appoint ones who would let them get away with such things.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    103. Re:Constitution by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Why is nobody outraged about the fact that Verizon is collecting this data?

      Because Verizon is beholden only to their shareholders. The US government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution and obligated to serve the US citizenry.

    104. Re:Constitution by Alomex · · Score: 1

      "three months after Pearl Harbor".

      which is "three years after the start of the war" i.e. the invasion of Poland. Since the war was over three years after 1942 that would make it, leseee... "half way through the war" exactly.

    105. Re:Constitution by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So. If Google is buddy, buddy. Why would they want to do things to bring these NSLs to light?
      Never said they were not complying. Only saying that of all the big data people out there the ONLY one I have any knowledge of fighting for us on any of these is this ONE.
      Take it for what you will. Or just act like a tool. Either way I am cool.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    106. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Speer didn't replace Goering either. Previous guy was Fritz Todt (what a great name "Hi, I'm Death. MISTER Death to you"....)

      I didn't even EAT the mousse!

    107. Re:Constitution by anyanka · · Score: 1

      No, just mixing up the words. Meant to say that Speer was certainly slimmer than Göring. ;)

    108. Re:Constitution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And it wasn't the USSR that was outproducing Germany then, it was the USA. The USSR wasn't outproducing Germany for a couple more years....

      USSR did actually outproduce Germany on a few things, but they just happened to be things that mattered (e.g. rifles and tanks).

      Lend-lease from USA did help with that, but most of that was in other supplies and materials, not weapons directly - although Airacobras were very welcome, and so were trucks for Katyusha chassis. The other crucial component that USA supplied early on was gunpowder. Still, most of it goes to Soviet credit of realizing the true meaning of "total war" very early on, and mobilizing their entire industry, not just military. Germans didn't really got onto that until 1942.

    109. Re:Constitution by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Why yes, let's get pissed at Verizon for collecting a list of call you make over their network. Why? Because if they didn't collect it, they couldn't bill you for those calls! I want my FREE CALLING! So Verizon, QUIT COLLECTING CALL METADATA AND USING IT TO BILL ME! That will have the side effect of preventing you from being ordered to hand it over, as well.

      DERP.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    110. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean just like the enemies during the Cold War? Prove that this does NOT render service of our armed forces during that time to be in vain.

      As for the NSL letters, identify yourself with the documents to Amnesty International and be registered as a political prisoner posthaste.

    111. Re:Constitution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Umm, Pearl Harbor was in 1941. Poland was invaded in 1939. That's not three years apart.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    112. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to some, it's a hunt for every person in the world who may not in the future submit to the will of the US Government. War without End, in other words.

      This is called Armilus/Antichrist/Ad-Dajjal. Amazing how the Abrahamic religions got it right where the Coming Bad Guy® is concerned.

      Another fine opinion from the Fucking Psychopath .

    113. Re:Constitution by westyvw · · Score: 1

      With unlimited minutes and free long distance to just about anywhere, I dont think your argument makes any sense....

    114. Re:Constitution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      USSR did actually outproduce Germany on a few things, but they just happened to be things that mattered (e.g. rifles and tanks).

      True enough. By 1944. Not so true in 1942.

      In 1942, the only real advantage the Soviets had was that the KV-1 was a real kick-ass tank, and the T-34 was both very well designed, but had a lot of room for development.

      Remember that Stalin didn't really believe that Hitler would attack in 1941. And he didn't really begin preparing for war with Germany till after the fact.

      However, it should be noted, in reference to Trucks that they were far more important than just Katyusha chassis. Tanks need a lot of fuel. and spare parts. and ammo. and the food and such for crews. and the supporting infantry. and....

      Eisenhower was right when he called the deuce-and-a-half the most important item made for the war....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    115. Re:Constitution by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      As for the timeline, Todt died on February 8, 1942, which was admittedly less than exactly 3 years into the war, but close enough to halfway through for a tossed off comment.

      Possibly. However, when you add in the context of "the USSR is out-producing us" to a date only six months after Germany had invaded the USSR, things are a lot less clear. Do remember that there was not clue one that the USSR was outproducing Germany at the beginning of 1942 - not like the Germans did really effective intelligence gathering....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    116. Re:Constitution by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So that accounts for 100% of calls made on Verizon's network? Maybe it's time for me to switch then!

      Nevermind that the NSA already has more detailed information than what people are pissed that Verizon is handing over...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    117. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last few years? The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 authorizing this. That thing the NSA said they were going to do? They did.

      Surprised?

    118. Re:Constitution by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      What authorizes current government, or any government is not a piece of paper. It's a combination of people accepting the government and big movers and shakers behind the country accepting them to do their bidding.

      Propaganda control is successful enough to push whatever result through to the general public.

    119. Re:Constitution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      True enough. By 1944. Not so true in 1942.

      I was specifically referring to 1942, actually. And yes, that's with all the (surviving) heavy industry being evacuated to Urals.

      USSR really was an industrial powerhouse prior to the war. That was the ultimate goal of Stalin's bloody industrialization (and collectivization was laying down the base for that). Even crippled as it was by the sudden German strike, it was still what ultimately allowed the Soviets to hold the tide (well, that and larger human reserves...).

      Remember that Stalin didn't really believe that Hitler would attack in 1941. And he didn't really begin preparing for war with Germany till after the fact.

      Stalin knew that a war with Hitler is inevitable, he just assumed that Hitler would hash it out with UK and France first. USSR was steadily preparing for war long before 1941, and even before 1939. If you look at the numbers of tanks, airplanes etc in Red Army before the commencement of hostilities, they are staggering. Ditto for other programs - e.g. OSOAVIAKhIM had 10% of the entire country population as members by 1941, and that was an organization essentially dedicated to creating an army reserve force for mobilization.

      However, it should be noted, in reference to Trucks that they were far more important than just Katyusha chassis. Tanks need a lot of fuel. and spare parts. and ammo. and the food and such for crews. and the supporting infantry. and....

      My focus on Katyushas was in the context of the sentence, which was that US mostly did not supply weapons to USSR (but trucks can be seen as components of such weapons). Yes, the trucks were actually used a lot elsewhere, and not even for strictly military purposes - of particular note is the "Road of Life" during the siege of Leningrad.

    120. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then explain why this AC has successfully obtained .pcap files (conveniently formatted for wireshark) from telcos while debugging network problems for them.

      Believe me-- they didn't just contain my device. I had other people's facebook passwords on mobile browsers and aircards before they went HTTPs only.

      They only give a fuck about privacy if they think they'll get caught.

    121. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any one who found themselves the subject of such surveillance would then change their behaviors

      Wait a moment, isn't that precisely what we want? That people who are "bad" realize they may run into trouble and drop what they are doing? Isn't that, in fact, the cheapest way to go about it? No involvement of the legal system needed!

    122. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what does it matter? if they use this to pinpoint you first and then just get other data to prosecute you with. it's not like they have to tell you that they got initial interest through this method.

      Tell me about it. It's almost enough to make me want to give up on this whole terrorist caper ... just when I though I'd found my vocation.

    123. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the NSA and Google aren't sharing data on a huge scale you're painfully naive.

      If you think the NSA and Google are sharing data on a huge scale you're painfully paranoid. Especially regarding the NSA --> Google data flow.

      Do you realize how many employees they share?

      I dunno, you tell me, greater or less than 50%?

    124. Re:Constitution by White+Flame · · Score: 2

      Ordinary people can vote based on principle, instead of party lines, and scare the politicians into shape by the one string they hold: The ability to get reelected.

      I know, I know, what sort of fantasy world do I live in?

    125. Re:Constitution by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      The courts do not permit "fishing expeditions".

      I would suggest following this issue through Groklaw. If there are legal alarms being raised, they're likely to be covered there.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    126. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that with all that data they would at least be able to track down Rachael from Card Services.

    127. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a totalitarian gubment, force is sufficient authorization.

      (what's this thing, "constitution"?)

    128. Re:Constitution by russotto · · Score: 1

      Why is nobody outraged about the fact that Verizon is collecting this data? The NSA isn't spying on you, Verizon is!

      Two answers, somewhat complementary
      1) Many of these records are needed for the operation of Verizon's business.
      2) The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ("CALEA")

    129. Re:Constitution by marnues · · Score: 1

      It prevents them from passing good laws. When a bill is high profile, a politician is an extension of his base supporters, not a reasonable human being looking out for the best interests of the country. Nothing good happens when politicians feel they have to appease their base.

    130. Re:Constitution by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Ordinary people can vote based on principle, instead of party lines, and scare the politicians into shape by the one string they hold: The ability to get reelected. I know, I know, what sort of fantasy world do I live in?

      The problem is that politicians tend to promise one thing during the campaign (or multiple things to different crowds), and then once snugly elected into office, fall back into the same status-quo conventions that they and their predecessors have maintained for decades or centuries. Those who stick to their principles often don't stay in office long, because there are enough people in opposition that they can vote the bastard out of office the next time.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    131. Re:Constitution by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      He's certainly slimmer than Speer.

      Göring is the gent in white on our left in the photo. Speer is on the other side of AH, to our right.

      But thanks for playing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    132. Re:Constitution by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about a criminal prosecution? You can be "detained" indefinitely without charge, at the whim of the Government. No prosecution needed; ergo, no need to worry about that pesky 4th Amendment.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    133. Re:Constitution by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The courts do not permit "fishing expeditions".

      Apparently, the current situation shows that some do...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    134. Re:Constitution by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The CIA, yes - prohibited from domestic spying. The NSA? No. The FBI (who actually got the data)? No.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    135. Re:Constitution by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Worked with games... why not democracy: Kickstart it. Raise the biggest stinking godamned wad of money ever publicly beheld, then buy enough of the fuckers to make something happen. It's supposed to be how PACs work. Let's put our $5 where our mouths are.

      You're right: the populace isn't stupid, but they need an easy conduit for change.

      https://www.unpac.org/
      or
      http://anticorruptionact.org/

      perhaps?

      --
      -
    136. Re:Constitution by cusco · · Score: 1

      It's actually not hard to get around this sort of thing, cops do it all the time. All it takes is having their girlfriend call in an 'anonymous tip' using illegally acquired information, friendly judge issues search warrant for that specific information, and Viola! Illegal evidence is now legal evidence. IANAL (thank all the gods) and rules on issuing search warrants probably vary from state to state, but I know from personal accounts that it was common in Michigan and has been done in Washington.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    137. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fantasy world do you live in that you think people have principles, or that the principles which people do have have any meaning or relevance to the protection of individual liberty?

    138. Re:Constitution by necrognome · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Your "papers" are personal writings (e.g. journals, diaries, etc.) or correspondence of which there are no other copies. Your bank records, heating bills, and "phone call metadata" are copies of data that third parties (Citibank, Duke Energy, AT&T) own. Obtaining said data does not involve a search of your home or your person.

      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
    139. Re:Constitution by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      No, it involves a search of *their* house or person or computer or whatever, and they, as congress has long recognized, have obligations to keep *our* stuff private. You're *really* missing the point.

      You think it's ok for the bank to just hand out your financial data? You're wrong. It's not ok. It's never been ok. It never will be ok; and these idiots are WAY out of line.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    140. Re:Constitution by sirlark · · Score: 1

      If your government hides something for longer than one election cycle, then that "something" is guaranteed to lose them votes, i.e. they're not representing their constiuents interests.

    141. Re:Constitution by elucido · · Score: 1

      If there are secret charges are there secret crimes too?

    142. Re:Constitution by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      You should read the Patriot Act and weep.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    143. Re:Constitution by Xest · · Score: 1

      No there isn't, the population still gets to vote.

      The fact they vote for the same old two parties rather than something different doesn't absolve them of blame, it just means that most of them are too stupid to know what's good for them.

    144. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only because no one can ever go against this great administration. Liberals love big government and dictators, just admit it fool? Or will you blame the Tea Party next? Why not, vile liberals and fake conservatives will be our down fall. Keep on kissin it.

      If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here.

      So, basically, it's Bush's fault. Got it.

    145. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grab your guns and start shooting before you are rounded up in guantanamo style detention camps, and shipped to the auschwitz - or equivalent. Hitler, Stalin, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, etc would be so proud of the POLICE STATE created by Bush and Obama. Arrest every politician and law enforcement officer above rank of constable, arrest every one involved in Influence Peddling, arrest every member of the high military, arrest the judges who are permitting these rights violations and turn them all over to the Hague, for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

    146. Re:Constitution by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      It's a phone company, you'll get lovely free minutes, everyone loves those, right?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    147. Re:Constitution by dbkluck · · Score: 1

      They are allowed to tell their lawyer, it says so right on page 2: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this order other than to . . . (b) an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the production of things in response to the Order . . . ." Don't know why this keeps getting repeated. The order is disgusting enough without making things up about it.

    148. Re:Constitution by Applekid · · Score: 1

      "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"

      It's long past time to divest Judge Rubberstamp of his position. The government does not have probable cause for such a search.

      Congressperson Rubberstamp should go as well. Unfortunately, the populace is stupid, and so we will continue to see such erosion of privacy based upon the flimsiest of disingenuous excuses.

      It doesn't really matter. The ones doing the actual work of the power wielders didn't affirm an oath, aren't elected into their positions, and are shielded from the consequence of their actions by their association with the government despite the nuremberg defense being considered useless.

      The law as government restraint? More like the law tells them where to be careful about getting caught breaking it, and where the law doesn't exist they definitely immediately defy the ideas that the constitution suggests.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    149. Re:Constitution by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Ordinary people can vote based on principle, instead of party lines, and scare the politicians into shape by the one string they hold: The ability to get reelected.

      I know, I know, what sort of fantasy world do I live in?

      The problem is that politicians tend to promise one thing during the campaign (or multiple things to different crowds), and then once snugly elected into office, fall back into the same status-quo conventions that they and their predecessors have maintained for decades or centuries. Those who stick to their principles often don't stay in office long, because there are enough people in opposition that they can vote the bastard out of office the next time.

      This is pretty much a distillation of the Obama presidency, at it's heart. At least when Bush was elected he was upfront about being a war monger.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    150. Re:Constitution by Applekid · · Score: 1

      let's quote Sen. Lindsey Graham

      "This was created by the Congress, and if we've made mistakes and we've gotten outside the lane then we're going to get inside the lane. But the consequence of taking these tools away from the American people through their government would be catastrophic."

      Do I even need to comment?

      Part of the problem is that there is no penalty to legislators and executives for violating the Constitution.

      There is. It's called impeachment.

      Of course, when everyone that has the power to call for impeachment is also violating their oath, there's no one left to take the corrective action.

      This is the mechanism by which corruption is sinister. All it takes is a foothold, and some minor and reasonable bending of the restraints because it's easier than doing things the right way, and over several generations, you get a fully corrupt institution where doing things the right way is unthinkable.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    151. Re:Constitution by bored · · Score: 1

      At least when Bush was elected he was upfront about being a war monger.

      The second time, the first time around he sounded like some kind of leftist hippy criticizing all the nation building and police actions the US was involved in around the world. I remember some interviewer pressing him on the issue, by listing assorted military actions and basically challenging him to say he wouldn't have done the same thing. I think out of the 5 or 6 listed Bush only was willing to really challenge one of them.

      That was part of Bush all the R's forgot the second time around. Mr upstanding sticks to his principals did a 180 on half the issues he ran on the first time around.

      Not to say Gore was any better, that guy came off as big brother incarnate. Same with Obama, Mr "Hope and Change" hasn't changed shit. In fact his "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is a insurance company wet dream. And more of the same government support of big business over the individual that has been going on forever in this country.

    152. Re:Constitution by kmoser · · Score: 1

      By that logic, Verizon could have refused to turn over their records and would have then been immune from prosecution by the government for non-compliance. All that's missing is Step 3: Profit.

    153. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you still think in terms of "liberals" and "conservatives" you really don't understand what's going on here."

      This. Both the left hand, and the right hand, are holding the club that's coming down on your head.

    154. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not unique to this administration as Nixon was known for using the IRS to get back at those who disagreed with him, but Obama's regime is by far the most heavy handed at intimidation, coercion, and punishing those disagreeing or airing dirty laundry of his administration.

      Look at what the IRS did to Dave Gaublitz (sp?) He is a disabled veteran who wrote the book "Muslim Mafia" exposing unpaid tax filing and exempt status while supporting terrorist organizations such as CAIR. As soon as congress started asking questions the IRS went after him saying he owed something like 146,000. Even though two consultants showed that it was the government that owes him.
      http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/06/05/irs-favored-hamas-linked-cair-while-targeting-those-who-exposed-them/

      So you can stand up, but in a rigged system you are unlikely to be the one that wins. Also they are making it against the law to disparage Islam (IE: tell the truth about them)

    155. Re:Constitution by redlemming · · Score: 1

      As the Constitution requires an oath to uphold the Constitution for those taking high public office, those involved in passing (or enforcing, or upholding) such unconstitutional laws are in violation of the most important requirement for holding such office.

      Further, if any right at all can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, it is certainly the right to ethical conduct on the part of members of government and legal professionals. This right vastly exceeds in importance the few rights actually upheld by high courts as arising under the 9th Amendment (such as in Roe vs. Wade). Even the appearance of ethical conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.

      At a minimum, violation of an oath of office, or of such a right, disqualifies any person so doing from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or engaging in the practice of law, or receiving a pension or other benefit from the government. Attempting to claim a pension is appropriately viewed as criminal fraud, and attempting to continue in office is appropriately viewed as impersonating a government official.

    156. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their CEO wouldn't go anywhere! He's one of the many CEO's that are handing over stuffed briefcases full of cash to our elected leaders (and prob some that aren't elected) and would never ever face any type of prosecution; not as long as they keep forking over the cash.

    157. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what authorizes legitimate government. Anyone think this is authorized? 4th amendment? Anyone?

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      No, it's not authorized. Somebody is going to have to pay.

      I'm on a mission.

      Try to stop me!

    158. Re:Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sue the Bus Company instead, you'll get more money!

    159. Re:Constitution by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Have you considered a more direct democracy rather than the representational one we have now? A word of caution, though. If you "love" democracy, don't go down that path, because it will inevitably lead you to the realization that democracy is inherently immoral and violent. That is, if you don't lie to yourself about it.

    160. Re:Constitution by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      I think that proportional democracy would be a much better shift. From what I've heard, every democracy established (or re-established) after the USA was formed used a proportional voting system, and the founding fathers in the USA even realized the benefit in their time, noting that our current system always tends into a strict 2-party system. By being 2-party, it's far too centralized and the political parties remain entrenched and are much more difficult to boot and reform. Proportional systems break a lot of that stranglehold and seem to allow governments to shift on principle in a much better way.

  3. zionists and nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    run the world

    and they want to know everything about you

    1. Re:zionists and nazis by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. 'Tis the sign of a mental illness -> the need to control everything around you, no matter the cost. They should probably get that looked at, before it gets the better of them.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  4. seems all the politicos are in favor by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

    Not only is the Executive branch in favor, but there's strong bipartisan support in the Legislative branch: immediately after this leak, both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dianne Feinstein for the Democrats, Saxby Chambliss for the Republicans) held a press conference to defend the necessity of this kind of dragnet surveillance, and to claim that it's not a big deal since it's "just" metadata.

    1. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

      From that article:

      This renewal is carried out by the FISA Court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore, it is lawful.

      Lawful is not the same as Constitutional. I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

      As you know, this is just metadata.

      If it is "just" anything then why are you so concerned about collecting it?

      The information goes into a database, ...

      That's even worse. They're COMPILING information about citizens without even having a "reasonable suspicion" about those citizens.

      ... the metadata, but cannot be accessed without whatâ(TM)s called, and I quote, "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that the records are relevant and related to terrorist activity.

      Who cares? If there is "reasonable, articulable suspicion" THEN you go after the records. With a WARRANT. And the warrant IDENTIFIES those SPECIFIC people you have a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of.

      As you know, and Iâ(TM)ve pointed out many times, there have been approximately 100 plots and also arrests made since 2009 by the FBI.

      Go on ...

      I do not know to what extent metadata was used or if it was used, but I do know this: ...

      If YOU do not know then who DOES know?

      And if YOU do not know then YOU should not be trying to IMPLY that there is any link between collecting this information and cracking any plots.

      I do not know to what extent metadata was used or if it was used, but I do know this: That terrorists will come after us if they can and the only thing we have to deter this is good intelligence.

      More of our people die when their own family kills them than die from "terrorists" in the US.

      If "the only thing" that will protect us from these "terrorists" is collecting information on our own citizens then I am willing to take that risk.

    2. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I'm in favor of states' rights.

      Obama and Bush are both good people. We handed them power based on the assumption that they are good people. But what if the next President, or the one after that, or the one after that, is the next Hitler or Stalin in waiting?

      The more powers we remove from our truest balance on the federal government, the individual governments of the many states and the well-known freedoms of the people, the more likely we prepare a power that can enslave us all or wipe humanity off earth.

      The states need to stand up to this and enact constitutional change, in order to provide recourse against such acts and logistically enable that power to be used.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I want Dianne Feinsteins metadata, then. Shouldn't be a big issue, after all Malte Spitz did it, and we didn't find out anything about him... except just about everything he did.

      And even that was just the position data. It did not include who he called, it was just a simple newspaper (with limited resources) doing it, and it was not cross-checked with every other person in Germany.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      Real threats to our National Security will know better than to use open communications or phones as well. They tighten the grip on the populace and all the rogue elements just dance around the edges and in the shadows anyway.

    5. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

      Of course back in 1776 you couldn't detonate an explosive with a cell phone... or use a cell phone, or make a phone call, or drive in a car, or fly in an airplane...

    6. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

      The founding fathers fucked slaves and failed to include women when handing out rights. The constitution exists independent of them, and what you think they may have wanted has no merit in any discussion on the Constitutionality of an issue. Stop putting dead men on a pedestal and come up with proper reasoning for your arguments.

    7. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Troll

      The "critical tool" will become the only tool, and every problem will be a nail. Catch a drug dealer? Look at his phone records. Catch a tax cheater? His telephone friends probably cheat as well. Every government agency will want to get their hands on this "critical tool".

      Water-boarding and other not-so-squeaky-clean methods of torture can also be a "critical tool" for extracting evidence from suspects. Let's get that practice up and running at every police station in the country. If we are going to shit-can the Constitution, we might as well go all the way, and be open and done with it.

      The former East German secret police, the Stasi, had an extensive and effective network of "informal employees", who were basically informants who were threatened and coerced into cooperating. Their alternative would have been jail for "asocial behavior". They had wives spying on their own husbands. Yet another potential "critical tool." Lots of radical Islamic folks living in the US have relatives abroad. Well, they can choose to work with the NSA/FBI/CIA . . . or there might be a terrible "drone accident" where the relatives live.

      Sociologists and psychologists like to define "power" in terms of how the behavior affects another. If you do something, and I change my behavior, you have power over me. If you do something, and I don't change my behavior, you have no power over me.

      Given that a bunch of wacko Islamist terrorists have caused the US government to stray from the values embodied in the Constitution . . . those terrorists folks have a lot of power over the US government.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Lawful is not the same as Constitutional.

      Constitutional is a subset of lawful. It means that some particular action is allowed by the laws set forth in the Constitution. There is no action that is also lawful that is simultaneously not also constitutional.

      I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

      Oh, I see. By "Constitutional", you mean "whatever I think the Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name) would have thought". We really need to move away from the sanctification of the people who signed the Constitution, away from the sanctification of the Constitution, and especially move away from injecting hypotheticals about what some people in 1776 may or may not think about a specific situation in 2013. We're adults, and we need to take responsibility for figuring out our own shit. Yes, they were very bright people with some very interesting insights into political and governmental structures, but they were not all-knowing saints. We need to stop treating them as such.

      More of our people die when their own family kills them than die from "terrorists" in the US.

      This is something I wish more people would keep in mind. It's like the "think of the children" mantra: in the vast majority of the cases (over 2/3), child molestation is carried about by people close the victim. We'd be much safer if we'd try to solve the more common problem of domestic abuse than that of terrorism. Especially if we spend trillions (hello, two wars) on the smaller problem and a couple of hundred million to address the other.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      That's a mighty fine non-sequitur you've got there.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    10. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Real threats to our National Security will know better than to use open communications or phones as well. They tighten the grip on the populace and all the rogue elements just dance around the edges and in the shadows anyway.

      Indeed. Does the NSA understand this? I would think so, which makes me wonder what the real agenda is.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    11. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by mr_shifty · · Score: 2

      The Constitution is the highest law in the land. If it is not Constitutional, it cannot, by definition, be lawful.

      --
      And the circle of life continues to spin, occasionally wobbling on its axis thanks to the weighty presence of dumb.
    12. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Jockle · · Score: 1

      And?

    13. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good people my ass. You don't rise to the presidential nominee level by being good. You get there by connections and back room deals.

    14. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do not know to what extent metadata was used or if it was used, but I do know this: That terrorists will come after us if they can and the only thing we have to deter this is good intelligence.

      More of our people die when their own family kills them than die from "terrorists" in the US.

      If "the only thing" that will protect us from these "terrorists" is collecting information on our own citizens then I am willing to take that risk.

      ^ This. Screw the terrorists, they're a bunch of losers like the morons in Boston who get lucky once in a while. We shouldn't change the way we live for any of these tools. And certainly not by setting all the trappings of a police state.

    15. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly doesn't help his case that most of those "terror" plots the FBI is so fond of announcing they've foiled are ones they haven't typically instigated in the first place using provocateurs.

    16. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Of course back in 1776 you couldn't... fly in an airplane...

      You mean everybody was on the list back then?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      If "the only thing" that will protect us from these "terrorists" is collecting information on our own citizens then I am willing to take that risk.

      I'm right there with you. However, we're in a shrinking class of people. Average Joes today don't really care about the NSA's activities because it doesn't directly affect them in a way they can see with one of their five senses, right now. Normally, Constitutional liberty fits in at about #273 on most people's list of priorities right now, behind kids, sex, debt, jobs, food on the table, the latest iPhone, Facebook's latest interface change, squeaky brakes on the car, vacations, fantasy football, etc.

      It usually takes a jarring event or crisis to wake people up, and even then the response isn't always the right one. For example, on a micro level, the first time someone is a victim of a crime (burglary, grand theft auto, etc.) they're ready to throw up cameras all around themselves and record everything to keep themselves safe, rather than filing a report and hoping for the best from police. It's totally irrational and won't do any good, but it makes them more comfortable. The same thing happened on a macro level after 9/11, and we're still living under a government that's increasing its power grab because enough people are comfortable with it, while the rest are tin foil, non-conformist crackpots.

      When you put all this together, with a federal government that is increasingly gridlocked and/or bought and paid for, you get a 4th Amendment that has a giant asterisk attached to it, with the footnote saying: "Only applicable when convenient or comfortable."

    18. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers would NOT have supported this.

      Yeah, they probably would have. They already wiped out the 1st amendment with the Aliens and Sedition Act. The protection and authority of the state was first and foremost on their minds even back then.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Nyder · · Score: 1

      This is why I'm in favor of states' rights.

      Obama and Bush are both good people. ...

      I was cool with the first sentence, but you totally threw me with the second one.

      Bush was NOT a good person. He was a douche, warmonger & oil puppetman.

      Obama? Don't think so, we are losing more rights under him then the warmonger before him.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    20. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      And if YOU do not know then YOU should not be trying to IMPLY that there is any link between collecting this information and cracking any plots.

      Just heard a congressman on the news during a press conference saying they actually cracked one plot using this metadata.

    21. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Obama and Bush are both good people.

      Wow, I wonder how many ppl you just got in a tizzy.

    22. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Shhh. You're responding to NPCs...people who would praise the wonders of slavery when clad in irons, and speak of the wonders of 'master.' They're already lost.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    23. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      ... it's not a big deal since it's "just" metadata.

      I wonder how long it'll be before they consider any third party stored data with no givernment issued information included "just" metadata....

    24. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      This is about a broken democracy really. Special interests and military industrial complex. I think its also about a major disconnect from people dealing with terrorisim, diplomacy, international espionage on a daily basis from what most Americans need to deal with. These guys at the top levels have trained and compromised all their lives to protect Americas interests at the behest of the big money that goes into projects like these and gets them elected. But what they value is not what Joe Smoe working construction jobs on the side of the street values. They don't understand that all this misuse of our money and regulation is going to damage their position so thoroughly in the end that its just going to cause another huge collapse. I don't know. Obama may really truly honestly think it his duty to bless this stuff and "get the right people" in the right cabinet positions.

      Its insane, the politics of it are almost impossible to change unless we start taking a step back from a federally regulated system. I had a good talk with a close friend today. They don't think it can be fixed from within purely by voting and we sat there and frowned at each other for quite awhile. Not because of disagreement. But because we just see this corruption running deeper until people absolutely get fed up.

    25. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      We really need to move away from the sanctification of the people who signed the Constitution, away from the sanctification of the Constitution

      We already did that. Thats worked out oh so well that the government is now spying on you carte-blanc.

      The founding fathers were free from coercion when they jotted down the new limits of government that no country had ever tried before, and you sit there defending a reversion to totalitarianism as if its the right way forward.

      Go suck on Obama's cock some more, you fucking cock sucking prick.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If it's not that big a deal, then you kids can just leave that metadata at home when you go over to play at Jimmy's.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    28. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by celle · · Score: 1

      1. "Lawful is not the same as Constitutional."

        2."Constitutional is a subset of lawful. It means that some particular action is allowed by the laws set forth in the Constitution. There is no action that is also lawful that is simultaneously not also constitutional."

      Written word like all communication is rarely correct in all situations. Context is important. In the first(1) posters' context, lawful is "as passed by congress" and constitutional as "allowed under the constitution" which supersedes congressional and presidential authority. Yours(2) is all laws are the same regardless of context which is actually wrong in the previous context and current usage.

      "Oh, I see. By "Constitutional", you mean "whatever I think the Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name) would have thought""

      Context again. Without knowing the intent of the writers, we won't understand the intended meaning of the wording in the Constitution and it could therefore be manipulated to mean anything. Without history, how can we know who we are?

      "We're adults, and we need to take responsibility for figuring out our own shit."

      But that's never done in a vacuum. Without knowing where we've been and having supports from then, how do you ever hope to make anything that will work better?

      "Yes, they were very bright people with some very interesting insights into political and governmental structures,"

      Those same people wrote the founding documents of our country that we still use to this day. Don't like their input, write a new constitution and survive the bloody onslaught to get it implemented. Otherwise shut the hell up as you don't know what you're talking about.

      I know this is probably a troll but garbage like the parent comment shouldn't go unanswered. The guy should spend some time in Cardinal Richelieu's torture chamber.

      fake sig: As I stare into the monolith that is slashdot and I hear myself exclaim "My god, it's full of morons".

    29. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Combine this sniffing of "who talked to whom" with the IRS targeting of groups tending to be politically opposed to the President. I think it's not a leap at all to determine a possible "real agenda"...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    30. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      But you could fart on a raft to propel yourself through the sea though. Your point is?

    31. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Obama and Bush are both good people. We handed them power based on the assumption that they are good people. But what if the next President, or the one after that, or the one after that, is the next Hitler or Stalin in waiting?

      The LOWEST estimates are more than 100,000 people dead, as a direct result of the US invasion. Most estimates are much higher, of course.

      What does it take to start calling the commander-in-chief the next Hitler or Stalin? A million dead? Ten million? A hundred million?

      Oh wait, maybe those people don't count because they were Iraqi. So they're not human beings, like Americans are.

      Sources:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
      www.iraqbodycount.org

    32. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot, we tried states rights here before: Articles of Confederation, it DID NOT WORK, and thus a much more elegant solution was formed: Constitution.

      This is just plain old ignoring the Constitution and everything our country stands for, has nothing to do with law, or rights.

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    33. Re:seems all the politicos are in favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't make much sense, does it? Unless you consider that those wars were not about terrorism, but about power in the form of money and oil.

  5. Double plus good! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Seriously, I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the NSA had a 'who knows who' database sense before AT&T was broken up.

    No matter how careful you are about not leaving tracks the government knows about who you are by who you regularly call.

    For example, I've never been arrested. But the government knows I'm not a stinking law abider because, basically, none of the people I'm in regular contact with are god damn law abiders.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Double plus good! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      For example, I've never been arrested. But the government knows I'm not a stinking law abider because, basically, I exist and I'm not one of them.

      FTFY

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Double plus good! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Even law abiders, can't. But they are trying, I'm not. I simply don't care, except to the extent I can get caught. Therefor I go in column B.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Double plus good! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the NSA did, perhaps it did not. That it has made its moves known in such a public manner, or rather allowed them to be made known, signals only one thing: they believe they have nothing to fear whether their actions are right or wrong. It's essentially the highest contempt possible for the common man, the equivalent of a king wandering into a peasant's house, and raping his wife as he watches, because the king knows the peasant won't do a thing about it. It's the NSA saying "We've won!"

      "For example, I've never been arrested. But the government knows I'm not a stinking law abider because, basically, none of the people I'm in regular contact with are god damn law abiders." -> On the day when they decide that their power is secure, and move in unison to remove those they have long relished to silence, it will not matter whether you abided by any law or not. Ask the Jews whether it mattered when they came for them. Ask anyone else included in that group of unfortunates (Christians, homosexuals, the mentally enfeebled, etc.). Even 'faithful' Germans, of unquestionable blood, were, no doubt, found and executed / imprisoned.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  6. Obama? by Dripdry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, I think we know who the tool is.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was almost what I posted. I figure it takes a tool to know a tool...

    2. Re:Obama? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: a certain prominent politician who taught Constitutional Law for eight years?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It has bipartisan support and is authorized by the Patriot Act passed a decade ago which in turn expanded FISA from several decades ago. Blaming Obama is like not seeing the forest for the trees. The system is broken. It matters very little whether a Democrat or Republican gets elected. A vote for either is truly a wasted vote. Unfortunately, the two parties control every branch of government from the city up to the national level. They've rigged everything in their favor from how to get on a ballot to the layout of districts.

    4. Re:Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think we know who the tool is.

      Everyone who voted for him and everyone who voted for any of the elected "representatives". In short almost everyone who voted and almost no matter who they voted for.

      If they still don't realize it then they're still part of the problem.

      Would any of the alternatives have been better to any significant degree? Doubtful.

      When everyone is fucked everyone is fucked together, see the silver lining as the digital apocalypse comes crashing through your life :D It won't matter if your home is a cardboard box or a skyscraper penthouse, a ranch, a farm, a mansion, or the white house and your money and stocks won't even make your butt sore cause who can wipe with zeroes?

      Deep down we all know it's coming. Just a matter of time.

  7. So much for freedom ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.

    "We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".

    If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.

    America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:So much for freedom ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.

      Your hat is still a bit snug. Worst case? Hardly. "Record all conversations between all US subscribers and anyone they call, as well as location and time, and provide that with subscriber names and addresses..." would be worse. "Secretly activate their camera and record video of them making the call..." would be a next step up.

      "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".

      With what? Making a phone call is not a crime. Five years ago? What's the statute of limitations on making a phone call in your universe? If the call was long distance, they've had this ability for decades. If they dump the data for the drug dealer, they'll see your call information. Have many people been arrested for making a phone call yet?

      Now, that information may have been used to trigger an investigation of your contact with that drug dealer, but a simple phone call ("he advertised a bike on Craigslist ...") is not illegal.

    2. Re:So much for freedom ... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".

      Quickly ceasing to be free? It's been a while - we just weren't aware of it, kind of like not discovering that someone else used the last of the peanut butter when you go to make yourself a sandwich.

      Things are driven by "we have an opinion which says that this is OK", yes. The word you are looking for is "consensus'. When those in power have it, they do whatever they so damn please. It just so happens that those who hold the actual power at this point are not the ones that get elected: the ones who are getting elected are pawns put in place to distract us and they fill out the ranks of both parties now.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:So much for freedom ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".

      Hey, we show you called the number of this drug dealer 5 years ago... clang, jail cell.

      Oh yeah, we forgot to check that the person that *had* that number 5 years ago was your grandma, who died a year later, and the drug dealer only got that number 2 years ago since it wasn't being used anymore.

    4. Re:So much for freedom ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you 5 years ago called someone busted in a drug bust today, you probably had it coming all along.

    5. Re:So much for freedom ... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      As someone who frequently gets accused of having the tinfoil hat on a little snug, this is pretty much the worst case scenario.

      "We're going to monitor everything, and maybe we'll get lucky" -- and how long before the technology progresses to the point that they can come back and say "hey, we see from phone records you called this alleged drug dealer 5 years ago, so we'll be charging you".

      If this isn't about as Orwellian as you can get, I don't know what would be. Give up all your freedoms so we can make sure you keep your freedom is a joke -- Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace.

      America is quickly ceasing to be free. And I'm pretty sure this doesn't pass Constitutional muster -- everything nowadays is driven by "we have an opinion which says this is ok, so we're going to do it".

      Dude, my tinfoil hat is strapped on tight. This revelation does not surprise me in the least. I have assumed it has been going on since 9/11 at least, if not before. Perhaps not in the same way, but the ECHELON and Carnivore systems have been in use for decades.

      The fun part for me is that often when I voice such opinions people say I'm being paranoid, or that I can't prove it so it's not happening (If we operated only on what we could prove, we wouldn't have much). Well now it's out, and everyone can kiss my ass. The government is spying on you. All the time. Why? I can't say. Various reasons I'd guess. I have my theories, and terrorism is at the bottom of the list. But the fact is the NSA (and who knows who else; CIA and NRO anybody?) is sucking up all the data they can get without much impediment.

      This program was secret until it was leaked. Are we really so naive as to think that worse things aren't being done that haven't been leaked? Maybe so, but I haven't been surprised at any of the government or business overreach in the last 15 years. So who's the one with the faulty paradigm? Sorry for the rant, I'm a little cranky today.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:So much for freedom ... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      With what? Making a phone call is not a crime.

      Absolutely! Of course, we notice that you've been extremely active in agitating against the Powers That Be. And whilst we may not actually prevail in a court case against you, we can ensure you're arrested, put into jail without bail, and basically bankrupted in an attempt to clear your own name. Think you'll ever get a job again after a high-profile arrest and long pre-trial about your accused meth dealing to kindergartners?

      No, if you're smart, "citizen", you'll go ahead and just stay quiet about your political views for a while, and we won't have to use these records of that phone call to form the basis of an arrest...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:So much for freedom ... by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      This program was secret until it was leaked. Are we really so naive as to think that worse things aren't being done that haven't been leaked? Maybe so, but I haven't been surprised at any of the government or business overreach in the last 15 years. So who's the one with the faulty paradigm? Sorry for the rant, I'm a little cranky today.

      Don't apologize. You're allowed to be cranky when people say you're over-reacting, then a few years pass and what you said was happening did happen. Then you point that out to people and they still think you're overreacting. Then you scratch your head and wonder why people enjoy eating shit sandwiches. What is obvious to you and me is not obvious to others. I have my cranky days too.

      Don't apologize. Just quietly figure out who you can talk to about it and speak softly. For the people who you can't talk to, don't say anything at all to them. They'll be the first to point at you when they are asked who doesn't like shit sandwiches.

    8. Re:So much for freedom ... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your reply and support. I have learned over the last little while to follow the advice you give. One of my close friends recently said he thought it was funny that most people who know me would have no idea what my politics are or what I really think about what is happening in the world. I seem so normal! I have learned to keep my mouth shut to most people because they have a fundamentally different perspective, and I can't prove to them that the world is not as they think it is. It's frustrating at times, but it has led me to a new view of the truth. They have theirs and I have mine, and that kinda just has to be okay.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  8. what to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is now if the American people aim to do shit about it.

    1. Re:what to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Who wants another Tianaman square in front of the capitol? The president won't even be there. He'll be golfing with his rich buddies. He'll get a txt on his fucking iphone about it and delete it. Someone will have a speech prepared for him for when he gets back, which he'll gladly get payed to orate.

    2. Re:what to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F*ck off. I'm busy eating and watching American Idol.

    3. Re:what to do by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      its ok, if he deletes the text it will still be available to him apparently!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:what to do by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      And who's gong to be able to request that information. It will be lost deleted or classified. Actually I wager that its already classified. They've already pruned the good people out of the military. I suspect the NSA and CIA are the same. The last good guy I knew with any authority has retired by now. Or the rest have been indoctrinated. I really regret not keeping in touch. To at least influence opinion through friendship. But that is not who I am. I apologize though for not doing enough.

  9. That's it! by briancox2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We, the voters have a choice. Either start supporting ONLY politicians who fight back against this suppression of our Constitutional rights, or our Republic is doomed.

    Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    1. Re:That's it! by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

      Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.

      I don't care for his free-trade fundamentalism, but at some point civil rights and liberties must take precedence over economic concerns (a job doesn't make one happy if it's in a hard-labor camp). I'm as glad to have had an opportunity to vote for him as I have been to vote against our senior senator.

    2. Re:That's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016

      Is he running on the "Bat Shiat Crazy" ticket again?

    3. Re:That's it! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You have the wrong attitude. Throw that "Republic" shit out. This is New Europe and we need 50 little states, not another Roman Empire (failed) or German Empire (failed) or Mongolian Empire (failed) or French Napoleonic Empire (failed) or Oceanic Empire (failing). Look at the European Union (failing) and you'll see the same shit.

    4. Re:That's it! by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Civil rights and liberties, cannot exist without economic rights and liberties. The policies of ever increasing regulation and rules are not expanding our economic rights and liberties.

    5. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      At some point your economic rights can deprive me of my liberties.

    6. Re:That's it! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.

      There are 3 problems with your solution:
      1. Rand Paul may oppose the suppression, but his party wholeheartedly supports it. That will prevent him from actually doing what he says he wants to do.

      2. There's a question of whether the various three-letter agencies are doing this without any kind of authorization from any president, or lying to the president about what they're doing and / or why they're doing it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if career spooks were doing all sorts of illegal things and classifying it to avoid getting caught.

      3. Obama entered office claiming at least to be fighting against the suppression of our constitutional rights, and even had a background in constitutional law. Either something happened to him that changed his mind, or he was lying all along. Either way, what's true of Obama could just as easily be true of Paul.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:That's it! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      That's silly. Unless your view of liberty means free stuff for you, paid for by others.

    8. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not at all. You need to think more.

      For instance a monopoly provider of X can decide not to serve group Y. That is just a really simple one. I suggest you go look up left libertarianism and learn more.

    9. Re:That's it! by tukang · · Score: 1

      Rand Paul is a Republican and if you expect any change by continuing to vote for the same two parties that have been in power since the beginning then you're insane. The clearest message you can send that you want change is to vote for another party.

      By the way, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rand-paul-learns-to-love-the-drug-war/.

    10. Re:That's it! by Bartles · · Score: 2

      What does a corporate monopoly have to do with MY economic rights? Most monopolies are created by regulation. There is a huge difference between being free-market and pro-corporate. They are mutually exclusive. There is no left libertarianism. That's like saying someone is a capitalist communist.

    11. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Left libertarianism existed before the kind you love so much. It is more like saying anarcho-communist, which also exists. Before you you respond go educate yourself.

    12. Re:That's it! by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      We, the voters have a choice. Either start supporting ONLY politicians who fight back against this suppression of our Constitutional rights, or our Republic is doomed. Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's 1984. Support candidates who fight that suppression. Rand Paul is looking really good for 2016.

      Meh, Rand Paul is kind of an idiot. You're better off voting Green party.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:That's it! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Just because Mr Chomsky tries to give it legitamacy, does not make it valid. Any form of libertarianism that is dependent on authoritarianism or even totalitarianism to implement, is not libertarian at all. North Korea calling itself a Democratic Republic, does not make it so.

    14. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Nice you glanced at the wiki page. That must make you such an authority on the subject.

      Here was the first libertarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque

      You will note he was a pretty far left and long before your time.

    15. Re:That's it! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I prefer classical liberalism myself. You seem to think that left and libertarian are synonymous. They are not, as we are rapidly discovering.

    16. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I do not, I am merely point out it exists. Their views explain my first comment about your economic rights being able to infringe on my liberties.

      I think you don't know what you prefer. Don't worry more time and education will sort that out.

    17. Re:That's it! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      At some point your economic rights can deprive me of my liberties.

      That's silly. Unless your view of liberty means free stuff for you, paid for by others.

      For instance a monopoly provider of X can decide not to serve group Y.

      That falls under the category of "free stuff for you, paid for by others". They paid for it, which means it's theirs. If you want it you'll have to convince them to give it to you of their own free will. Your liberties do not extend to taking it from them without their consent. That would deprive them of their liberties.

      Action depends on the ownership and consumption of property. What use is the freedom to speak, without the right to a place to gather people to hear your speech? Without the right to save up a surplus so that you have the opportunity to speak, as opposed to spending all your time providing for your own basic needs? What use is the freedom to live and pursue happiness, without the right to ownership of the products of your labor with which to provide for your own future? Liberty without economic rights is a contradiction. Of the two, economic rights are more fundamental. If you have economic rights then you have liberty; if you do not, then your liberty will always be subject to the whim of those who control the allocation of property.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    18. Re:That's it! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Did you ever read the book? *Spoiler alert* The ultimate aim of communism is to abolish the state.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:That's it! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      ....or by virtue of being in a business with an extremely high barrier to entry, like a utility. Those are really the only true monopolies that exist anymore, and even they're limited in their power to some degree by being restricted on how much of the total domestic market they can hold.

    20. Re:That's it! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Give in to fear, or quietly remove those behind this debacle. Wonder which I would choose...

      Let's see here. We have at least three scandals, possibly five, in so many weeks, with the US government. We have a President who, despite formerly being an avowed civil rights defender and constitutional lawyer, is acting completely contrary to character, and, for all intents and purposes, is showing what is probably the truth of these matters: he has no power, he's the mouthpiece, and he's the one being ruled. That's putting things in a kind light.

      So, who is pulling the strings? We have carte blanche for the intelligence types...I haven't heard or seen a single "No" to them in what feels like ages. We have the Pentagon which appears to want a showdown with China...which we cannot afford (i.e. a Pyrrhic victory...we might 'win' against them, but we'd be relegated to second class status for centuries afterwards).

      Now, I am the first to think that a nuclear strike, or death by meteor storm, or just slicing the Earth clean in half would end all of these problems...these options do present themselves on a first name basis when I ponder these situations. However, since we're all trying to get along, no matter how some people seem to test the patience of others, let's try the useless, borderline 'never works' options, if only to say we did. If there is a cancer eating this government, let's find it and remove it, before breaking out the more favorable armaments.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    21. Re:That's it! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Ah, but a lot of people seem to think that Roman life is the highlight of civilization. They cannot dream of any city better than that of Rome, and pine for lives they never lived.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    22. Re:That's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertariansim has been around for well over a century and is about as far left as it gets without going full anarchist. American right wing authoritarians have taken the term Libertarian to use as a propaganda term, is only about 40 years old and is utterly inconsistent with classical libertarian philosophy. There are no real libertarians in American politics. None. People like Rand Paul are Libertarians in the same way the Patriot Act is patriotic.

    23. Re:That's it! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Civil rights and liberties, cannot exist without economic rights and liberties. The policies of ever increasing regulation and rules are not expanding our economic rights and liberties.

      Standard libertarian fare. The "rights" to low taxes, pollute freely, and no zoning regulations are more important than minor considerations like the Bill of Rights.

    24. Re:That's it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just because someone uses a word doesn't make him that thing. Anarcho-communist he remains.

      Philosophizing about non-authoritarian communism is a very long way from pragmatic minimum _necessary_ government.

      The fact remains that for large groups you can't have a planned economy without authoritarianism. The only working large self organizing economy observed to date is a capitalist one. Chomsky can suck it, he reached his Shockley moment a good two decades ago. He's just a _little_ less obnoxious then Shockley was and says more PC things.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:That's it! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      A lot of people need to take the eye test.

      I

      AM

      SOFA KING

      WE TODD ED

    26. Re:That's it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      After the history of Communism I think we can ignore the stated pie in the sky 'objectives' of a now ancient book of navel gazing. Especially in light of the failure of the same book to make _any_ accurate predictions regarding the system it criticized. Where is the zero profit world? Where are all the monopolies?

      In hindsight Marx and Engels get a D-; they only score that high based on effort. Should have studied 'Wealth of Nations' until they understood. Adam Smith gets an A+. Right down to predicting the need for effective market regulation, the danger or miss-regulation and at least some of the problems with corporations.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:That's it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Green party == 'full idiots'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:That's it! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "Wealth of Nations" - Also pie in the sky. Lots of nice theories, few of which, just like communism, actually put into practice. Much of the world is suffering that now. Doesn't matter. In either case, corruption always has a direct relationship to proximity to power.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    29. Re:That's it! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you have the right to travel? Do you have the right to prevent trespass on your property? If both exist, then they must, at some point, come into conflict. The economic right is land ownership, the civil right is the right to travel. If I bought all the land around you and refused you entry, my economic rights deprived you of your liberty.

    30. Re:That's it! by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Civil rights and liberties, cannot exist without economic rights and liberties. The policies of ever increasing regulation and rules are not expanding our economic rights and liberties.

      I concur. But that's not what I was talking about. Free-trade means something quite specific. To his credit, Paul (the younger although this applies equally to the elder) is critical of the so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA, which are really a kind of managed trade not structured for the benefit of most Americans. And I largely agree with him that truly free trade would be preferable to the bilateral and multilateral managed trade agreements we have. Even so, I think neither free trade nor managed trade agreements are best for every industry and they should be abhorred across the board if trading partners are not playing on a level field (currency manipulators, those who rely on slave labor/sweatshops, those who do not have at least somewhat similar environmental concerns, etc., all have a competitive advantage in our market and not for the common good). I would argue that treating free-trade as an unqualified good is less thoughtful policy than dogmatism.

      Still, priorities. And, in spite of the irritating shenanigans with Chuck Hegel, I'm happy to have Paul as my senator--a man who attacked the 2012 NDAA, went after drone policy, opposed Libya hawks and continues to give grief to Iran and Syria hawks, wishes to end the drug war, supports internet freedom (and the Bill of Rights), etc. I think he's a bit dogmatic about free-trade and certain of his views about capitalism, but maybe it takes someone who's dogmatic to actually retain principles in Washington. For that he earns my gratitude and vote. I'll just have to vote locally for someone with a more down to earth view of economics. Pity Gatewood died.

    31. Re:That's it! by joh · · Score: 1

      Little states failed much more often than empires, it's just that nobody cared very much about it (except those living there and dying in wars and famines and so on).

    32. Re:That's it! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      again. youre spouting BS like a typical slashdotter who knows nothing about which he speaks.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    33. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Which means your right wing libertarianism quickly becomes corporate feudalism. Glad to see you are at least honest about that.

    34. Re:That's it! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No one was talking about him. The poster brought him up as he saw him on the wikipage.

    35. Re:That's it! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Really? It looks like all of Europe did pretty good for a while. The Irish Potato Famine didn't seem to get much help from their British overlords. France didn't fail so much as they threw out their asinine Government. Germany didn't fail so much as they lost a war with the entire fucking world, twice--and the first one drove them into economic depression, which is what's happening to the US (don't ask what's going on with the EU). Russia didn't fail so much as it's just never been any good to begin with--Russia sucks, the Russian people aren't so bad. Poland didn't fail so much as it was invaded by Germany, and still did fine. Africa didn't fail so much as it was invaded by France and Britain and stripped for resources, like the Cardassians did to Bajor. Norway didn't fail so much as it's a fucking rich tiny ass nation state. Switzerland didn't fail so much as you'll get your ass kicked if you march an army in there. Sweden didn't fail, but they've been looking at ruining themselves by joining the EU--a move economists have speculated would destroy the Swedish Economy by conjoining it directly to an unstable empire. Puerto Rico isn't a failed state, but it's scoffed at by Americans who just don't get the culture--a culture where the hard-working white collar man is held in revere, unlike the American culture of wishing you were rich and hating the rich because you're not one of them.

    36. Re:That's it! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Interesting conceptual world you live in. Must be a strange place.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:That's it! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "Conceptual"? Factual... Are you really going to try to convince me that no matter what system of authority you are under, corruption and power aren't a matched set? Joined at the hips? Inextricably linked? Please, stop the pretending.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    38. Re:That's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limited effective choice, when those in power can set their own advertising budgets.

  10. Critical tools by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If our government believes throwing out the Constitution is what it takes to protect our nation from terrorist threats, I'm less scared of the terrorists than I am of the government.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Critical tools by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You should be a lot more afraid of the government than of terrorists. Your probability of being affected by a terrorist attack is approximately zero (odds of being killed by terrorists are about one in 20 million for Americans). Your probability of being affected by your government is approximately one.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Critical tools by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Exactly, I like the way you put that.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Critical tools by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      If our government believes throwing out the Constitution is what it takes to protect our nation from terrorist threats, I'm less scared of the terrorists than I am of the government.

      Jeez -- that's a cold bucket of ice water to the noggin. Our government has become such an afront to our nation that the epithet, "You want the terrorists to win!" invokes the contemplative response, "Well, not exactly..."

    4. Re:Critical tools by intermodal · · Score: 1

      See, I believe that when we give up our freedoms because we're afraid of terrrorists...now, that's when the terrorists win.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    5. Re:Critical tools by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      See, I believe that when we give up our freedoms because we're afraid of terrrorists...now, that's when the terrorists win.

      Oh yes, I completely understand. I was not glibly bashing some perceived lack of sufficient jingoism in your comment. I intended to express my own dismay at the painful position these authoritarians are putting us in.

      Well, that, and an attempt at some seriously dark humor. Cuz you've gotta find a way to laugh.

    6. Re:Critical tools by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I didn't take offense in any way, nor did I think you were doing so. Most current elected officials rely heavily on false logic of various stripes, running the full range including "for the children", "fair share", "unless you want the terrorists to win", and so on. i think more often than not, everyone agrees on the Good Thing®, but where the people differ from the government is the "how" and "at what cost" (not just monetary, but not exclusive of it either). parts.

      I entirely caught your jest, I actually meant my last post as more of a clarification for anyone who didn't share our dry and frank humor.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:Critical tools by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Cool :) And, in case it isn't obvious, I very much appreciated the dry and frank humor in your post.

    8. Re:Critical tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. If we allow the government of the "land of the free" to terrorize its citizens in the name of "national security," then what exactly are we protecting??

    9. Re:Critical tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving answers to that one only makes people invoke Godwin's Law.

    10. Re:Critical tools by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I figured as much ^_^

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  11. To clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These have been requests for massive packets of communications from phone number to phone number, who is calling (or texting) whom. It is not the content of the messages. What is dangerous is whether they are confined to what they can do with that information, IE can they find out about frequency of my calls to my 900 number mistress and leverage/blackmail me? There are things that could be done with that information that I trust they do not intend, but nevertheless may allow to get out.

    1. Re:To clarify by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      There are things that could be done with that information that I trust they do not intend, but nevertheless may allow to get out.

      See, there's your problem right there. We have little way of knowing what is being done with that information, or what information is really being collected. I know this story is about metadata. How do we know what else is being done secretly? I see no reason to trust anyone's intentions in these matters.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  12. Critical Tool by gewalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In this case, the "critical tools" are Obama, Eric Holder, or who-ever is behind this large-scale invasion of privacy. I know plenty of people (mostly liberals) complained when the warrant-less wiretaps happened under Bush. It appears that these are considerably larger in scope.

    1. Re:Critical Tool by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      I know plenty of people (mostly liberals) complained when the warrant-less wiretaps happened under Bush.

      As it happens, I know plenty of people (mostly liberals) who are complaining about the warrant-less wiretaps happening under Obama. The few people I know who still don't have a problem with it are right wingers (though most of my right wing friends are just as pissed as the lefties).

      This isn't about left and right -- it's about authoritarian versus American.

    2. Re:Critical Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And interestingly those same liberals are now all of a sudden ok with it. I wonder what quality in them make that possible?

  13. Useful for detecting bribery by Animats · · Score: 1

    Now that this information is known to be collected, it should be subject to subpoena. One application is to detect bribery of politicians by correlating who they talk to, who they get contributions from, and their voting records. It should be possible to statistically demonstrate corruption with a specific confidence level using Bayesian statistics.

    Politicians need to be informed of this option.

    1. Re:Useful for detecting bribery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is only *our* date is secret and it's a one way street.

      They can use our secrets to bust us (because what have we got to hide right?)
      But their secrets are super private "personal" sob sob, data. Off limits for our use against them.

      Clearly the law is not so uniform after all....

    2. Re:Useful for detecting bribery by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      They can use our secrets to bust us (because what have we got to hide right?)
      But their secrets are super private "personal" sob sob, data. Off limits for our use against them.

      Clearly the law is not so uniform after all....

      "Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."

      "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better."

      ~"Animal Farm" - Perceived as either a cautionary or instructional tale depending on your ideology and how it values the individual compared to the collective/State.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  14. NSA or FB? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    I've heard people say repeatedly that complaints about privacy make little sense in the age of Facebook. After all, the line goes, when people willingly share so much about themselves on the internet why should the government requesting phone logs matter? You've nothing to hide, do you? At least, nothing you've not already shared on Facebook.

    I've never joined Facebook because I find the whole system rather intrusive. But these days, being on FB is so expected that you can't even arrange an office party without having to confirm on FB. At some point it becomes a great inconvenience not being on FB. If I didn't dislike the hassle of FB (or its corporate) I might now even be willing to entertain the opposite of the above argument: When the government so regularly spies on all of your activities, no matter how private you might deem them, why should joining Facebook matter?

    1. Re:NSA or FB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA is facebook and google. Those tools have uncovered a unheard of cornucopia of interdependencies. This is every dictators wet dream.

      I guess it all boils down to, do you want to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution? Do you root for the underdog? Do you belong in a herd? Are you a rebel? Do you value your freedom and privacy?

      As you say, it's baffling how you can't even take a shit these days without having a failbook account. Governmental organizations have fb pages, churches, NGOs and of course private enterprises.

      But this all just means we have to fight back harder. We have to make noise, raise a stink. Point out the problems. We have to lead by example.

      I don't have a failbook account and I use no google's services. You can too. Please do, for your sake and mine.

    2. Re:NSA or FB? by alphatel · · Score: 1

      You can join Facebook with a fake identity, and in theory delete everything that was collected. You cannot delete the NSA, these logs, or anything else that the gov't has discovered about you. One day, your calls to the sex shop, your wife's best friend, and secret second family in Colorado will all be revealed via a freedom of information act. Better hope your wife doesn't post it on FB when she finds out.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    3. Re:NSA or FB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these days, being on FB is so expected that you can't even arrange an office party without having to confirm on FB. At some point it becomes a great inconvenience not being on FB.

      That's pretty fucked up world you live in.

    4. Re:NSA or FB? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      ...no matter how private you might deem them, why should joining Facebook matter?

      I'm not on Facebook because the company seems to love jerking people around. Their contempt for their users is clear. That and honestly I don't have the time. From what I have seen of Facebook, the stupidity level seems pretty high and I have better things to do. If I had wanted to keep up with all my high-school classmates I would have done so already.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    5. Re:NSA or FB? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Better than actually revealing them is to threaten you that we will reveal it. I guess that all that collected data will be used for blackmail by either people within the agencies or by the agencies themselves at some point. Spring cleaning is the word if I'm not mistaken.

    6. Re:NSA or FB? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      But these days, being on FB is so expected that you can't even arrange an office party without having to confirm on FB.

      I'm not on FB, never will be, and have never even looked at a FB page. If somebody asks about FB, I just say "I don't use it". Period. I've never had any real problem because of that. I find the people most likely to have the same attitude as me are fellow techies.

  15. Be Paranoid, be very paranoid... by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because frankly, it isn't paranoia.

    Assume all communications are open to government, and corporate, snooping unless you're whispering in someone's ear, and pssst... between you and me, I don't trust you.

    1. Re:Be Paranoid, be very paranoid... by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      Thats not the problem. The problem is that our taxpayer money is going to the funding of this project and its being done by the wrong assholes and we are SANCTIONING it.

      There's a difference between a crooked street and a crooked street with a crooked cop on every corner that you were TAXED to fucking pay for. They have better places to spend this money. It is not keeping us safe. It is dividing the American public against each other and making people extremely pissed off and paranoid.

      It is costing you an arm and a leg. They had to build this into the infrastructure and regulate it and certify it. And they PAY people to do this to you. This isn't just some random interception because communications were insecure. It is a planned attack.

  16. Of course it's a critical tool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but for what diabolical purpose? That's the reason to be concerned.

  17. Spending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ultimate goal of any police state is merely to justify more spending and expand the business of government. Power and control are merely the stepping stones to riches, not a goal in itself. Many people have trouble accepting this, because they focus on the injustice and assume that injustice is the goal. Or they focus on the power and control and assume that power and control are the goals. Or they focus on the failures and assume that the "intentions" are correct but the "implementation" is wrong.

    On the contrary, intentions are the smokescreen, power is the stepping stone, injustice is the "collaterage damage", and money is the goal.

    1. Re:Spending by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ultimate goal of any police state is merely to justify more spending and expand the business of government. Power and control are merely the stepping stones to riches, not a goal in itself. Many people have trouble accepting this, because they focus on the injustice and assume that injustice is the goal. Or they focus on the power and control and assume that power and control are the goals. Or they focus on the failures and assume that the "intentions" are correct but the "implementation" is wrong.

      On the contrary, intentions are the smokescreen, power is the stepping stone, injustice is the "collaterage damage", and money is the goal.

      At a certain level, yes. But that is not the top level. Do you think a Rockefeller wants more money? Once you have multi-billions, it's not about the money anymore; you couldn't go broke if you tried. Once you're in the upper echelon it is very much about power and control. Haven't you ever wanted to remake the world as you see fit? There are some who operate at that level.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  18. Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by mveloso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Metadata isn't data - it's data about your data. So it's not really subject to protection, because it's not what you're doing, it's information about what you're doing. It's not an illegal search, because we just want to know about what you're doing, not what you're actually doing. OK?

    It's not like we're listening in on your calls, we're just watching to whom and when you call. I mean, it's not like we're doing a database join to find out who's on the other end of the call. That would be an invasion of your privacy. It's just their phone number, IMEI, network identifier, and the start/end geopoints. That's OK. I mean if your parents were at home they could see your phone bill and see who you called too. So we're like your parents that way. We would't give that data to another agency either. Well, unless they asked for it. But they probably won't do that.

    So you see, you really have nothing to worry about. It's not a violation of your rights, it's a strengthening of your rights. Because like other government agencies, we only have your best interests at heart. Well other agencies that aren't the IRS. But you know what I mean.

    1. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by Silver+Surfer+1 · · Score: 1

      The article says that Verizon telecommunications (landline/internet) was the company handing out the meta data. Verizon and Verizon wireless are 2 separate company's. The pre paid is a spin off as well.

      There is no confirmation that Verizon wireless has handed out any meta call data to date. That being said I would imagine that all telecommunications company's have handed over everything the government has asked for in my opinion.

    2. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 2

      The reason they need the metadata is to index the calls stored on the NSA system. They record everything, its not eavesdropping if you don't listen to it or process it. With the meta data they can tie individuals to time and data stream. Get it now? At anytime if they need decide to listen on a persons conversations, they search using the meta data.

    3. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely correct. They already have the phone calls, they just need to join some databases.

    4. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by mveloso · · Score: 1

      Which is why I said they promised they wouldn't do that last join! Because you know, that would be a violation of your rights. We would never do that, even to test to see if the metadata is accurate. Because that would be mostly against the law. Sort of, I mean, unless we actually listen to the call we're not violating anything.

    5. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metadata isn't data - it's data about your data.

      If admitted in a court of law would it be Xzibit A? *ducks*

    6. Re:Don't worry - be happy! It's only metadata! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't be the only one who's annoyed by this misuse of the term "metadata". It's just "data". Metadata is data about data. Metadata is necessarily an aggregation of some sort. A phone # for a specific phone call is not metadata--what would be "meta" about it? It's data.

  19. Critical tool, eh? by Pollux · · Score: 1

    I would consider the 4th Amendment a critical tool as well. I guess it's just a matter of choosing which tool is right for the job.

  20. A police state, the USA ? by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    No, not yet. A surveillance state already ? Sure enough.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  21. How NSA was able to do this by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Funny

    they joined the Verizon Share Everything plan.

  22. Leak by nullchar · · Score: 1

    Would be rad if someone leaked this, then we could all take a peek instead of just The Watchers.

    1. Re:Leak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder, has anyone tried a FOIA request for it.

      You wont get it, but it would be entertaining just to get a response on it.

      Even a series of FOIA requests for the information on select individuals.

  23. Re: The real Critical Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, thanks for being anti-Republican bigots assholes.

  24. Apropos picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/expd/8964398709/

  25. Re:The real Critical Tool by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    The "instead of Libertarian or Green" is a saving grace. It would be naive to suggest that voting (R) rather than (D) would get you anything different.

    (Full disclosure [why not? NSA knows it anyway]: I'm registered as an (R) so I can vote in primaries in my red state, but I've never voted (R) in a presidential election. I cannot justify voting for either head of the beast, as much as I might loath whichever one is in power at a time.)

  26. But it worked pretty well by lesincompetent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This large scale surveillance bullshit has been so useful against terrorism that nothing happened in Boston.
    They've built something which is demonstrably (unable || unwilling) to do its job.
    Whatever they say its job is.

    1. Re:But it worked pretty well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly. But if it was a Republican running for political office or a conservative non-profit applying to the IRS for tax exempt status, they'd find the information. Terrorists like Tsarnaev Bros? NAH.

    2. Re:But it worked pretty well by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      This large scale surveillance bullshit has been so useful against terrorism that nothing happened in Boston.
        They've built something which is demonstrably (unable || unwilling) to do its job.
        Whatever they say its job is.

      I agree with your point, but I find making that argument a dangerous one. When you argue that their methods are ineffective, the implication is that if they were effective, it'd be justified. So they will come back with, "obviously what we're doing isn't enough, and we need to be able to do more."

      Instead we should get to the heart of the matter and point out that even if they could eliminate 100% of terrorism, it wouldn't be worth it to ignore our constitution to eliminate or reduce the already extremely low risk of dying in a terrorist attack within the United States. By all means, please work to prevent terrorist attacks, but do so within the limits of your legal authority. If it requires the government to overstep that authority, it's not worth it.

    3. Re:But it worked pretty well by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      the implication is that if they were effective, it'd be justified.

      Never wanted to imply that, thanks for disambiguating.
      I wanted my comment to sound something like "to add insult to injury".

  27. The limits of trust by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And now the Obama administration has defended the practice as a "critical tool."

    I might be willing to believe that if they would explain what they are doing and why and do so like we are all adults. Instead we get nonsense like the TSA claiming that someone is somehow going to blow up a plane with 4oz of liquid but it would be too dangerous to actually explain and details of this improbable threat to our safety. Frankly I just don't find their explanations (when they bother to provide them) satisfactory and so I'm forced to conclude that they are not acting in manner consistent with appropriate respect for my civil rights.

    If there is a genuine threat out there I expect our government to explain what they are doing and why in terms that a reasonable adult can understand. I'm willing to extend some amount of trust to our elected leaders but that trust has very sharp limits and is contingent on continued evidence that they are behaving in a rational and respectful manner. I've seen rather little of that in recent days.

    1. Re:The limits of trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing that really scares me. At least Hitler told everybody that he was going to do before he did it. Now they don't even tell you why they are amassing all this power.

    2. Re:The limits of trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately *our government* is the genuine threat.

    3. Re:The limits of trust by Jockle · · Score: 2

      satisfactory and so I'm forced to conclude that they are not acting in manner consistent with appropriate respect for my civil rights.

      If they were acting in a manner consistent with appropriate respect for our civil rights, the TSA wouldn't exist at all. Whether or not a 4oz liquid bomb can be made, freedom is more important than safety. The problem with your comment is that it almost seems as if you would be willing to give up your freedoms if it would truly keep you safe, and that absolutely should not be the case. Or maybe it just seemed that way, and you wouldn't actually do that, but I still feel the need to stress that point.

      I'm willing to extend some amount of trust to our elected leaders

      Given history, that is not a good idea. The ability to act in secrecy (whether or not they tell you why and give probable reasons) will be abused; bet on it.

  28. Hope and Change Really ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 0

    OH my dear lord the only saving grace this administration has had is the laughter factor. Being able to laugh at all his supporters takes some of the edge off the miserable times he has perpetuated upon this nation.

    Just for those that voted for him and reflexively hate Republicans.

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

    Ronald Wilson Reagan-January 20, 1981

    1. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

      -George W. Bush
      http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

    2. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but I can't recall W running on a platform of not doing these things.

      Given that all you have proven is that Republicans can be repressive statists and democrats are to stupid to know when they are being lied to.

    3. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      We find it "funny" that you think Republicans don't own the lion's share of responsibility here. Especially when you quote a president who expanded government and wrote the narrative of "war on terrorism". So please, stop with the "small government" rhetoric.

      In actuality, what you see here are agencies that primarily Republicans (i.e. Hoover, Reagan, Bush x2) have erected, and whose powers can't be curtailed without executive and congressional cooperative interference. These agencies function independently; that is what's most frightening. No matter of the president elect, he has no implied oversight or control.

    4. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by Jockle · · Score: 1

      It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

      He wasn't a very good liar.

    5. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Ronald Wilson Reagan-January 20, 1981

      Is that the same Ronald Wilson Reagan who happily spent hundreds of billions on unnecessary and destabilizing weapons (last time I checked the military was part of the government), and had the USSR so worried that it almost started a nuclear war? In that case I guess government really was the problem.

    6. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      what you see here are agencies that primarily Republicans (i.e. Hoover, Reagan, Bush x2) have erected

      The NSA and the CIA were created by Truman. Plenty of blame for both parties.

    7. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Why I love the left part 32.

      RWR
      Cold War Ended
      Amount of federal regulation reduced.
      Peace Dividend.
      Legacy = Peace, Growing Economy, Real Freedom in this country at a high water mark.

      Does it bother you more that someone who you obviously disdain was right ? Or just that you are so incredibly wrong ?

    8. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Emphasis on "primarily".

      Neither has it been an equal share of responsibility. Truman is a bit of an exception; easily influenced and obstinate politician who handled the burden of unexpected presidency with arrogance, belligerence, and incompetence. He is a bizarre story as he was never supposed to be vice president; Wallace had more popularity than even FDR at the time. Anyway, Truman isn't a great example in this context; but he is a great example of a politician created and propped-up by the economical elites.

    9. Re:Hope and Change Really ? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      But DON'T YOU SEE? RWR, but shaking things up and pushing for change, creating the chance that change could be BAD! If only he would have listened to the Democrats and just kept things stable and unchanging, you know - like back in the old days...

      So much for the "progressives want progress, conservatives want to stay the same" mantra...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  29. Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious why the vocal Tea Party doesn't trust the government on anything else, but doesn't seemed particularly bothered by the govt's growing domestic snooping. (Yes, they give it a passing mention every now and then, but never seem to push for change.)

    I'm not criticizing here, I just want to know their reasoning on that. Are there any Tea Party members or defenders here who can comment on that?

    1. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they've been gutted and co-opted such as to only be vocal about the things that don't matter/won't change. Both pro-oligarchy parties (R/D) want this, so it's happening and anyone with a mainstream mouthpiece is keeping quiet, lest they lose their job.

    2. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Redundant

      you are forgetting that the tea party has been silenced by the IRS... I wouldnt call myself a member by any means but i am on their side most of the time. There is zero excuse for this.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tea Party people are cool with anything so long as you frame it in the context of national security?

    4. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, the IRS targeting of the conservative groups is a much bigger threat long-term. Armed with access to your financial records, your medical records, and now your phone records, the IRS has the potential to destroy any and all political opposition of whoever holds the reins of power. The Federal Government has simply gotten too big and too powerful. This is the central message of the TEA party groups.

    5. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha yeah I haven't heard anything from the Tea Party since the IRS took them out. I guess the Kock brothers cut the purse strings?

    6. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      you are forgetting that the tea party has been silenced by the IRS... I wouldnt call myself a member by any means but i am on their side most of the time. There is zero excuse for this

      WTF? Some groups were using a loophole in the law to avoid campaign laws requiring disclosing of donors and they got caught. That's not silencing and real Tea Party groups that claim to be political parties weren't even looked at by that division of the IRS. Pay attention. This shit's important.

    7. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Maybe they don't use telephones or computers? Most of these government officials who assure us it's no big deal for them to read our emails or listen to our calls have staffers or other intermediaries handle all communications to set up face-to-face meetings.

    8. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can they be "Silenced"
      when not a single application was rejected.

    9. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      In my mind, it's kind of like complaining about flies swarming around the shit on the kitchen counter. The problem isn't the flies - that's irritating and certainly a breach of sanitation - the problem is the shit. Get rid of the shit and the flies will go away; they're a secondary problem.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    10. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      so just because a group has the word "patriot" in it, it means that they are trying to break the law? If people truly believe that its a damn shame.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by vux984 · · Score: 1

      so just because a group has the word "patriot" in it, it means that they are trying to break the law? If people truly believe that its a damn shame.

      No. It (correctly) means there is a higher probability that the group has a political objective. It (correctly) means that the group may be attempting to register as a non-profit organization for political objectives using a type of non-profit orgranization entity that is not intended for political objectives.

      The ONLY thing the IRS did wrong was include keywords that selectively target conservative applications with this profiling. And honestly, the only keyword that seems especially conservative profiling is "tea party". Not all that many PACs use the word patriot, and some of them are liberal.

      And lets face it... if they wanted to go after liberal PAC's what words would even make the cut? "Tea Party" is just REALLY low hanging fruit. Any SuperPAC caling itself Tea Party anything is pretty much announcing its political nature... unless anyone things there's a lot of earl gray and orange pekoe clubs out there all suddenly registering for tax exempt status.

    12. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I call BS.

    13. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      They are easily frightened away by anything they cannot use a gun on ;-)

    14. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I dont think you know what "correctly" means. The word you were looking for was ASSUMED.

      To you it might be the correct thing to do, to me it is uncalled for. The facts are out there. the IRS ADMITTED to targeting the groups wrongly. how can you with a straight face say that what the IRS did was right when even the IRS says what they did was wrong?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Uh, can somebody please translate kitchen-ese to political-ese?

    16. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought. But it does bring up a similar issue: why do they trust gov't for national security but not for anything else?

      If government-ness is inherently rotten, then it would be rotten for everything, no?

      Bill Oreilly was asked a similar question, and his answer appeared to be that the military structure has been "tuned by tradition and experience", while other things are too new. But that would mean that time is the fix, not outright cancellation.

      I was thinking that maybe they feel that any problems caused by the military are on non-Americans. The [bleep] happens "over there". But domestic snooping is here.

    17. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      TP doesn't seem bothered by racial profiling for immigration status checks, but ARE bothered by title profiling for taxing. This appears to be contradictory. Defense anyone?

    18. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by ZFox · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be rude, but how do you normally receive news about what tea party supporters think? You may not be hearing about it because their ideological opponents haven't figured out a way to label it as racist, yet, since this ultimately effects every single American. Just wait and I'm sure they'll find a way (in case you haven't heard, IRS is the new "N-word", according to MSNBC's Martin Bashir).

      Go listen to the horses' mouths in full context and from original sources, as opposed to carefully selected clips meant to destroy and you will find they are being very vocal about it--even this morning, 2 for 2 of the national AM talk shows were covering it (Berry and Limbaugh). I also point to Texas' proposed email protection laws if you want even more evidence of "push[ing] for change".

      And please don't take offense, I applaud you for doing exactly what I suggest and asking for a comment from a "horse's mouth". I obviously can only speak for myself, since like Anonymous nobody is recognized to speak for the whole. Anyways, greater merit is bestowed based on actions instead of words, since we have had enough of the political pandering that is systemic in the republican party (if not all of politics; I cite the formation, itself, of the tea party as proof of this).

      I must say, though, that I was a little thrown back that this could even be a misconception. After all, you seem pretty clear how much trust I hold in our federal government. lol

    19. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Jockle · · Score: 1

      I want small government, but I demand that we pointlessly interfere in other countries' affairs; that we spy on our own citizens without warrants or with secret warrants; that we shove people who we deem to be dangerous away in free speech zones; that we slap GPS tracking devices on people's cars; that we give certain people government-enforced monopolies that promote censorship and/or destroy real property rights; and that we grope everyone who tries to get on a plane because they might be terrorists. Yeah, I really adore small government; trust me.

    20. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by vux984 · · Score: 1

      To you it might be the correct thing to do, to me it is uncalled for

      It is in the same category as making a point of pulling over latinos to check for immigration status. I think its uncalled for, and should be classed as illegal racial profiling.

      But it is still correct that doing so will find far more illegals than pulling over people at random. There are millions of latino illegals. There are fewer illegals of other races. Singling out latinos will find more illegals.

      how can you with a straight face say that what the IRS did was right when even the IRS says what they did was wrong?

      I didn't say it was the right thing to do. While going after "Tea Party" applications makes sense, they should have recognized the political bias was unacceptable and at least attempted to balance that out by deliberately targeting liberal and other politically charged keywords... whatever those might be.
       

    21. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The tea party has not been silenced at all. They can yell and scream all they want. They just have to pay their taxes, like the rest of us.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      It's a simple metaphor. Small change takes roughly the same amount of effort as big change, particularly when the big problem (excessive bureaucratic government) is the reason behind the small problem.

      The government got 'found out' with things like Carnivore in the past, and just kept this under the radar; the solution isn't to "prevent" intrusive monitoring (already illegal, remember? something about a Constitution...), it's to prevent the beast of large government from getting big enough to be able to accomplish said intrusion in the first place.

      This may be a moot point and simple mental masturbation if our society has become morally bankrupt enough for it to happen as it has. Someone will always step to take advantage.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    23. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      I just want to know

      I'll explain.

      Some amount of "snooping" is easily rationalized in the Tea Party mind as a necessary evil of defending the nation, wherein the concept of "nation" is entirely legitimate and desirable. In the Tea Party mind terrorists are real. They are not figments of Cheney and Rumsfeld's corporate media created to justify anti-muslim racism. They are real and the government is obligated to preclude and deter attacks.

      An aside; The above does not mean Tea Party people live in terror of being killed by terrorists. Rather, they hate it when terrorists "get over" on the country because it feels to them like an exposure of weakness and a humiliation and makes them very, very angry. Very angry... You have no idea. Seriously. The liberal axiom that masses of Tea Party people live in media inspired terror is nonsense. Outrage is the correct characterization and the media is loathed.

      Back to tolerance of snooping; Tea Party people, believing the nation must be defended, and that part of the defence requires a limited amount domestic spying, perceive the Left's absolute intolerance of any form or degree of domestic intelligence as a.) irrational hysteria, at best or b.) an oikophobia based desire (in the sense of loathing one's own nation or people,) to deliberately maintain vulnerabilities, at worst. To the Tea Party these civil liberty extremists exaggerate claims and their motivations are suspect.

      Thus, the instinctual reaction of a Tea Party person is to discount the hysteria and exaggeration driven public discourse about surveillance. Tea Party people don't want the statists listening to their phone calls any more than you do, but they're not going to preclude their desire and expectation that the government be allowed some limited ability to detect hostiles by jumping off the absolutist civil liberty cliff with you.

      Moderated positions such as that are easily overwhelmed by the screaming extremists. It's your choice to perceive that as indifference and miss the truth. There are plenty of conservative libertarians, for instance, that might serve as allies against pervasive surveillance if they were allowed some room.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    24. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but when a group files for "social welfare non-profit" status and uses its name as "Tea Party Patriots 2012" and just happens to take all of its anonymous donor money and pour it into campaign ads, that doesn't mean they are breaking... oh wait, yes, that is a violation of non-profit status they are trying to use to dodge donor disclosure rules in according with election laws.

      But that's okay because Patriots!

      lol my verification word was "conspire"

    25. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you dont have any idea what they were doing with their money because they never got the status they were looking for.....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    26. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Don't need to reject them at all.

      You only need to not approve

      .

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    27. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I don't trust corporations with personal data any more than I trust gov't with it.

    28. Re:Conservatives and Gov't Snooping, Baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt call myself a member by any means but i am on their side most of the time. There is zero excuse for this.

      Well done gangadude. Admitting the problem is the first step to resolving it.

  30. Surprise Surprise by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress."

    Finally, the truth wins out. All of us "gun lovers" have been trying to tell everyone that Dianne Feinstein is anti-freedom, anti-civil-rights, ant-privacy, and anti-American.

    1. Re:Surprise Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, the truth wins out. All of us "gun lovers" have been trying to tell everyone that Dianne Feinstein is anti-freedom, anti-civil-rights, ant-privacy, and anti-American.

      SO you're going to shoot the messenger and vote for the people who started it again?

    2. Re:Surprise Surprise by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But former Vice President Al Gore summed up the feelings of many when he wrote on Twitter: "Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?"

      Al Gore, not exactly a great bastion of conservatism, makes a statement that this activity is "obscenely outrageous" and I get modded flamebait for noting that Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence is anti-civil-rights thinks that this is lawful and right. She applies the same curtailment logic on other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

      Apparently, slashdotters think not all rights are created equal. Is your 4th amendment rights more valuable than my 2nd amendment rights?

    3. Re:Surprise Surprise by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      True, but nearly all of them are almost as bad, just different flavors of evil.

    4. Re:Surprise Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to also mention Saxby Chambliss who also spoke about how all of congress already knows this and that he hasn't heard a single complaint from any citizen about this program?

    5. Re:Surprise Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you got modded as flamebait by sockpuppets

    6. Re:Surprise Surprise by cffrost · · Score: 1

      But former Vice President Al Gore summed up the feelings of many when he wrote on Twitter: "Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?"

      Al Gore, not exactly a great bastion of conservatism, makes a statement that this activity is "obscenely outrageous" and I get modded flamebait for noting that Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence is anti-civil-rights thinks that this is lawful and right. She applies the same curtailment logic on other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

      Apparently, slashdotters think not all rights are created equal. Is your 4th amendment rights more valuable than my 2nd amendment rights?

      No, I believe that the Bill of Rights is essential in its entirety. I consider myself to be very far-left, and I say fuck Dianne Feinstein, and fuck the moderator(s) who abused their mod points in a failed attempt to censor your posts.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  31. Once again by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    Subjugation masquerading as protection. It's always the same, even if your cultural identity is based around worshipping the constitution.

  32. They told me by AntiBasic · · Score: 1, Redundant

    They told me if I voted for Romney, we'd see this sort of thing... and they were right.

  33. Don't beat them, join them!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's pool together and ask Verizon for the exact same data and see what happens. As the recent legal hack to get Indian test scores shows, the public processing and dissemination of data can be more effective tool for positive change than any private or secret analysis.
    Our government - BY the people, FOR the people, OF the people.
    Remember folks, WE ARE the people! That's our data they're playing with, and they are supposed to be working for us!

  34. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AT&T was proved to be doing this years ago when that AT&T engineer blew the whistle. They ALL do it. Everything you do online is watched. Has been for decades.

  35. Re:You are actually not that special by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course they're bored stiff. That's not the point. My boring life is my own. I'm no man's slave; no man's property. Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible. We become an increasingly servile state as we become a police and surveillance state. Not because we're necessarily doing anything wrong, but precisely because we are watched. The whole world becomes Foucault's panopticon.

  36. Re:You are actually not that special by mrbester · · Score: 1

    And then some false flag gets tripped and suddenly you're a public enemy. Because computers are never wrong. Especially theirs.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  37. The elephant in the room by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    These agencies were able to do all this through a secret court with a gag order. Why do they have a secret court available? What else can they request at this secret court? Black bags over suspected terrorist's heads?

    1. Re:The elephant in the room by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      These agencies were able to do all this through a secret court with a gag order. Why do they have a secret court available? What else can they request at this secret court? Black bags over suspected terrorist's heads?

      uh.. I they don't even need to bother with the secret court for launching hellfires and moving unlawful prisoners through allied countries without asking.. because frankly they're just dicks.

      vote 'em out or something. unless they have a secret court for allowing fixing of elections too. it's ok because it's a "critical tool".

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  38. Prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict that the US will still be known as "The land of the free" (TM) long after it is anything but. Good luck to you. Good luck to us all, as we're probably not far behind...

  39. Obama by codepunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    "You've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama said. "You should reject these voices. Because what these suggest is that somehow our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama said. "You should reject these voices. Because what these suggest is that somehow our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

      Politicians who consider themselves "the government" when things go well, but claim to be an independent, separate entity when things don't.

      That's sinister. That is the root of our problems.

      It's the fact that politicians can't be trusted and our natural rights to speak out and hold them accountable that allow us to put faith in the "unique experiment in self-rule" and not the men who would use it to their advantage.

    2. Re:Obama by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      This is unreal...

    3. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting who Obama is talking about when he says "our," because he starts off addressing us as "you."

    4. Re:Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really hilarious that he said that right before these scandals. Such a beautiful quote, you couldn't script something better.

  40. The suppressive minority do not rule the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The suppressive minority do not rule the world.

  41. Faith versus Reason by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some news sources have speculated that this program was related to the Boston Marathon Bombing. However The Washington Post sys that

    ... the order appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006. The expert, who spoke on the condition
    of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said that the order is reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other agency.

    This particular order was classified as Top Secret/NoForn/SI. The routine nature of the order was likewise highly classified.

    Ordinary people-- those not initiated into the orders of nobility associated with "clearances"-- cannot select their government based on real, verifiable information. They have no means to judge the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness of their political candidates. Instead, they must have faith that their government is either incompetent, or competent.

    Do you believe that your government is doing its best to protect you? Surely its effectiveness would be diminished if carefully guarded secrets like this got out, and were use by enemies of the nation and of the state?

    Do you believe that the government is doing its best to cynically exploit the security apparatus for its own political benefit? Surely this is but the tip of the iceberg. Were it not for classification, the entire enterprise would be exposed as a cesspool of corruption and criminality.

    But in the absence of good solid, reliable data, both of these viewpoints can be freely adopted by any voter who chooses to have an opinion on the matter. Instead of a mass of peoples carefully using their judgements to select the good leaders over the bad, the entire electorate, kept in ignorance, has been reduced to flipping coins.

    Government, it seems, is to important to be left to the governed.

    1. Re:Faith versus Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this.
      Government is like a windows install, every once so often you have to nuke it and start over.
      Mainly to get rid of all the cruft, in this case couruption.

    2. Re:Faith versus Reason by psithurism · · Score: 1

      those not initiated into the orders of nobility associated with "clearances"-- cannot select their government based on real, verifiable information

      To get information, you need a clearance _and_ a need to know. So even with a clearance, you may not "need" to know why something is done the way it is and you certainly don't know what the other spooks across the hall are doing or why. In fact those with clearances are required to protect state secrets from themselves, for example you can't read wiki-leaks, lest you discover something they don't need you to know. those with clearances may even be less informed.

    3. Re:Faith versus Reason by Jockle · · Score: 1

      The only intelligent decision is to assume the government is abusing its powers. History has shown as that when you give someone too much power, they will abuse it. There is no reason to think otherwise.

    4. Re:Faith versus Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the entire electorate, kept in ignorance, has been reduced to flipping coins

      And those coins are double-sided. Third parties are systematically prevented from competition so that the Republicans and Democrats, both of which are right-leaning authoritarian parties, can turn politics into a drama over petty details while getting everything they actually want backstage.

  42. Re:You are actually not that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are probably bored stiff because you aren't actually that interesting. Move on with your life.

    How about I turn that around on you then? Why bother watching me if I am so dull? Why spend my tax dollars on it? Why is my phone company spending money to do this (in effect me paying for it with an upcharge on my bill at some point). In the off chance they might catch someone? Shouldnt these warrants be very narrow on what data to ask for and which data to get?

    It is almost the same mentality as DRM and games. You are going to steal my game so I am going to make your computer suck so I can make sure you do not steal it. Yet the real people who want to get away with this sort of thing do it anyway.

  43. FUD is dead - fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would like to ask that before anybody goes off on a pseudo-rage rant about this.... Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen.

    Not that this whole situation is trivial... It's just not really as bad as some FUD mongers are making it out to be.

    Ok FUD is dead. It's been so overused that it has no meaning - meaning, FUD is used as an implicit ad hominem now. OK?

    Also,

    Take just a second and read about what must be done in order to use FISA data in a criminal prosecution of a US citizen

    Like what?!?

    We have seen over the last few years the SCOTUS back up the cops just about every time. Ask me when they didn't, and I'd be hard pressed to find an example. For cases of where they OKay'd what the cops did just requires hitting the Slashdot "older" articles button at the bottom there.

    We need to get into out heads that we need - MUST- question authority EVERY time and hold their feet to the fire.

    Ask them WHY are you doing what you are doing and JUSTIFY IT.

    Blanket statements of "War on Drugs" or War on Terrorism" or "THink of the Children" CANNOT and MUST NOT be an excuse.

    Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!

    And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.

    1. Re:FUD is dead - fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quick test to discover who is or is not "the man."

      1) Can you vote for this person to participate in the government?

      If yes, The Man.

      If no, undefined.

    2. Re:FUD is dead - fred by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And to head off the "YOu should have voted for Romney" guys - Fuck you! It would be more of the same times 911. I was HOPING that the BLACK dude would stick to the MAN but he IS the MAN.

      You should have voted for Cynthia McKinney, or Jill Stein, or John Huntsman. As you have observed, anyone on the Blue or Red team in an election is the Man, with few exceptions.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:FUD is dead - fred by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I had hopes for Ron Paul. I saw quite a few Paul signs in people's yards. Unfortunately, those signs were a significant percentage of his total voters. And he did better than the names you mention. :(

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:FUD is dead - fred by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Cynthia McKinney, or Jill Stein, or John Huntsman

      I don't think any of these would have made much of a difference. McKinney and Stein would have ended up being nearly carbon copies of Obama, except the would have done even worse on the economy, and Huntsman might have done a slightly better job on the economy, but I don't see much support for civil liberties there either.

    5. Re:FUD is dead - fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul is that guy who sometimes makes brilliant statements, then when you're ready to sing his praises goes off into Old Man Yells At Cloud mode and starts talking about how we need to repeal the civil rights act or something.

    6. Re: FUD is dead - fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know how to break it to you, but RP is also the man... just with more folksy marketing.

    7. Re:FUD is dead - fred by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      Speaking as someone who voted for Obama - I am PISSED!

      Now you had to go and make my post redundant.

      Further -- speaking as an attorney -- this kind of blanket collection of metadata about communications with my clients - which are presumed confidential and not subject to search - is, to use the formal term, total bullshit.

    8. Re:FUD is dead - fred by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Huntsman's dad is the Mormon pope++. A living prophet if you believe all that. His son is unelectable in any sane nation. Pure distraction from the get go. Make Romney look less nuts.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:FUD is dead - fred by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      You should have voted for Cynthia McKinney, or Jill Stein, or John Huntsman.

      Don't blame me, I did vote for Stein. I need quite a few million to join me for it to make a difference. I think Ron Paul is nuts in some areas, but I'd gladly take him over the status quo.

    10. Re:FUD is dead - fred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nader 2000!

    11. Re:FUD is dead - fred by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      No, it's billing data. Plain and simple. And if they don't make that data available to their users on their website (e.g. past bills), those users will pitch a bitch. And if they don't keep that information after they send the bills, what else can't they do? Make those past bills available.

      But yes, I do see how you'd think it's bullshit that Verizon collects this data for billing purposes, since they're just as likely to bill correctly without it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    12. Re:FUD is dead - fred by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Huntsman's dad is the Mormon pope++. A living prophet if you believe all that. His son is unelectable in any sane nation. Pure distraction from the get go. Make Romney look less nuts.

      And Obama's dad was a drunk-driving Muslim homeopath. What's your point?

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    13. Re: FUD is dead - fred by Applekid · · Score: 1

      I don't know how to break it to you, but RP is also the man... just with more folksy marketing.

      Looking at how he was treated throughout the Republican primaries, I'm pretty sure he isn't. He was included as the joke candidate, just to see what happened, and quickly had to be put in his place.

      If you look at the timeline, as soon as Paul made out surprisingly well in Iowa (3rd, with no clear winner for 1st between Romney and Santorum), the dirty tricks started to make sure his accelerating popularity was diffused and kept him the joke. He was kept out of many debates, with moderators being biased against him on others. Reports of how he did in the polls would be intentionally sorted so that his name was at or near the bottom of the list despite being 2nd or 3rd (or even 1st) in many runs throughout February, or just dropped altogether from the listings. (Imagine the Olympics if they just chose to omit the silver medal winner to avoid him gaining fans!) His campaign was repeatedly stonewalled and shut out, no wonder they ran out of funds and were unable to raise more money.

      One could argue that the mass media is a vehicle for the Democratic side in politics, and they wanted a Republican candidate that would be easy to defeat (and, boy, Romney sure was that guy!), but I think a lot of it also can from the Republicans. The idea that they could put someone forward that rejects much of their own platform is completely untenable.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    14. Re:FUD is dead - fred by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Huntsman's dad is alive and well in Utah, receiving gods revelation on a daily basis. It that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to say. In any case it makes Huntsman unelectable. My point about distraction stands.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:FUD is dead - fred by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Given that I have an unlimited phone plan -- yes, they are every bit as likely to bill correctly without it. But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man.

    16. Re:FUD is dead - fred by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Being an attorney I'm sure you've read your contract and realize that international calls are billed, even on your "unlimited" plan.

      I'm also sure that an attorney such as yourself is already aware that the NSA already has much, MUCH more data about your calls than what they collected from Verizon with this request, so this request shouldn't really bother you all that much. Now, the NSA's taps on each and every telecom switch in this country, that's bullshit, for sure. That said, I'm glad they listen to everyone and not just a targeted few; it greatly increases the noise floor and you and I have quiet voices. Well, I don't know about you, but I do.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:FUD is dead - fred by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      It isn't limited to international calls. . . so . . . once again . . . your straw man has no relation to the issue, or my point. Of course, you don't seem to have much connection with reality anyway, so not too worried about that at this point. Have a life.

    18. Re:FUD is dead - fred by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You seem to be the one with a tenuous (at best) connection to reality. Not every line Verizon services is unlimited and not every call Verizon connects is domestic. If you had half a clue how a telecom network functions you would understand why everything is recorded by the billing system and sorted out once a month when the bills print.

      Besides, if they didn't record this data, you'd bitch about how you lost that case because there was no record of the call your client made from his home, proving that he wasn't at the scene of the crime when it happened. That, or you'd just bitch that they don't provide a way for you to look up your call history or some such. And even if you didn't, the masses would; and really, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the vast number of people who do care about that functionality (and the vast majority of Verizon users who are NOT on unlimited plans), Verizon doesn't give a fuck about you. How's that for reality?

      Also... since you seem to want to cling to "I only make domestic calls on my unlimited line": If Verizon didn't keep record of the calls they originate, what would stop the terminating and intermediary carriers from making up some random inflated number to bill them? I mean, they'd have no records of their own to show that they transferred X call to Y network for Z minutes. Likewise, without records of the calls they terminate on their network, how do they know how much to bill the originating and intermediary carriers who hand those call off to them?

      Reality. I know it because I've worked with it. A lot.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    19. Re:FUD is dead - fred by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you both think voting third-party will do anything, even with sufficient votes.

    20. Re:FUD is dead - fred by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      I refer you back to the point you perfer to ignore: "But I was referring to collection by the U.S. Gov't -- the subject of this article, not the subject of your straw man."

      You are either very thick or intentionally misreading this string.

    21. Re:FUD is dead - fred by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm not ignoring that point, I addressed it directly when I mentioned the mirroring the NSA already does at every telecom switch in the US, which is well documented public information.

      That you were trying to make one point does not preclude me from addressing other points you have also made, nor from defending myself when others (you) make personal attacks, which is what I have done here.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  44. Maybe It's Necessary by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    But secret? No, I don't think so. Surveillance on this scale should be the subject of public debate.

    Otherwise they don't have consent of the governed.

  45. High Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current administration needs to be found guilty of treason for their Authoritarian attempt to subvert the rule of law of our constituition an our government and replace it with their own set of laws where there is no series of checks and balances with only rubber stamped approvals and unlawful renditions. They should be impeached and then held accountable and the prior administrations dating back to the begining of the war on terror should be held accountable as well. I am making a distinction here that the current administration is not the Government but are themselves acting as "Enemies of the State" for this unlawful subversion of our rights and therefore can be found to be committing treason. It is only the current acting arm of the executive branch of our government that needs to be found impeached. Our government is made up of 3 primary parts and one implied part the Executive, The Judicial, the Legislative, and the implied "We The People". It is time that "We The People" rein in our representatives and insist on the impeachement of the entire currently active executive arm and that we repeal all bills passed and currently active under the current and past administrations since the war on terror started and put them up to a simple pass/fail renewal vote.

    1. Re:High Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peace through Unity! Unity through Faith!

    2. Re:High Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't that the slogan of the authoritarian government in the movie V for Vendetta?

  46. American Spring by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a progressive. Not in the rebranded liberal sense, but in the T. Roosevelt, get your government and big business out of my business or I'll kick your ass sense. I don't oppose Obama because I'm a reflexive Tea Party guy who ridiculously, famously, calls him a muslim and radical Christian, socialist and fascist, at the same time.

    But the US government is beyond out of control. Elections don't matter. Courts don't matter. The press is as much the problem, as the problem itself. Every peaceful avenue for reform and redress has been shut off or co-opted. Meanwhile, the thieving classes, meaning the 1%, are doubling down on their behavior thinking that no one in the 99% will ever hold them to account.

    That means the clock is ticking for an American Spring. We are not hapless, disarmed Libyans. We are heavily armed Americans who have been raised from birth to believe we have a God-given right to be free. Those in the army are our brothers, sisters, and cousins. They are us. So if the 1% truly believe that they'll simply follow orders and drop napalm on the neighborhoods where their friends and family live, then they are due for an extremely rude awakening.

    Go ahead, 1%'ers, move all your wealth to the British Virgin Islands and secrete yourselves there. Much good it will do you. Justice is coming, it's coming very soon, and you have a giant target painted on your ass.

    YMMV

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read up a bit more on T.R. He was progressive in the authentic sense. He believed in using the power of government to control the populace.

    2. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know only 3% of Americans own firearms, right? You know that 80% of America's population lives in left-leaning population centers and don't agree with you, right? You know that when the rubber meets the road, the vast majority of people are more rational than you, and don't subscribe to your radical class-envy-ridden so-called "anarcho-capitalist" cult, right? You know that most people like to sleep well at night knowing they have a functional government that is doing everything necessary to prevent acts of War on American soil, right? You know that the vast, overwhelming, insurmountable majority of Americans are perfectly happy for government to know who is calling which radical Muslim terrorist organizations overseas, right?

      Just checking...

    3. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not hapless, disarmed Libyans. We are heavily armed Americans who have been raised from birth to believe we have a God-given right to be free.

      Face it, we are hapless and disarmed nonetheless. There isn't a single facet of this problem that can be threatened or subdued with a gun. The belief that our guns make us "free" or in any way threatening to our masters is a prime example of just how distracted, pacified and otherwise neutered we are.

      We have a weapon, and it is the vote. Our voter participation is abysmal, and they are still passing new laws to make it harder to vote. (Oh, and at the same time making it easier to buy a gun -- see p. 1). The only credible threat the American voter can muster is the determination to turn off the fucking TV, tear their eyes away from the internet, find common cause with his fellow citizen (even if they are a different color, different religion or otherwise differently oriented), and fucking vote in their interests instead of their vanity.

    4. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the problem with the NSA: they're not law enforcement. And they don't share their intelligence with law enforcement, except in only the absolutely rarest of circumstances.

      That means there no consequences. No consequences means people don't care. Or, sure, they'll say that they care, and moan and groan. But they're not about to go out of their way to do anything about it. Because it costs them nothing, they'll spend nothing to stop it.

      The upshot is that the NSA knows this, and it's part of the reason why they keep their intelligence to themselves. If they started handing it off to the FBI, then people would fear consequences and there'd be push back.

    5. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, that *is* what the Tea Party is. The two major parties plus the media aren't interested in real change so they've pulled out the crazies as a tool to marginalize the TP. You know, exactly what they did to the Occupy protestors.

      We're not as far apart as you might imagine.

    6. Re:American Spring by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Neat. Small problem: the dissenters have been, and will be, labeled as traitors who are selling the country out to the enemy. As a result, the Military will be happy to shoot at specific citizens, since they are a threat to the nation. Keep in mind that the Military will be very careful not to send troops to their own neighborhoods. Instead, they'll bring out units from far-flung and aligned areas, or even enroll militias to do the dirty work. Like you, for example. Since you are very keen on shooting Americans without a trial, without due process, you are a prime candidate for the type of militia that was happy to do the purging that happened in China, Germany, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and countless other countries.

      You do not want an armed revolution. You do not want it, because it won't be heroic, the country will be destroyed for the near future, and what will arise from the ashes is very unlikely to be any different from what was before. You can look at the US Civil War for a great example of what happens when the talking stops and shooting starts: it's destruction all-around, and in the end, it's all the same.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:American Spring by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Those in the army are our brothers, sisters, and cousins. They are us.

      People who don't realize this watch far too many Hollywood movies where the soldiers are faceless automatons. From my time in, I don't see the military ever attacking our own citizens...

    8. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the US government is beyond out of control. Elections don't matter. Courts don't matter. The press is as much the problem, as the problem itself. Every peaceful avenue for reform and redress has been shut off or co-opted. Meanwhile, the thieving classes, meaning the 1%, are doubling down on their behavior thinking that no one in the 99% will ever hold them to account.

      Totally agree. The white house can now label American citizens as terrorists and be judge, jury and executioner. What more needs to be said?

      That means the clock is ticking for an American Spring. We are not hapless, disarmed Libyans. We are heavily armed Americans who have been raised from birth to believe we have a God-given right to be free. Those in the army are our brothers, sisters, and cousins. They are us. So if the 1% truly believe that they'll simply follow orders and drop napalm on the neighborhoods where their friends and family live, then they are due for an extremely rude awakening.

      Yeah, judging by the massive wave of protests against loss of freedom happening in America at the moment, revolution is just around the corner!
      Oh wait a minute...there hasn't been one single protest against loss of freedom in America anywhere.
      It's common knowledge that the President can have citizens killed with no trial, and there has not been one peep...not one fucking peep.
      Ron Paul was the last chance of saviour. He's gone now.
      The war is over.

    9. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that most people like to sleep well at night knowing they have a functional government that is doing everything necessary to prevent acts of War on American soil, right?

      Does it sound like we have a functional government? They're committing an act of war against their own people.

      Perhaps you've slept through something important.

    10. Re:American Spring by Jockle · · Score: 1

      You know that most people like to sleep well at night knowing they have a functional government that is doing everything necessary to prevent acts of War on American soil, right?

      You mean by ruining other countries, molesting people at airports, spying on its own citizens, and generally ignoring the constitution? And you consider the people who want this to be "rational"? You're an imbecile, if so.

    11. Re:American Spring by Jockle · · Score: 1

      then people would fear consequences and there'd be push back.

      But they don't push back when they get molested at airports? You're too optimistic; most people are imbeciles with no love for freedom.

    12. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We the sheeple... bah! bah! I'm embarrassed to say that most people will just yawn over this. Notice how the press gives it short shrift, running stories about how it's needed to safeguard the country. Presumably that's why it's being run in the Guardian, where American influence carries little weight. Where is the outrage? Since 9/11, this country has begun the slow decline into a police state where a permanent state of alert is the norm, and anything can be justified in the name of security. I'd say write your representatives to express your dismay, but it seems that they're part of the problem, as usual. Though I'm no tea party dittohead, I do agree with the thought that this is wrong, and we should voice our disapproval by voting our so-called representatives out of office. Baaaah!

    13. Re:American Spring by sribe · · Score: 1

      You know only 3% of Americans own firearms, right?

      Uhm, no. You dropped a 0 there.

    14. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congratulations. you have earned extended scrutiny by Homeland Security.

    15. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By being allowed the acquire toys, Americans have things to lose and that is why there will never be an "American Spring". More Americans need to voluntarily adopt a "nothing-to-lose" lifestyle.

      --
      Another fine opinion from the Fucking Psychopath® .

    16. Re:American Spring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means the clock is ticking for an American Spring.

      Actually, it's already arrived. The clock is now ticking for an American Summer (starting June 21st), which will be followed by American Autumn and American Winter. Then the cycle starts again. It happens yearly, by the by.

      American Autumn is my favorite, by the way. The foliage is simply gorgeous.

      So if the 1% truly believe that they'll simply follow orders and drop napalm on the neighborhoods where their friends and family live, then they are due for an extremely rude awakening.

      Naturally. A room full of generals facepalming and then explaining that there are much more lethal and effective options than napalm will certainly be a shock.

      If you think there aren't plenty in the military who wouldn't happily obey orders to fire on revolting citizens, you are a fool.

      Justice is coming

      You really have no clue what you're wishing for, do you? Might want to do some reading up on what happened last time we tried this. Hint: One of the costliest wars this country has ever fought.

  47. Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if it IS a critical tool? Huh? What if it's a fact about the world that this is a critical tool and is being used in the way it should to be used?

    Is that possibility so counter to known reality that it should just be rejected out of hand the way you-all are doing ?

    Because most readers here are acting on the premise that it's a true fact about the world that it is NOT a critical tool.

    How did you acquire that certain knowledge about a set of facts in the world that you have no special knowledge of- the information contained in the President's PDBs?

    I don't think it's unrealistic to the world as I understand it. Even if today, it is strictly not necessary because , say, we are overestimating the capabilities terrorists, what about tomorrow?
    Nano-technology and artificial biology and genetic manipulation and high tech fabbing will come down to something close to the personal level sooner or later.

    Civil secular society doesn't WANT to use those things to cause mass casualties to civilians and destablize the modern world, but sooner or later the steady increase of destructive power and the steady decrease in the number of people and resources it takes to wield that destructive power will intersect at an unfortunate point and it will be wielded by Christian or Islamic religionists who place no value on the affairs of men but only live to fight an unseen war taking place on some cosmic plane.

    Then what?

    Be truly rational and entertain the notion in your mind as a hypothesis that there is now or will be shortly something about the world that makes this measure necessary to countering acts of mass terrorism. . Now. What SHOULD we do?

    We should have a national, open thorough, skeptical, informed and honest discussion across a wide range of topics around the security / privacy / liberty triad work out , aloud publicly and together what tradeoffs we're willing to endure and what ones we're not. What level of destruction and death and societal disruption we're collectively willing to endure and when - and if - that level ever becomes unacceptable.

    We need to talk about this consciously and on a national scale. We need to talk as a nation and be explicit and be formal and capture as well as we can what we'll do and not do BEFORE anything happens.

    Because what we have now is a strictly reactionary populace and to a degree government, who decides what the privacy liberty / security triad is going to look like right after and in response to terrorist events.

    The result is anything but solidarity and unity. The Government hides its actions from the People. The People don't trust their Government and impugn ulterior - nearly insane - motives and this is as true on the left as it is on the right.

    We are failing this national imperative. We are failing to plan and harden civil society for an inevitable war. We are at once protected, coddled and violated by our national security apparatus because it - and we - think we can't handle the truth.

    I would love to think America would lead here, but America rarely leads. It's what Churchill said America will always do the right thing after every other possibility has been exhausted.

    I think it has to be the EU that leads here. They are much more rational , less fanatically religious and absolutist in their world view , and inclined more towards collective action than the US.

    Someone somewhere has to start talking about this and someone in government needs to give that discussion the imprimatur of officialdom and lift it up. We have to do this because the alternative is structural, institutionalized extremism, borne in reaction to random events, fueled by reactionary impulses and finally codified into law.

    That is when civil society stats to break down, not because of a bomb or disease or anything else but because we permitted ourselves to continue exist in a fantasy land of 18th century perspectives and values until that fantasy was exploded and we had no idea how to carry on.

    1. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      We acquired this knowledge by observation of empirical evidence. Things have not changed. They have only gotten worse.

      The people are now more divided and antisocial than ever. And there is more suffering and ignorance in this country than ever before. I would say EVEN the 1930's did not see this much suffering. People would band together. Even oppressed blacks and help each other.

      No you are wrong. The burden of proof is on the Administration. And the Administration can make up whatever it wants too.

      Honest, Integrity. Those two words. Are unusable and have been for a long time, going back even to the 70's to describe our government. The ONLY thing that that has changed is the AMOUNT OF POWER these assholes now have.

    2. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      "We acquired this knowledge by observation of empirical evidence. Things have not changed. They have only gotten worse." What are you talking about? You acquired the evidence that the world does not need this action by the NSA ... how??? Empirical evidence that things have gotten worse ??? How does that EVEN make sense ?

    3. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Do you fucking remember Vietnam? No. Do you fucking remember Watergate? No fuck you, these assholes only could effect minorities and ethnicities and now they've turned to the American people because they don't want America. They want their fucking Reichstags.

      I'll let someone else start lifting off current issues. Like Fast and Furious, or the recent IRS mess.

      How about invading Iraq under false pretenses? They didn't have bomb shelters and WMDs pointed at us. Saddam was an ass who killed the Kurds but he was not harboring terrorists.

      The point of my post was that WE do not need to JUSTIFY OURSELVES TO OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Fuck off.

    4. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah and this constant war on drugs and REGULATION of every mother fucking technology and bit of commerce under the sun. And Hollywood and the RIAA. No we have had the opposite of a conservative federal government keeping a military to protect the individual states. No we have a centralized system of authority which oppresses everyone and ensures only the rich and wealthy can compete and that anyone not chosen to be part of the official ruling class can suffer.

    5. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Things have not changed.
      They have only gotten worse.

      Pick one.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    6. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Things have not changed. They have only gotten worse.

      Pick one.

      Or neither.

    7. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by Jockle · · Score: 0

      Hopefully you're a mere troll. If you're not, then you're a freedom-hating imbecile.

      Be truly rational and entertain the notion in your mind as a hypothesis that there is now or will be shortly something about the world that makes this measure necessary to countering acts of mass terrorism

      Freedom is more important than safety, and history has shown us that people with power will abuse it. You're not rational at all if you're serious.

    8. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... being used in the way it should to be used ...

      It is, that's the problem. The question being 'does this benefit society'? The USA has a 240 year-old piece of paper that says it doesn't. Has that been wrong all this time or is the USA wrong now?

      ... we are overestimating the capabilities terrorists ...

      This is another 'think of the children' meme. How does knowing which phone number was dialed tell anyone who the terrorists are, what they're capabilities are, or that you're not a sympathizer.

      ... something about the world that makes this measure necessary to countering acts of mass terrorism ...

      So this is a solution looking for a problem. It sounds good in theory, but lets see the practice.

      ... social disruption we're collectively willing to endure ...

      You haven't noticed this story contains a vocal portion of the population saying "Not this". When is the USA counting dissent and following the will of its people?

      ... that level ever becomes unacceptable ...

      Then what? The government has already committed the crime. You spoke earlier of problems which "... makes this measure necessary". How about solving the problem of intolerable interference from the government before it happens?

      ... What SHOULD we do ...

      Stop with a mantra that US people and US Christianity is more valuable than everybody else. Playing fair means the enemies who imitate the US are sufferable. And the enemies who don't will be very, very lonely.

      ... The People don't trust their Government ...

      Because the government has jails, more money, bigger guns, than the population that funds it. That always demands distrust. To quote a movie, "government should be afraid of its people".

      ... plan and harden civil society for an inevitable war ...

      For the USA, war is always inevitable. When the USA spies on its own citizens, who will it fight against?

      ... 18th century perspectives ...

      As you've noted, the weapons available to modern states and modern enemies are more destructive. That does not make those 18th century perspectives wrong. In the 1770s, most of the American population was an enemy of the state, the state being England. Should everyone be an enemy of the state again?

    9. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      It is, that's the problem. The question being 'does this benefit society'? The USA has a 240 year-old piece of paper that says it doesn't. Has that been wrong all this time or is the USA wrong now?

      It can be right for a time and not as right for some future time. Possibly that is the case now; possibly it will become the case in the future. It depends on events and how strictly it gets interpreted.

      Note that in this case, a strict interpretation (admitting that one is even possible ) actually militates against durability while a more flexible, responsive one improves durability. Note also that THAT fact makes the Constitution just like every other thing under the sun.

      This is another 'think of the children' meme. How does knowing which phone number was dialed tell anyone who the terrorists are, what they're capabilities are, or that you're not a sympathizer.

      Well actually it's exactly the opposite since I am suggesting that some loss of life and security should be acceptable because expecting none (not to say trying for none) will only lead to disappointment and a government no one wants including those in the government.

      As far as telephone records go, let's be clear on the details. They collect the information, but need another court order available only when clear and compelling evidence is presented to use it, analyze it or know what its content is.

      Could that help in an investigation? You bet. People need to conspire and to conspire they need to communicate. What's more, people who communicate with conspirators innocently often can provide valuable information. People establish friendships, , sources of knowledge and resources before they become radicalized and continue to use those after. Those are all helpful pieces of information. Even their location over time tells a story and is helpful.

      You haven't noticed this story contains a vocal portion of the population saying "Not this". When is the USA counting dissent and following the will of its people?

      Indeed I have and that's why I am saying we need to all talk through these things together and in public. That's the whole point. Reach a New American Consensus on Security, Privacy and Liberty. That's what we are doing here in a small way right now.

      Then what? The government has already committed the crime. You spoke earlier of problems which "... makes this measure necessary". How about solving the problem of intolerable interference from the government before it happens?

      In fact, the government has committed no crime. Section 215 of The Patriot Act authorizes them to do what they're doing. The government is not interfering with anything in doing this. Some people may have bad reactions. Their feelings matter, but under our system of government their feelings do not become determinative except through an election or a by seeking a court ruling .

      Stop with a mantra that US people and US Christianity is more valuable than everybody else. Playing fair means the enemies who imitate the US are sufferable. And the enemies who don't will be very, very lonely.

      We're in agreement on these points.

      Because the government has jails, more money, bigger guns, than the population that funds it. That always demands distrust. To quote a movie, "government should be afraid of its people".

      I can't accept and do not see the truth of your implicit premise that the government is set apart from and is different from the American people. I see the opposite- that the Congress is chock full of the same kind of religiously fanatic, extremist and doctrinal assholes who make of mess of everything they've ever touched and resist every forward step for society.

      The people in the Cincinnati IRS who targeted conservative groups are atypical of how the IRS operates but their actions are typical of the shit th

    10. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Honestly your points are non sequitors. Your original point literally makes no sense, never mind what you thought you were saying and if THAT might make rational if not factual sense .

      Fast and Furious was an attempt that failed. You're being ridiculous if you think nothing the government does should ever fail, or else it proves the government can't do anything right.

      Vietnam was a conservative war, promulgated by conservative hawks who used the specter of socialism, and communism to spend a lot of American lives. Liberals protested it and finally ended it.

      So let me ask you- do YOU remember Vietnam?

      Your POINT is a totally unrelated to anything you said in any way anyone can make out.

      Talking to other people is different from swearing at your TV.

    11. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah and this constant war on drugs and REGULATION of every mother fucking technology and bit of commerce under the sun. And Hollywood and the RIAA. No we have had the opposite of a conservative federal government keeping a military to protect the individual states. No we have a centralized system of authority which oppresses everyone and ensures only the rich and wealthy can compete and that anyone not chosen to be part of the official ruling class can suffer.

      Regulation- yeah let's deregulate some more. The financial meltdown of deregulated securities didn't cost us enough. I want to spend more money saving the whole economy from going off a cliff.

      Wealthy etc. You have got to be kidding me. Who wants to tax the top 1% and who wants to let the super wealthy keep everything, free them from inheritance taxes so extreme wealth can be a perpetual inter-generational thing, , let them pollute everyone else's environment while paying nothing for what they destroyed and pocketing the profits they made by destroying it, deregulate the securities industry so they can amass MORE wealth while risking only OUR money, keep the minimum wage to below poverty levels and in some cases eliminate it entirely (so you can either starve or work for food only ), permit the collective coordinated action of scum like the Chamber of Commerce while undermining unions, and who works against eh public funding of elections so MONEY doesn't decide what gets done by whom in government?

      PUBLICLY FUND ELECTIONS - GET MONEY OUT OF GOVERNMENT>

      Oh that's right the conservative majority in SCOTUS decided money is a form of speech. So guess we'll never see that day.

      That was right before they decided that your DNA could be taken just because you were arrested. Something they did over the objections of the liberal minority in the court.

      Yeah we need more conservatives to decide things. Then we can finally get evolution thrown out of the schools and become the polluted religious backwater with ginormous disparities in income that characterize all other banana republics .. just like conservatives have always dreamed of.

    12. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      This is about a broken democracy that has consistently and on occasion abused its power in the past and is now set up for a catastrophic abuse. I may not be able to word my argument with a college level of writing. But I am going to stand by this point of view. It is so corrupt that regardless of whether people want to pay for this "safety" out of their pockets or not we have NO CHOICE. And we are being told, to bad so sad by people in the NSA and news, and our own generally elected leader. Despite the fact that Lester Land got to him for us first.

    13. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      consistently and on occasion

      Well here I did it again. I apologize. I think if you took an in depth look at history. You could see that *consistent* is the only word I should use here. But the abuses have been sparse enough that we tend to collectively forget really fast.

      Starting with Indians, nuclear tests in southern Utah later on... etc.. being two grievous issues that pop to mind. We should not be cheering this on or defending it.

    14. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't deregulate back to anarchy. I agree stuff like that needs some kind of oversight.

      We should change the nature of how that regulation gets put into place. Rather than granting different departments of each branch defacto ability to just regulate. Everything should be passed democratically through a people elected body and tested thoroughly against the constitution.

      Also much regulation was meant for times past and has no use in present times. Or many things in present times are not sufficiently covered by times past regulation. The wording needs to be good. The finest recent example: Classification of humans as munitions for export control in regards to space flight.

      But there are tons of other issues which go off topic but however are tangential to regulatory issues. Starting with things like the NRC. Which I doubt very few actual nuclear scientists have any actual say in.

    15. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Those are just two of my favorite topics. Pick something you would like to see fixed that is regulatory and take a stab at it. And find out how many people actually had a say in how those regulations get put into place and how to fix it.

    16. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wasting your time. He's someone who doesn't care about freedom at all; people like that cheer on governments who strip away our freedoms and give us safety. Such people are not rational.

      So as I said, you're wasting your time trying to convince this imbecile to change his mind about anything. It's a shame that his mind can't be changed; as it is, his attitude is poisonous to the very concept of freedom.

    17. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      If you think I don't agree that this and every other government has abused its power then you're wrong. But that abuse was a function of the people who lived at that time. American Indians a case in point. People then just did not think as we moderns do. Sure, they did bad things using the government as a force multiplier with its armies and ability to fund via taxes and pass laws etc. etc. but it was THOSE people who did those things, through the government.

      The Government is not a thing with a static, enduring , persitent "character" like people. Some people may not change that much- you knew them then, you know them now and they haven't changed at bit. Their character endures over time . That's actually an artifact of their biology. They learned a first language, English say, and now that's their primary language, forever. That persistence, that durable fact about them is a function of the biology of learning a language.

      But governments don't have a biology and because of that they don't have an identity that endures the way people's endures. They change when society changes. They change when the people inside their offices change.

      You can't reason about what governments will and won't do the same way you can (reasonably) reason about what people will or won't do.

      You're talking to someone who after due consideration of the facts has come to the conclusion that some part of the government likely had a hand in the assassination of JFK. Even though I think that's true, I don't ascribe to that part of the now government the same propensities and lawlessness that it I think it used to have then. Why? Because that kind of lawlessness was pandemic in the world Eisenhower order the assassination of the democratically elected heads of state Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadeq (sp?) in Iran and in this the American people probably would have backed him, had they known:

      http://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/biography/5

      It's a function of the times which a shorthand way of saying it's a function of the people who live at that time in history. Ditto the American South. No Southerner today countenances slavery or owns slaves (generally this is accurate) . There is no point in generalizing to today's South on the basis of yesterday's South
      .

      Today['s government is more enlightened by our measure just because it is run buy us, I mean we moderns. They are not evil in the ways that past governments have been evil. If you're aq progressive like me, some things piss you off, like global warming and the lack of action. It's a crime perpetrated on future generations. But the non-action reflects about 50 of the US public's POV. That evil is a function of we "moderns."

      There is no evidence I am aware of which indicates that some part of the US government i, in this case the CIA and the NSA is independently and and in secret regressing to some previous state of society's developmental norms, much less to Stalin-esque or Pol Pot-esque type thinking.

      Just because Pol Pot could have used the NSA doesn't mean the NSA is going to turn into Pol Pot.

    18. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      We should change the nature of how that regulation gets put into place. Rather than granting different departments of each branch defacto ability to just regulate. Everything should be passed democratically through a people elected body and tested thoroughly against the constitution.

      that is a direct democracy ( we have a representative republic) and presumes that the majority of the people have the knowledge and time to decide each and every issue.

      There are (obvious) problems with this but that's not what is important.

      I would rather agree with you and say that any way we can find to make government regulation more accurate, more verifiable in its intended outcomes less costly and more scientific is for the good.

      I happen not to believe that people voting on whether some molecule should be approved for human consumption would be anything other than the kind of political football that global warming has turned into and which cigarettes were in the past with industry paying off "experts' to lie about "scientific facts" and people getting bamboozled for decades by their campaigns.

      It's just not the way to a good, accurate outcome and I am outcome oriented to a large degree especially in matters of science.

    19. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      Look to answer your challenge global warming. It's beyond ridiculous what's going on there. The fossil fuel industries are not just using the same tactics the tobacco companies used to deny the cigarette - cancer link, they're literally using the exact same personalities who are still alive and still doing industry's bidding.

      If you want a concrete example of a desperately needed regulation being derailed through an industry's political efforts , then this is the atom heart mother of all examples.

      I defy you or anyone else , irrespective of their pre-existing beliefs, the strengths of those beliefs and disinclination to believe anything else to read Merchants of Doubt and not come away with the absolute certain knowledge that carbon emissions caused, human invoked, global warming is real and the industries involved are systematically and knowingly lying about it.

      http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

      As far as industry input goes, it was the Republicans who in concert with industry thought up cap and trade- a market based approach to emissions reduction incentives. When the Democrats went along with the idea, the Republicans abandoned it (! ! !) and started in with the suicidal denier shit.

    20. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I really hope you are right. But to quote another meme... hope and change... aint going to cut it for me. So I try and vehemently voice my opinion. Sometimes I do it very badly. Sometimes I think I make a good point. Sometimes I'm very wrong.

      At the very least thanks for reading through all of that. I can agree, that things change, and to equate modern issues like this to past issues might be shortsighted. Perhaps this is the a particular issue. I know I have not been personally attacked yet. That is all I can really vouche for.

      I still don't like it. I still would like the money to be spent elsewhere. And it still makes me think twice. Yet I do still freely try and express myself on the web more often than not. I would like to see more respect given to regular everyday Americans. The respect to trust us rather than fear us as if we may be the enemy.

      Part of what made America great I think throughout history was that if there was an enemy like this hiding amongst us we would oust them ourselves. Than again you have things like scientists on the Manhatten project leaking information. But that may have actually saved our asses by ensuring mutually assured destruction. At least it saved the Russians many lives. It is very hard for me to think we should play god with things like that. But those guys were not the American majority. That was a few individuals. Our government can go after people it thinks may be extremely important. Why does it need to worry about all of us in such great detail. Not to mention the new leak about PRISM.

    21. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      What freedom have you lost ? Please tell me and the world what freedom your government has taken away from you.

    22. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      I think the reasoning is how can you guess what might be needed? Either you capture it at the time it happens of it's lost forever. If they could, they would go back in time and get the info from the bad guys only. As it is, they DO capture it, bu they basically don't peek at it, so it's like it's not there. It's just sitting unread in a database UNTIL and UNLESS they get a court order permitting them to look at some of it. In order to do this, they have to prove they have a very good reason to do so.

      I don't know how else to tell them to do this. I can't think of a better way that would work. If some administration tries to use this info against political enemies, as they have in the past, then I also believe there will be whistle blowers who will out them and the administration involved will ot be able to silence the outcry. If Obama was involved in the IRS scandal, then everyone on both sides of the political spectrum agree- he and his admin are toastitos.

      It's pretty obvious that it's not the case (to me, using my historical and personal judgement) but Republicans love to dream big dreams about almost every molehill they can find; it's an addiction with Issa.

      Re: the NSA- I am a freedom loving American as much or more than anyone else. I wonder how many of the people saying I don't care are in the least concerned with or even know that an entire population of full tax paying US citizens is systematically excluded from voting in Presidential elections. No taxation without representation, right Tea Party. yet people who just happen to live with the city of Washington D.C> cannot vote. You don't see these self proclaimed patriots and freedom defenders giving a shit about that, do you? You'd think it would be beyond all question absolutely item number one n their agenda, wouldn't you? The one thing that makes their blood boil and their fists shake with rage!

      Oh wait, DC is a majority Black city.

      That explains. it.

      BTW no one's educational means anything WRT the validity of their political views in this country and especially it means exactly zilch to me.

    23. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I do not think you are a troll. You have a very valid point. I'll leave it at that.

    24. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      We need a way to clean and prune this tree that doesn't rely on "appointees". People need to prove they either know what they are doing when they write these regulations and be audited by the majority or by committees with power and even more oversight. And this stuff needs to be done openly and for well stated reasons. Stuff should not be able to go on the books without at least being discussed so we can give feedback. I don't care if they specifically look at mine. But if someone (take you for example) who knows a bit more about global warming can give solid feedback it should be listened too.

      Not every problem can be solved through regulation either. Sometimes subsidies or other actions are better. I'm by no means an expert on the full political spectrum of solutions to varying problems.

      The people we have appointed now may either ignore things like global warming or don't want to sour their political careers over it. Or they even feel unqualified so pass judgment on those issues.

      In some ways the court system has a better model for "finding the truth" so to speak in those kinds of situations it might work to have judges or panels and different sides argue their case openly. I don't know just guessing wildly and hoping I come to some interesting idea here.

      I more or less agree with you and my big gripe is in seeing something not working and being tired of advocating what we have as a good solution.

      I also think we need to clean up our laws quite a bit. The shear volume is insane. Most don't even really apply to normal every day activities or could be merged into one kind of law that covers many different applications of the situation.

    25. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I agree global warming is a serious issue. It may not be as extreme as some make it out to be (I think in the worst case scenario humanity as a whole would last out a century). But it should be near the top of our political agenda for discussion. Because it is one thing we must do together. No one person or group is going to be able to fix it. And than its going to have to be tackled even further in a global arena.

      Millions or even ~billion dead is far to many to keep going like there is nothing wrong. It is clear that humans have artificially changed the entire balance of the worlds ecosystem. 400 parts per million CO2 is all I need to know and to look at current global weather trends and ecosystem changes.

    26. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose get molested at airports, being spied on, being put in free speech zones, and having information gathered on you don't count as losses of freedom to you. Well, that's what I was talking about; you're a lost cause.

    27. Re:Right here haters.. step right up.. here I am by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  48. NSA doesn't do IMINT by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    So in actuality, they aren't "watching" at all.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:NSA doesn't do IMINT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They capture Skype traffic, so they probably could. But, yeah, that's not their expertise. Data and voice analysis is what they do. Well, that and data storage, now. They're like (Google + Archive.org) * 1,000,000.

    2. Re:NSA doesn't do IMINT by Prune · · Score: 1

      You'd probably didn't get modded up because most /.ers are too lazy to look up IMINT :)

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  49. Because by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    That terrorists will come after us if they can and the only thing we have to deter this is good intelligence.

    "Because we have no fucking intent to ever change our corporate-foreign-military policy of fucking with everyone in their own backyards."

    1. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because they hate us for our freedoms. That's why we have to give up the fourth amendment protections against search and seizure.

    2. Re:Because by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      If our own government takes away all of our freedoms, will the other countries then like us?

  50. foreverwondering by Korruptionen · · Score: 1

    I am just wondering why we cannot strive for a truly transparent government. It's all too often that our privacy is eroded, while the privacy of our governments is increased. It should be the government who, if they didn't have anything to hide, shouldn't be worried about being transparent. Thus why they aren't transparent, and about as clear as mud. The dirt at the bottom is probably unconscionable. Fuck the government, they don't represent me.

    1. Re:foreverwondering by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      transparent government?? Oxymoron! Never, ever a transparent government.

  51. There is a sucker born every minute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly it's all Bush's fault. After all, President Obama has come through on his pledge to preside over the most transparent government in U.S. history, close Gitmo, and most relevant to this, end warrantless wiretaps (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html). Oh wait...

    One of the most frustrating aspects of humanity is our seeming inability to draw useful conclusions from an incredibly long history of government, particularly centralized government, doing incredibly evil things to citizenry. Government works best when government is local, and anything larger only encourages man to use it as a vehicle to prey upon other men.

    1. Re:There is a sucker born every minute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you go live where there is no centralized government then? Oh wait, there is no place like that.. except.. Somolia. What we haven't learned is that asshole uptopians who blame every Bad Thing that reality inevitably brings them on The System or The Man are fucking useless wankers. Go live in a fucking alternative retreat with all your fucking freedom loving patriot friends you useless dirtbag boomer hippy, see how that turns out for you. Probably the way it turned out for all the uptopian dope smokers in the 60s.. - now reassembled as the "Tea Party" - all their fantasies about leaving each other to be "free from coercion by The Man" blew the fuck up in their faces when it turned out.. yikes- THEY were The Man themselves and they couldn't get along with each other either. Why doesn't your generation just hurry the fuck up and DIE and quit trying to force your radical visions on an unwilling nation. Then we can get on with the business of running the world like fucking adults, something the boomers never achieved/.

    2. Re:There is a sucker born every minute. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly I was deeply deeply disappointed that Obama turned out to have been a republican plant, a crypto conservative feeding on the hopes and dreams of people who wanted a better America, only to be betrayed. And I am deeply disappointed in the democratic party that failed to challenge him and put a true liberal up as opposition for reelection.

      What I really want is a libertarian in every respect except economics, where the best option tends to be a closer to socialism.

    3. Re:There is a sucker born every minute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zzzzzzzz. I fell asleep attempting to parse the profanity and other lunacy spread throughout your straw man. Last time I checked, the United States governmental framework was configured in such a way so as to prevent exactly the sort of evil I mention in my original post. Yet even with the checks and balances, we've watched an undeniable erosion in the freedoms set forth in the constitution, with such erosions only accelerating as the federal government becomes increasingly embroiled in playing policeman to not only the world but to the United States' citizenry.

      I'm not for a moment suggesting the federal government "disappears" as you seem to claim, but rather invite a serious discussion regarding the role and scope of a centralized government, particularly one of the size in which the US government has become in the last 100 years.

    4. Re:There is a sucker born every minute. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go live where there is no centralized government then? Oh wait, there is no place like that.. except.. Somolia.

      And you forgot that other hell-hole called Switzerland. You know, where the local cantons (states/provinces) have more power than the Federal Government and there is no executive to speak of.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  52. Define "them" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got to wonder, if they had quietly refused, what would have happened to them?

    Who is "them"? Verizon is a corporate entity in Deleware

    Who'd go to jail?

    They are a corporate entity.

    We have seen many times here on Slashdot big Corp stonewalling the Government when it suits them.

    My guess? The CEO was given on offer he couldn't refuse - something that will make HIM richer - somehow.

    When it comes to corporate governance and government, alway assume malice.

    Incompetence will sort itself, malice needs to be crushed in the bud.

  53. Re:You are actually not that special by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Of course they're bored stiff. That's not the point. My boring life is my own. I'm no man's slave; no man's property. Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible. We become an increasingly servile state as we become a police and surveillance state. Not because we're necessarily doing anything wrong, but precisely because we are watched. The whole world becomes Foucault's panopticon.

    The problem with being bored is that bored people are likely to find entertainment using the resources at hand.

  54. Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Yet despite this dragnet approach to surveillance, they didn't stop the Boston Bombers. Or that elementary school massacre. Or the nutbar who shot up a theatre. Or...

    Congratulations to the United States.

    Using nothing more than the pretext of "preventing another 9/11", your government has turned into a full-on Fascist Police State, complete with rah-rah patriotism, a vague and unstoppable enemy that can never be defeated (meaning there is never going to be an end to the surveillance requirements), and blatant support of corporatism over the rights or needs of the citizenry. Classic, textbook definition Fascism.

    "Land of the Free" my ass.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now please enumerate the egregious government abuses that this surveillance has spawned. This "full-on Facist Police State" sure doesn't seem all that different from America in any of the last several generations.

    2. Re:Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Waco, The BP Oil spill coverups and pardons, Enron, The Housing Bubble, The CORPORATE databases on all citizens. The dumbing down and brainwashing of school children. Pharma Corps + the War on drugs. Fast and Furious, IRS. JFK's assassination. OPEC and our subsevience to it. NRC and its blacklisting of tech that would save lives. The Department of State and its regulation of SPACE. The control over universities (though I suspect the universities are pulling the strings) but JSTOR and the defense of it by a overzealous district attorney.

      The list goes on and whether its full of relevant shit to you or not its there...

      Lets not forget WOTC tax inscentives and EEOP destroying equality and creating welfare subservience. Naw, fuck you. Mr. Egregrarious...

    3. Re:Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Yet despite this dragnet approach to surveillance, they didn't stop the Boston Bombers. Or that elementary school massacre. Or the nutbar who shot up a theatre. Or...

      Congratulations to the United States.

      Using nothing more than the pretext of "preventing another 9/11", your government has turned into a full-on Fascist Police State, complete with rah-rah patriotism, a vague and unstoppable enemy that can never be defeated (meaning there is never going to be an end to the surveillance requirements), and blatant support of corporatism over the rights or needs of the citizenry. Classic, textbook definition Fascism.

      "Land of the Free" my ass.

      maybe you should ask black panthers.. or cherokees - it was always fascist in some actions, it just used to be that if you were white you were in the party that was keeping the power with the iron fist. it's just now that you're all equally fucked - doesn't matter if you're black, asian, hispanic or white, the government has you :) - no segregation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      what the FUCK ALL does anything you listed have to do with ANYTHING other than deregulation of avaricious industries?

      Christ. Is the NSA now in cohoots with scum who thought credit default swaps should be a defacto unregulated form of insurance?

      What I get from this is the things you are pissed off about- and it's not like I am happy about some things also- all those things are a form of conspiracy.

      The only "conspiracy" here is the massive deregulation of industry and it was industry and the pure free market coke snorters like Greenspan and now the Ayn Rand worshiping, Social Security targeting fucking power seeking psychpaths like Paul Ryan who are conspiring.

      Jesus... WACO? REALLY? Some fucking psychopath who is telling people he is Jesus Christ and keeping kids in buses in a hole dug in the basement is some kind of victim of what exactly? Big Governemnt?

      God what a tool some people are. You'll believe ANYTHING right wing talk radio tells you to or are you past that and into WND territory now.. perhaps Alex Jone's InfoWars is where you're getting your "facts" from.

      How can anyone be so totally gullible and susceptible to every asshat psycho who mounts a virtual soapbox and starts spewing hallucinations?

      Gawd.

    5. Re:Yet they didn't stop to Boston bombers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Now your trolling. Our government is in cahoots with the big investors in it. Which surprisingly are campaign funders and not tax payers. Campaign funders are the income our government really has. Tax money goes through the revolving door to the people that fund the campaigns.

      Waco could have been handled so much better than "lets roll motherfucking tanks through there". If you want to do a bit of research you can see clear paths of escalation on both sides and little attempt at deescalation and dealing with the problem even another day.

      It did not start out with anyone threatening harm on anyone. It escalated to that level. Mostly because the government would not back off. They could have bagged the guy another day.

      I didn't call conspiracy. I pointed out a potential issue and failure in a complex system. And than discussed with you in previous comments at least possible measures of reform. Than you come here and call me a conspiracy nut and tell me everything is just fine and we should not worry about this kind of overreach of massive amounts of power + money + chilling influence on our society.

      You cannot tell me that everyone believing they are constantly being monitored can be a good thing. In the short term perhaps if everyone jumps to extremely secure communications protocols. But in the long run it creates all kinds of bad animosity if people do not believe they can freely associate in public view.

      I don't even think the spying is that evil. It is the scale and scope and who is paying for it. Us.

      The reason given. That it is a "critical tool". Is flawed. I call B.S. on that. And your initial argument is that it isn't B.S.

      I made another post here that pointed out that the real threats to "National Security" wouldn't even be using public communications.

      This is tantamount to recording every conversation in a football stadium just to keep the stadium safe. It is completely overbearing. It is like the parent that won't let a child read books because they fear "evil influences".

  55. Re:You are actually not that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible.

    How so? Seriously. You still have a choice of what you do or don't do. The only imposition on that choice is your feelings about what a hypothetical other might think when observing you. That isn't "slavery". That is vanity.

  56. It's about time by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    Thank goodness; I'm feeling safer already.

  57. As long as... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    As long as this data is used to prosecute every telemarketer in the world who invariably must call a known terrorist sooner or later, it's a good thing. We'll know when it's effective as soon as those annoying carpet cleaning phonebots stop calling...

    in fact, isn't that a way to provide plausible deniability? If every terrorist maintains an autodialer that's calling everyone, when they use their line to call their terrorist buds, they can just claim they were trying to sell,them something or other...

    1. Re:As long as... by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      Now there are terrorisst! tleemarketers.

  58. Re:The real Critical Tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kotos's third party counterpart, Greg.

  59. Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once Obama is President I'm sure he'll put a stop to it!

  60. They're watching that closely, but... by RobinH · · Score: 1

    So they're watching everything, but they can't tell that a guy has 3 young women locked up in his house in Cleveland for 10 years? If they actually know so much, how come they didn't know that? The answer, of course, is they may be collecting and recording everything, but nobody's looking at it.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  61. Re:You are actually not that special by Hatta · · Score: 1

    So if I don't have anything to hide, I shouldn't have anything to fear? That never made any other residents of any other police states any safer.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  62. The Real Story... by SuperCharlie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have all but stopped posting online and know without doubt that I am potentially being monitored at every opportunity, every transaction, every stoplight, fly over cameras.. ad nauseam. This is not new or news.

    What should be gained from this "story" is not the shoveling of data to the government. what you should ask yourself when you hear a blatant and obvious illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of rights is... why am I hearing this.

    Think about that for a bit and then realize what this "story" is about.

    For those who cant or wont make the logical leaps.. let me spell it out.

    This information is not some news scoop. If you dont think the US govt and mass media outlets can and do make information (and people for that matter) disappear then I envy your bliss.

    No, when you see these headlines, what you are seeing is a focused and intentional psychological exercise to let you know how it will be, not some lucky journalist who got the next big story. Look at it for what it is.. not what it is intended to do.

    1. Re:The Real Story... by Prune · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  63. Freedom by AmazinglySmooth · · Score: 1

    Just tell people that they have to protect themselves! Who wants to live 100% under constant surveillance? If you do, then you deserve tyranny.

  64. Only one road to balance.. by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

    Their goals are in direct opposition to the maintenance of rights/privileges held by US citizens.

    The only way to balance it out is to have an element in government with as much power as them who's job it is to maintain those rights. Basically you need the ACLU with enough juice to not be afraid of the president.

    Or a president with enough nuts to do the job himself. Or a public who would vote him out if he didn't.

    It all comes back to us being misinformed douchebags with no concept of what is important in government.

    --

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
  65. Re:The real Critical Tool by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It would be naive to suggest that voting (R) rather than (D) would get you anything different.

    In this regard, yes absolutely. That's why I said what I did.

    I'm registered independent because I don't like propping up numbers for either party, but I can see your point about wanting to influence primaries.

    What a shame that there is such hate on Slashdot to independents now that my post is buried. Can't take too much truth I suppose, the more the hope the deeper the betrayal.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  66. Great tool by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    At last we will know who receives bribes in Washington and who really are behind the terrorist scare... oh, wait, you mean that is not for that?

  67. Mixed feelings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On one hand... Spying on your own people is bad... facisim nazis etc... bad stuff.

    On the OTHER hand however... Holy hell... Have you LOOKED out here on the net much? Theres alot of crazy (religious) disturbing (bronies) outright fucked up (lots) people out here...

    And i have no problem with the goverment spying on us if it means SOMEONE is keeping an eye on some of these total batshit wackjob crazies out here...

    The problem is i havent seen any GOOD results from all this spying. So it sure seems like we're pissing money away and not getting anything in return for funding all these 'intelligence' groups.

    1. Re:Mixed feelings... by Steve_Ussler · · Score: 1

      this is all bogus...i doubt they found 1 real terrorist.

  68. Also noted...timeframe by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Senator Feinstein also admitted that this is a court order renewed every 90 days....and has been for 7 years now.

    Side note...this Senator is the same who introduced legislation to remove a large segment of weaponry from the population recently.

  69. Couldn't disinformation be the key to all this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is an idle proposal the likes of 4chan users or anonymous wanna bes might find interesting: flood communications with fake terrorist threats, shady drug exchange, pseudo pedo bear meetings and such. Write botnets or some "legit" application that would render it's user highly suspicious and claim the whole thing is a joke. As they say, good individuals have nothing to hide and won't mind a little surveillance ... and what's not to like in a little role play once in a while. If the current surveillance techniques cannot distinguish real treats from fake ones, if it gives up way too many false leads, perhaps they'll be abandoned their practices and focus on what really matters (health, education and such)

    1. Re:Couldn't disinformation be the key to all this? by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      "poisoning the well" is the name of the information warfare theory you are describing. Yes.

    2. Re:Couldn't disinformation be the key to all this? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Well, I would suspect bad guys are already using this tactic, and relevant filters were developed to deal with it.

      Now, if you start unilaterally pumping out fake terrorist chatter... well that just might put you into a different class of person: wala! you just became a bad guy yourself. Because even though you just want the surveillance to end, you are indirectly helping the bad guys... and that isn't going to go over well.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  70. Re:You are actually not that special by Jockle · · Score: 1

    You must be quite selfish to not care if they violate other people's rights. That's what I get out of your comment. Even if they're not watching me specifically, the violation of anyone's rights is a big concern.

  71. The cure is worse than the disease by tukang · · Score: 1

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

    If you have a problem with this blatant invasion of our privacy and continue to vote for the same two parties that have always been in power then you have no right to complain. BOTH Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the destruction of our rights over the past two decades and it's time we remove them from office.

    And if you talk yourself into "voting for the lesser evil" then you need to think hard if there's really much of any difference between Republicans and Democrats.

  72. Does anyone remember room 641A in AT&T's basem by kaptink · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been going on at least since 2005 and its more than just phone call records - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

    "Room 641A is located in the SBC Communications building at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, three floors of which were occupied by AT&T before SBC purchased AT&T.[1] The room was referred to in internal AT&T documents as the SG3 [Study Group 3] Secure Room. It is fed by fiber optic lines from beam splitters installed in fiber optic trunks carrying Internet backbone traffic[3] and, as analyzed by J. Scott Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former adviser to the FCC, has access to all Internet traffic that passes through the building, and therefore "the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic. Former director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, William Binney, has estimated that 10 to 20 such facilities have been installed throughout the United States.[2]"

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  73. New Utah data center by mu51c10rd · · Score: 2

    I guess there is good reason to build this in Utah. Once they start collecting the content and not just the databases...all that data must go somewhere.

  74. Lack of proof if proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post the following on your web site:
    "This site has never been servednwith a national security letter"
    Let them try and force you to keep that on your site

  75. Sketchy reason for a secret order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keeping a warrant secret is sometimes necessary so you don't tip off the bad guy that you are on to him.
    But in this case, there is no specific bad guy.
        It seems like the judge should be more assertive in asking the NSA to justify why this order needs to be secret.

    If this data gathering is a good trade off should be a matter of public debate.
        (It does seem like it is on the 'this can't happen' side of what was promised with the Patriot act.)
            Public debate was prevented by the gag order on the warrant.

    What makes this important is that this data is a powerful dragnet.
        It is certainly useful for catching bad guys.
        Unfortunately, human nature and history suggest that this broad and powerful tool might also get used for less noble goals.
        NSA's ability to have this tool for the bad guys should depend on a careful oversite system.
            If we got this far without public debate, then clearly, the oversite system is broke.

  76. Hunting down whistle-blowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always keep in mind whistle-blowers. You like whistle-blowers don't you?

    Obama says terrorists. Senators always say terrorists. It's always f**ing JUST TERRORISTS!

    Obama has hunted down and charged more whistle-blowers than any president in history. These phone records will surely help.

    Terrorists. F U.

  77. Terror State USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will be real funny is when the FBI serves an enemy combatant warrant to the US Representatives who said they welcome the BushObama Terror State.

    On the other hand sending Bush, Obama and the rest of the Fed to prison would be wonderful service the the citizens of the USA.

    Maybe the NSA is really after the TSA employees ! Imagine Janet Napolitano getting served an arrest warrant by FBI and DC District Attorney and State+Fed Troops on a Sunday morning.

    Will people dump Verizon ?

    Will the FBI serve warrants on the NSA ?

    Hardy har har

    1. Re:Terror State USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the way the pattern always runs throughout history is that the psychopathic element, once it has eaten society, turns on itself.

      The people who enact these laws (surveillance and assassination) always end up being victimized by the same laws themselves.

      We just have to wait it out and survive as society crashes.

  78. Come election time.. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    98% of you people, including slashdotters, will vote either for a republican or a democrat. So, like, screw you. If you want this to stop, YOU have to make it stop.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Come election time.. by cffrost · · Score: 1

      98% of you people, including slashdotters, will vote either for a republican or a democrat. So, like, screw you. If you want this to stop, YOU have to make it stop.

      Well said, my friend.

      To anyone else who gives even the slightest fuck about civil liberties: Do you lean left? Vote Green. Do you lean right? Vote Libertarian* — both of those parties value civil liberties. "Lesser evil" is a bullshit cop-out; try voting for "not evil" for a change. If USA must have a two-party system, let's try to make it (L) versus (G), and squash this headlong rush into authoritarian extremism.

      * I'm talking about actual members of the Libertarian party here, not (R) phonies who've merely co-opted the name "libertarian." Any "Libertarian" who runs as an (R) — or any "Green" who runs as a (D) — has already sold out.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  79. Fat, lazy, do nothings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Americans are fat and lazy. They allow people to stick their hands down their pants at the airport, and still allow it today.
    They just love getting their privacy rights stripped down bare, just like at the airport.

    No one protects privacy. There are no multi-million dollar organizations protecting your privacy rights right now.
    Americans will protect their guns, but their privacy will be sold to the highest bidder.

  80. American Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without wishing to give too much offence, I think that the only thing you can now use the constitution for is either as a hygeine product that goes down the toilet, or pouring lemon juice on it to see if there's a map to freedom on the back.

  81. Re:The real Critical Tool by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Well, singling out the democrats wouldn't win any points with me either.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  82. The solution is clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop using electronic communication and especially wireless.

  83. Implicit inferrence... by ChainedFei · · Score: 2

    The GP was indicating an implicit inferrence that these things would be illegal in a hypothetical future. I cannot say as I don't believe that criminality will be broadened in the coming years, evidenced by the expansion of laws in the previous years. A future where it's illegal to have contact with anyone who is considered a criminal or enemy of the state does not seem that far fetched, and with total surveillance, it makes it easier.

  84. The Government? by ChainedFei · · Score: 1

    The government does not believe this. The government wants you to believe this.

    1. Re:The Government? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Semantics. The government is a collection of mostly corrupt individuals, while the government itself is whatever the sum of their actions becomes. Whatever those individuals make the official story is what the government "believes". Even if the individuals know it to be completely false.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  85. Re:You are actually not that special by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Read the subject title. Memorize it. Meditate upon it. Realize that even if people are watching you, they are probably bored stiff because you aren't actually that interesting. Move on with your life.

    What if you decide that you wan to try to change the political or economic status quo? Might you become more interesting then?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  86. TJ said it first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    Thomas Jefferson

  87. What? by ChainedFei · · Score: 1

    You mean my Protection from Tiger's Stone doesn't work as advertised?

  88. Re:You are actually not that special by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Yet with so much surveillance over people, control becomes possible.

    How so? Seriously. You still have a choice of what you do or don't do. The only imposition on that choice is your feelings about what a hypothetical other might think when observing you. That isn't "slavery". That is vanity.

    Use your imagination. Do you really not see how knowing a lot about a person gives you control over them? What if they have a mistress and you know about it? What if they hold fringe political views and you know about it? What if they are gay and live in a very conservative town, and you know about it? What if they are in the NSA and are preparing to blow the whistle on illegal activities, and you know about it?

    They really don't teach critical thinking is school anymore, do they?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  89. Holder has a Record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. but not what you might think. his record was for busting up political cronyism before he was hired as US Attorney General.. there is another way to look at this, and that is that the phone records of business customers might be *more* damaging to the corporate RIGHT, even though it is offensive to the civil liberties of individuals.. There are things going on about oil and arms, insider trading, and moving money across borders, that are BIG.. so more than one angle here

  90. Likely not just Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we have seen the paperwork that essentially tells Verizon to disclose the information, it would be foolish to think that Verizon is going to be the only Telco receiving such directions from the government. The ONLY way the other telcos won't have similar paperwork will be if they are WILLINGLY providing the information already. My guess is the NSL are the trump card the government uses when the folks they ask don't want to play ball.

    Just a guess though.

  91. Next, the world... by notequinoxe · · Score: 1

    There's an increasing tendency all over the world for such shenanigans(I'm living in Europe). Problem is, if this kinda shit passes and can be done in broad daylight (meaning it becomes common practice), other fuckhead politicians from various countries will have both the incentive and the reason to implement this. And they'll do it screaming 'LOOK, AMERICANS DID IT WE SHOULD TOO' .

  92. Re:You are actually not that special by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    "Bored stiff" + "entertainment using the resources at hand". Heh.

  93. Paranoid? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    a scale that would dwarf anything that all but the most paranoid would imagine

    I've known this was going on since the late '90s with ECHELON. And even before that, the government was already involved with large scale warrantless information gathering with COINTELPRO. It's not that I'm paranoid, I just looked at the evidence and accepted reality. Perhaps it's just more "normal" for most people to be in denial about this kind of thing?

  94. Not just Verizon by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    The list includes Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, with Dropbox coming soon.

  95. Massive surveilance since forever by Alomex · · Score: 1

    Because the NSA is legally above-the-board authorized to listen to conversations in which at least one party is a foreigner this has been taken place for the longest time.

    You see the way it works it that they collect metadata which, if it leads them to believe that one of the parties is not American allows them to legally listen in in the conversation.

    We can all act shocked like this didn't happen before, and make political hay, or we can start telling our politicians to dial down the post 9/11 paranoia. As best as I can tell joe sixpack and jane soccermom are not there yet. After the Boston attack I'm pretty sure middle America approves of the request. Sad but true.

  96. Constitution by hackus · · Score: 1

    In case you have not noticed there is NO LAW, except for YOU READING THIS.

    I can't keep track of the criminality that is going on any more because it is OUT OF CONTROL.

    Furthermore, nobody CARES!

    It will all end VERY BADLY for everyone reading this of course, because that is what history says when we go into these ever repeating episodes of time when societies become extremely unjust and EVIL and ...

    DIE.

    So let the NSA spend your money on its folly, there isn't going to be anything left to tyrannize when this runs its full course.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  97. As the old meme goes: by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

    I for one *don't* welcome our new security overlords.

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  98. The terrorists have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have upset your society, America. They have taken away your freedom and your privacy. They have turned your government against you.

    You just lost the war on terror, and the game.

  99. What benefit US citizenship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If am disallowed lawful firearm possession, disallowed privacy in communications, disallowed Social Security old age and SSDI benefits and disallowed exemption from summary execution via UAV, what benefit is there to US citizenship? If lawful presence in the jurisdiction has been reduced to a franchise granted by Congress upon which it may lay and collect excises, fees and imposts, perhaps illegal immigrants know that and that is why they remain in the shadows.

    If illegal immigration can be seen as a TAX issue and not merely an IMMIGRATION issue, maybe the IRS can do its job. Oh, wait...illegal immigrants are a PROTECTED CLASS!

    --
    Another fine opinion by the Fucking Psychopath®.

  100. Re:The real Critical Tool by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    What a shame that there is such hate on Slashdot to independents now that my post is buried.

    Maybe. I think your statement was taken to be a bit more partisan than you might have intended (as though (D) were really the problem given (R) was not mentioned; or maybe it was the "suckers" bit). This is why I highlighted the bit about "Libertarian or Green". Few rabidly partisan trolls would treat (D) as the problem and suggest Green as a solution. "Still, man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

  101. at least Democrats dole out the goodies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans practice surveillance. Democrats practice surveillance and dole out goodies. The third choice is bloodshed. Human nature is such that any other choice is impossible. Prove otherwise.

    You are all hot and bothered because you now know that your idol is no different than GW Bush.

    --
    Another fine opinion from the Fucking Psychopath®.

  102. Re:You are actually not that special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now imagine you decide to run for a congressional seat, or even the president's seat. Suddenly they can go 10 years back in your life and find out everyone you've contacted, what you posted or via what medium, and of who you said it about. Suddenly all those crude jokes about women rights and ignorant teen years angst can very well cause a scandal costing you a chance at changing the country. Blackmail is a harsh mistress and can very easily doom a political career; just ask Clinton or Sanford

  103. Monty Python explained this by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

    The Tea Potty people are fearful to the core, and there is a hierarchy of fears. Xenophobia is a more primal fear than fear of government, notwithstanding the conundrum presented by (*gasp*) black people in office, so it's higher on the totem pole of fear.

    Don't forget, those good Christians know that their ancestors were doing battle with Muslims a millenium ago. They may not know why, but they know that the crusades were fought in the name of Christianity, and they're all about clinging to the old ways, ahem... tradition.

    Besides, no one ever expects... (wait for it!) The Spanish Inquisition!

  104. Anybody remember Richard Nixon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was supposed to be a bad guy: he got impeached. These days he would have a really hard time as a president finding any activity he could be impeached for.

  105. East Germany by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The apparatus of East Germany never went away. It just changed country.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  106. this is small potatoes. lol by strstr · · Score: 1

    Didn't Russell Tice talk about the NSA massively deploying remote neutral monitoring and electronic brain link? That means every bit of electromagnetic energy produced by humans minds are being read and interpretted. Using EBL, which as far as I can tell, police and state agencies have everywhere, allows them to see and hear through walls, see what you see, hear, think, feel, remember, and why - every signal in your brain can and is being decoded, and compiled by police and government intelligence agencies. Combine it with Internet and phone records, but all they really need to do is monitor your brain waves. The Internet and phone shit is extra. I personally believe that at this point, everyone is being monitored, and every square inch of US surface is at least tracked. This is no joke, and this is where the real spy network is, this other shit is practically nothing. ps, I know it exists, I'm a victim of it's use, as the CIA/US DOJ/state of Oregon used it to set me up 5 years ago during a major investigation at the state hospital. it's also a weapon used to simuate psychosis, automate rape, and more. the computer in this system is very complete, a BCI which has AI that interprets everything automatically, knowing all human behaviors and why, why and what every neural impulse in your body and brain are, and everything in your body can all be manipulated from afar using microwaves and remote nerve stimulation. they can link together, do covert communication, or rape, simulate psychosis, and more. they tried to murder me in 2008 with it, and since I've been in the CIAs control everywhere I went, cause they literally follow me on the streets, "like you spy for the Statesman Journal, DeAnn Major spys for the CIA." "you're being set up to look psychotic". I had caught OSH staff on camera/audio talking about the scandal, the states lack of liability insurance, they discussed the technology that was in use from outside of the building. they were all linked up and spying on me. as far as I can tell, the reason why staff had such easy access to the technology at OSH was the US DOJ investigation into the hospitals violation of patients rights in 2006-2010, but then the case that was hidden was my abuse by staffers, including a women named Bonita Tucker, who sexually abused me, lied about it, state covered it up, and then she aided two patients escapes, smuggled in large amounts of marajuana, morphine, and amphetamine, and more, and she had lots of staff accomplises. The state covered most of this shit up to build the new hospital in 2010/2011, and they left me to die after using this weapon to try to blow my body up in my cell when I contacted the media about the Bonita Tucker situation and the spying/abuse. They literrally bullied and assaulted me on purpose, and trying to bury me in lies just to frame me to look mentally ill, all caught on camera, leading to this assault..

    Check out my site about the fiasco: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/

    Check out nsa.pdf on the homepage. and I believe Russell Tice talked about RMN, Remote Brain Stimulation, and EBL before. Good links (Mind Justice.org, Washington Post article Mind Games, etc) for info on the technology in story.html. This is the core of their spy and citizen control strategy.

    1. Re:this is small potatoes. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RBS can be resisted, but it's a pain in the ass when you're being manipulated. And it can't work unless a person accepts that it's even happening.

      People assume, "Oh, these thoughts and feelings must be mine, because they are thoughts and feelings". We don't even need black agencies to be messing with our heads for that to be a problem. It's easy to pick up on other people's emotional states if they're broadcasting loudly enough.

      The best solution is to work on good establishing health and good social parameters. Eat good food, get good sleep, stay away from drugs/alcohol and don't use a cell phone. Don't give into ego and learn to discern lies from truth. Learn the difference between your real self and the automated bullshit which stems from the old monkey brain. Keep idiots out of your life and resolve to be a decent person. Do that for long enough, and you become difficult to manipulate and the asshats move on to juicier targets.

      Best of luck to you, mate.

  107. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this different from companies tracking our surf/mail behaviour?

    And I heard on the local radio that Obama is going to talk to China about their spying how will that conversation go?

  108. Osama Won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9/11 aftermath wasn't the war and flag covered coffins coming back home, it is things like this that have been happening since.
    Osama achieved, in one blow, to put U.S. highly in debt and tearing appart its own constitution.

    I was all for Obama, but he is doing a hell of a job on making G.W. Bush seems a cool guy.

    captcha: nonlocal

  109. what is amazing..... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Is how few have thought this through even now. Attacks on the west from AQ are stopped regularly. EXactly HOW do u think we find them?
    the question u should be asking is why did Boston occur? The reason is that these operated independently of AQ. What this shows is that NSA isNOT spying on all Americans, but are spying on these with one to two degrees of connections to AQ.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  110. PRISM smoke, impeachment time by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    I think some of this PRISM story is smoke and mirrors, like a magician's trick where the hand flourishes to reveal it is empty while the other hand swaps the coins.

    What is being alleged that the spooks 'magically somehow' (Google denies it) have back door access into these companies' internal networks, the servers and clouds where the data resides ... such as a level of access granted to the most senior of administrators, or a 'root virus'. It is a lot to swallow.

    This is no Hollywood one-workstation Windows rootkit hack, These systems are unique, tightly integrated and watched over by thousands of potential whistleblowers. And the amount of data movement for surveillance alleged here is immense. In other words, it is an unlikely scenario.

    I think someone cooked up this PRISM thing as an straw man to divert attention away from the real truth --- that what NSA actually has is full-slurp access to the digital transport networks behind these providers. As I've said elsewhere, they have no need to access your mailbox if they already saw the mail as it was arriving.

    Make a grandiose claim that the providers are directly colluding with the government, let them each come clean (with a flourish of the empty hand) because there really is no 'backdoor' per se and knock that straw man down. Nothing to see, move along.

    Meanwhile the full-slurp of the transport network continues, and by agreement or outright intimidation, the providers could each pass a little pocket flash drive with their SSL web, SPOP and SIMAP cert private keys to the spooks, so they can see right into the encryption streams.

    The providers are fully protected from liability (there's no backdoor) and everyone is happy. Except those who value their privacy of course.

    Nevertheless, it's impeachment and recall time, and it is time for EVERYONE to give every bloviation containing the words 'National Security' the only proper response it deserves --- an extended middle finger and concerted action.

    It is time to DEFUND the domestic surveillance arms of NSA and the FBI and the DHS. Pretty much completely. Let the front-line cubicle spooks find honest jobs like growing corn or fixing potholes, something that matters.

    And send those Israeli private contractors home.

    I surely hope everyone is up to it. It's the last chance we'll get.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  111. Oh please stop whining by cundare · · Score: 1
    Seriously, this is news? There were court cases in the 90s that clearly indicated that there was no expectation of privacy in voice-carrier pen registers. Furthermore, anybody who read Wired's lengthy feature about the new NSA facility being built at Fort Williams, UT, (or even readers of the NYT or USA Today) knows that this type of surveillance has been occurring almost routinely since 9/11.

    So please spare us the whining and shock. If this is a surprise to you, you're part of the problem. If you gleefully expose every aspect of your private life on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (and Slashdot), then you have nobody to blame but yourselves if your privacy is "violated." This is the way the world works today and that's not going to change.

    If you want 1970s-class "privacy," then close your Facebook, Amazon, eBay, PayPal, & Twitter accounts, encrypt all your online communications (although that probably won't make much difference), and never say anything online that might someday be used against you in any context by any entity. Or even better, just stay off the Internet and the cellular networks completely. Otherwise, just shut up and continue to enjoy the conveniences you've already agreed to surrender in exchange for Fourth Amendment protection.

    As Larry Ellison is reputed to have said in the late 90s, "Privacy? That ship sailed long ago."

  112. The government would never blackmail us, right? by wad4ever · · Score: 1

    Do you trust the government to just use this information to protect us from scary terrorists?

    The FBI wiretapped and recorded Martin Luther King's phone calls, and amassed a bunch of evidence around his extramarital affairs. Then they sent him a letter telling him to stop his civil rights activism, and even commit suicide, or they would publish all the material. I'm not making this up. Check wikipedia's sources on the subject.

    --
    --- wad
  113. Trust by Christopher_T. · · Score: 1

    Some party hack decreed that the people had lost the government's confidence and could only regain it with redoubled effort. If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people And elected another? -Bertolt Brecht, "The Solution"

  114. Google "Decline of democracy" by NewYork · · Score: 1

    No government empowers you.
    They fear you might think/act out of the box.

  115. ACA, Obama, congress by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    In fact his "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is a insurance company wet dream.

    In fact congress's "crowning achievement" is a healthcare bill that is an insurance company's wet dream.

    FTFY. Obama didn't want what we got from congress. The ACA, as finally configured, came from the usual cronies of the corporations. Even so, availability of medical care to millions more people is an important step forward for a sane society. It just isn't as big a step as the single-payer arrangement Obama was trying for would have been. Perhaps we can go forward from here, though.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:ACA, Obama, congress by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having a government who spies on all its citizens, punishes people for their political beliefs through the IRS and lies to judges to get warrants to chill free speech is just the group I want in charge of administering the system that is going to keep me alive if I get sick.

  116. Wait, what? Where? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    At a minimum, violation of an oath of office, or of such a right, disqualifies any person so doing from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or engaging in the practice of law, or receiving a pension or other benefit from the government. Attempting to claim a pension is appropriately viewed as criminal fraud, and attempting to continue in office is appropriately viewed as impersonating a government official.

    Very serious question: Where is this codified into law that affects officeholders, or even just rules?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  117. This isn't metadata. by Jaywalk · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's a late post, but this one burns me. Metadata is data about the data, phone numbers are data. For instance, if I say that phone numbers are ten numeric digits comprised of a three-digit area code with a seven digit phone number, I'm talking about the metadata. If I say phone number 555-1212 called phone number 666-2323 and talked for fifteen minutes, I'm talking about data. Calling it "metadata" in this context is just trying to cloud the issue.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====