Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Judge Rules Against NSA In Phone Spying Case (reuters.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the stop-looking dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news that a federal judge ordered the NSA to immediately end its collection of call records associated with a California lawyer and his law firm. Reuters reports: "Opponents of mass surveillance cheered the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who granted an injunction to bar the NSA from collecting the phone metadata of California attorney J.J. Little and his small legal practice. Unlike previous rulings against the NSA's program to vacuum up Americans' call data, which was exposed publicly by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, Leon's opinion does not grant a stay, meaning it will take effect immediately."

93 comments

  1. Talk about a narrow ruling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does every American need to file suit to shut it down completely?

    1. Re:Talk about a narrow ruling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Judge: NSA is to halt data collection.
      NSA: Make us. BTW about that conversation you had with (bleep) last week...

    2. Re:Talk about a narrow ruling. by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 3, Informative

      Does every American need to file suit to shut it down completely?

      Sorry, it's established precedent that individual Americans do not have the standing to bring legal proceedings against the NSA and other intelligence agencies for these so-called "blatant" and "ongoing" "violations" of the "Constitution". And of course civil liberties groups don't have standing either, since they're made up of individual Americans, and a million times zero is still zero. Too bad, so sad.

      Don't worry, though--there's plenty of Congressional oversight of these agencies. The oversight process works like this: One: A whistleblower and/or the news media reveals evidence of wrongdoing. Two: Congress holds a hearing and calls in various top-level officials of the relevant agencies. Three: Congresspeople ask these officials tough and pointed questions about the legality and Constitutionality of various agency programs. Four: The officials lie about it, and also point out that terrorists and child molesters exist. Five: The news media and your Uncle Mark point out these transparent lies. Six: The officials are not terminated, nor do they suffer any other consequences for lying to Congress. Seven: Democracy is saved!

  2. From TFA by CajunArson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you actually read TFA:

    Leon, a conservative judge appointed by former President George W. Bush, has long been among the most vocal judges critical of the NSA's spying practices.

    Nope, this goes against the groupthink around here and must be rewritten to keep Slashdot a Safe Space (TM):

    Leon, a transgender judge appointed by future President Bernie Sanders, has long been among the most vocal judges critical of the NSA's spying practices.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  3. How by dnaumov · · Score: 1

    Did he prove he has standing to sue? Isn't that what most (all?) other lawsuits failed to do resulting in dismissal?

    1. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dont read TFA or anything:

      A higher court previously rejected Klayman's challenge, saying he could not prove his phone was targeted by the NSA as Snowden's documents only revealed customers of Verizon Business Network Services, which is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, such as Little, were implicated. Klayman added Little to his case to address the standing concern.

    2. Re:How by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did he prove he has standing to sue? Isn't that what most (all?) other lawsuits failed to do resulting in dismissal?

      Just guessing:
        - He's a lawyer (part of the legal system itself), suing over the phone info on himself and his firm.
        - His, and his firm's, consultations with clients are privileged. So keeping records on who they talked to and when are a real infringement on a fundamental and recognized right. (It's not just "chilling" speech. Its chilling the right to an attorney.)
        - The Snowden revelations show that these records are being kept on him - because they're being kept on EVERYONE. So he cleared the other hurdle that the secrecy of agency operations (including the gag order provisions of National Security Letters) usually raised.

      So it looks like he's got enough to avoid the "no standing" excuse for courts to drop the hot potato.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:How by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just guessing:

      Why bother to guess, when the answer is in the article, and someone already posted the correct answer?

    4. Re:How by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Because this is slashdot, and the uninformed assumptions of a logged in doofus need to be moderated +4 Insightful, while the relevant and factual (and earlier) post by the AC needs to stay modded at 0.

    5. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about this scenario?

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

      Unfortunately this does nothing in reality. The phone companies are the ones who collect and store your data. The NSA used to get it in bulk but this year it was decided that the companies would just hold on to all the data and the NSA would simply request it if you are suspected of being a terrorist. Meanwhile Verizon and everyone else are busy selling your personal information for profit. So this guy won a court case that actually doesn't prohibit anything because NSA isn't actually "collecting" any information about this lawyer. He needs to sue his telecom provider.

  4. Ok, so when do they stop violating everyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My fourth amendment rights should matter too, not just a law firm's.

  5. Implications by alvieboy · · Score: 1

    The decision is of little practical consequence because it is so narrow in scope in covering only Little and his firm.

    I know nothing about US Law System, so I ask you: what are the implications of this ruling on other cases, either pending or new ? Does this mean there is no Jusrisprudence due to too focused scope of the ruling ? Can this federal ruling be appealed, and if so, to what extent ?

    Alvie

    1. Re:Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The decision is of little practical consequence because it is so narrow in scope in covering only Little and his firm.

      I know nothing about US Law System, so I ask you: what are the implications of this ruling on other cases, either pending or new ? Does this mean there is no Jusrisprudence due to too focused scope of the ruling ? Can this federal ruling be appealed, and if so, to what extent ?

      Alvie

      Anything and everything can be appealed, which is why the side with the deepest pockets usually wins. I'm sure the NSA will say things have stopped but given the interests of national security, no one will know for sure until the next Snowden.

    2. Re:Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know nothing about US Law System

      It's fundamentally broken, heavily (as in, without one or both of the following, you're fucked) biased towards participants with money and/or power, incorporates very little one could legitimately term "justice", treats blacks far more roughly than it treats whites, has no respect whatsoever for personal or consensual informed choice, doesn't actually have a sane, workable definition for "informed", and operates in constant and profound violation of the constitution from the lowest police officer to the highest supreme court judge. It currently has more people incarcerated than any other legal system on the planet. Both as a percentage of population, and as a total number. A very large number of those prisoners are victims of the legal system, rather than people who committed an act with a non-consenting (actual) victim. The police are corrupt; those who don't do criminal acts themselves indulge in a culture of "don't tell" so as to enable their fellow officers to continue abusing their authority. Never tell a US police officer of any stripe anything but "yes sir", "no sir", or "I'll have to have my lawyer answer that, sir." If you can't afford a lawyer, one with no time whatsoever for you will be appointed by the court which (eventually, after great inconvenience and pain on your part) will be one of the many contributing factors that will see to it that you are well and truly fucked. If you can afford a lawyer, the odds of them seeing you case through to a just conclusion depend on how much money you can provide them, how well they know the presiding judge, and how well the opposition is paid, or, in the case where the opposition is a government prosecutor, you have almost certainly already lost, however your lawyer may be able to reduce the impact of that loss to a simple drop to the country's lowest class of unemployables.

      Now you know everything you need to know. You're welcome.

    3. Re:Implications by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      There is there is no Jusrisprudence because it is a district court ruling. Those are basically the lowest level federal courts, that hear most cases. Until there is at least an appellate court ruling their decisions don't usually create case law that impacts other courts.

      What is interesting is there is no stay granted. Which does mean the NSA must comply with the judgement right away or they may be found to be in contempt. One wonders if the NSA has the technical capability to do so without shutting down large portions of their surveillance. Usually in cases where there is likely to be an appeal and there implementation of the ruling will be large or complex a stay is issued until the appeal can be heard.

      IANAL but I think one could be held in contempt for not complying with a judges order even if an appeal is later successful because the issue is the non compliance not the order.

      To me the interesting issues here are:
      1) How will the NSA demonstrate to the court that it has complied?
      2) If the NSA refuses and the judge finds them in contempt what can / he will he do to a three letter agency

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Implications by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      This is the "first crack in the wall" case. It brings all the guns possible to bear on the spooks.

      If you can't get a win in the legal system when Attorney-client privilege and the right to legal council are at stake, and the investigative agencies are spying on lawyer/client communication and the research the lawyers do to support their court arguments, you might as well throw in the towel.

      If you DO get a win, you've established that there are situations where the spying can be blocked. Then it's in the interest of all concerned, including the courts, to map out WHEN you can block them and when you can't. So there are a burst of little cases and the courts actually take them up. This fills in the "more populated areas of the map."

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Implications by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not really arguing with your summary, but that's criminal law, not civil law. This is a civil case.

      How this works is that the plaintiff files suit against the defendant, and asks the court to do something, typically to award the plaintiff money or to grant an injunction that will prevent the defendant from doing something. To determine the facts (if in doubt) there will be a jury, instructed to make decisions based on the preponderance of the evidence rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal justice standard. The legal aspects are a combination of black-letter law (what Congress and state legislatures enact) and case law (which is a record of previous related court decisions, referred to as precedents). This is one thing that makes it difficult to be certain of the law in such cases: you have to know all the applicable precedents as well as the law as printed.

      Precedents can be persuasive or binding. If a superior court (in the Federal court system, we have district courts, appellate or circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, in increasing order of superiority) has established a precedent, that's considered a binding precedent, and the court either needs to go by it or explain why it doesn't apply in this case. If the judge is in a court that has had no superior courts rule on something, it's still called a precedent but isn't binding.

      Anyway, both sides get a chance to persuade the judge and maybe the jury of their view of things. There will be a verdict, and then the parties can either accept it or appeal it to a higher court, if they're not already at the Supreme Court. There are cases that are going to be appealed until the appeal is denied or the Supremes rule on it.

      There's various legal maneuvers that go on in a civil trial. One is discovery, where one side asks for certain information from the other side. It can't be unduly onerous, there's no penalty for having erased the information in the normal course of business, and the judge will be responsible for making sure no secrets are revealed that shouldn't be. Either side can request delays for various purposes, and the defendant can ask for a change of venue, meaning the defendant proposes another court for the trial. The system is set up so the defendant can't just delay proceedings indefinitely. (The SCO vs. IBM trial went on for years and years because SCO, the plaintiff, was trying to drag out the trial as long as possible, and the system wasn't set up to deal well with that.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. compliance by BradMajors · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However, I think it will be unlikely that the NSA will comply with the order, and that no one will be able to determine if NSA complied with the order, and if it was found NSA did not comply with the order no one would be punished.

    1. Re:compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      So, how are you all on Slashdot enjoying that "big government" you wanted so much?

    2. Re:compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great use of money all-around!

    3. Re:compliance by zlives · · Score: 3, Insightful

      clearly you know nothing... the director of the NSA can and will be asked to give a sworn testimony to the congress in which he will verify that... there is nothing to see here, move along citizen.

    4. Re: compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, that's weird. The Catholic Church is another big organization, does it have a branch that records every members' phone calls? Your logic is faulty.

    5. Re: compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Organization vs. populace
      USA: 2.7 million federal non-military employees (+contractors) vs. 321 million residents (+illegal immigrants); ratio: roughly 1:119
      R.C.C.: 393 thousand priests (and higher) vs. 1.2 billion members; ratio: roughly 1:3125

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

      Before there were telephones, the Church had a branch called the "Inquisition." They call it something else now (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

    7. Re:compliance by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      So, how are you all on Slashdot enjoying that "big government" you wanted so much?

      Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

      - H. L. Mencken, 1916

      [a century later and no lessons were learned - ed.]

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re: compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, that's weird. The Catholic Church is another big organization, does it have a branch that records every members' phone calls? Your logic is faulty.

      The catholic church doesn't need to record everybody's phone calls. Instead, every member of the church is requried to regularly 'confess' their sins to the priest.

      http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Good-Confession-in-the-Catholic-Church

      In this way, the priest learns about everything that's happening in the community.

    9. Re:compliance by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      However, I think it will be unlikely that the NSA will comply with the order, and that no one will be able to determine if NSA complied with the order, and if it was found NSA did not comply with the order no one would be punished.

      Judges no longer have any authority. The law of the land is only so much confetti. Benjamin Franklin's experiment is in its death throws.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    10. Re: compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it's called "God" and is generally considered to be a part of every conversation, everywhere. Idiot.

    11. Re:compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when are we going to rise up and resist?!

    12. Re: compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon, very soon....

    13. Re:compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why it's an interesting case. The legal system has its own ability to compel. As such, it has the ability to protect itself and the class of communications it has that are privileged.

      Sure the people who think that the fourth amendment is an obstacle rather than a law may ignore it but... if any judge elsewhere in the system ever gets wind of it, even years from now, the 'what part of the court order did you not understand?' will get trotted out. Judges tend not to like willful disregard of court orders. This will be part of the process that ends up drawing up the jurisprudence.

      What also needs to go onto paper is how to deal with parallel construction.

    14. Re: compliance by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Wow! I didn't expect that!

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    15. Re:compliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us filter our opinions mindlessly through a binary ideological filter. Some of us actually think about what parts of government we want "big" and what parts we don't.

      Of course, if you're a Conservative, you're a hypocrite anyway, since the track record of the "Conservative Party" (Republicans) has shown no shyness about expanding government in its own ways.

      If you're a "Libertarian", I hope you vote for Libertarian Party candidates and not Republican "Libertarians", since Republicans only talk Libertarian when it suits them, not when big-government laws need passing. I use quotes because there are Libertarians, and then there are people who claim to be Libertarian to justify being mooching deadbeats quacking "Tax is Theft".

      And if you're simply a pimple-infested kneebiter, who either doesn't vote or is too young physically as well as mentally to vote, how about just crawling back to your basement until you've accumulated some useful and practical knowledge and can make valuable contributions to the debate rather than merely bouncing around like a puppet when your ideological strings are pulled?

  7. I see what you did there by Fwipp · · Score: 2

    "J.J. Little and his small legal practice"

  8. bout time,, I know its small but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it has to start from some where.. and at the end of the day,, Some mother fucker is still getting paid for all the bullshit. Lawyer, agent, constituant. Teh list goes on..

    but moving past that, yes, who enforces the order, and how?
    Inquiring minds want to know..

    Wait, how bout this..

    they have these things that "shut down" the govt, budget decision issues, um, finishing up agenda items, etc..
    Well
    Why cant we impose that on the NSA..
    you dont comply, you close until compliance is proven, and consistant..
    I could see another revenue stream for someone.. Court imposed compliance investigator/officer.
    This individual goes around, announced or not, to ensure court orders are being implemented, carried out, or at least attempted to follow.
    He or she can issue a citation to which a representive of the party cited can visit a judge and have it intrepreted and actioned on..
    Yes another revenue stream..
    Almost reminds me of eliot ness
    btw I dont care my spelling is off, it's of little concern to me. If it's causing a distraction to the point that you are not able to follow what I am saying, them perhaps this conversation is not necessarily for you. Perhaps, to borring. whom knows.

  9. So what? by truck_soccer · · Score: 0

    The NSA is under no obligation to give any fucks.

  10. Re:Big government desire fallacy by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    People want certain elements of government expanded and other elements of government removed. If that means the result happens to be a government that is "big" then the opinion is usually so be it, but "bigness" is usually considered a side effect that is harmless with regards to the features desired.

  11. Why he had standing by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    What prevents these rulings from happening is usually standing. That is, the plaintiff must have evidence that the NSA was surveilling them in order for the case to go to court at all. In this case, Snowden's documents specifically showed that Verizon customers were being monitored. The original plaintiff added J. J. Little to the case for the specific reason. But it did them little good because the ruling can then only apply to Verizon customers.

    I wonder if they could then make this a class action by enjoining all Verizon customers into the suit.

    1. Re:Why he had standing by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Correction, it is Verizon Business, not Verizon in general.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. yayyy by zlives · · Score: 1

    a "small" victory for the "Little" people

  13. Re:Ok, so when do they stop violating everyone els by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Are you sure no warrant was issued?
    2. Are you sure that the government feels it is unreasonable?

    My understanding is that there was a warrant issued by the FISA court, which is the federal court assigned to the NSA.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. Do the easy one first ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does every American need to file suit to shut it down completely?

    Rule of thumb for getting things to happen via the courts:

      1) Find a slam-dunk case to establish a precedent. You're putting the first crack in the wall, establishing that there's something there.

      2) Do (typically a small number of) additional cases to establish the extent of the precedent's application. Now that something is established, the courts switch from stonewall to map-it-out mode.

    Prosecutors do this sort of stuff all the time. (That's why things like restricting freedom of the press and speech generally starts with going after child molesters and child pornography purveyors.)

    But it works both ways. Here we have a case where government investigative agencies are going after the communications between lawyers and clients. That's a fundamental part of the legal system, so the actions of the spooks are likely to be as repellent to the judges at all levels as child molesters are to juries.

    If the rulings on this case put the first crack in the wall, it should take no more than a handful more to get solid rules established about what the spooks can't do, and how to figure out when they did it and spank them.

    After that, as with other rights, we'll be on the usual treadmill: The bad behavior will be reduced a lot; violations will occur, become more common, and eventually institutionalized - when not caught and fought; and intermittent suits will be needed now and then to trim it back and/or map out additional hands-off boundaries.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Do the easy one first ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with your analysis but I don't believe this will slow the illegal collection of data by the NSA (and others).
      Even given that the conversation with your lawyer is protected you still have to prove that:
          - It was done to you/your client.
      Which is a pretty damn difficult when you are dealing with agencies that have no issues at all with falsifying and manufacturing evidence. Not to mention parallel construction.

    2. Re:Do the easy one first ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does every American need to file suit to shut it down completely

      Here we have a case where government investigative agencies are going after the communications between lawyers and clients

      I am not an American, so correct me if Im wrong with this scenario:

      1) I fill a charge against myself for tresspassing my property
      2) for defense purpose, I choose myself as a legal representative - if Im correct, I have a constitutional right to do so...
      3) Call from my landline my mobile number - usual trick to find the phone - but this time, feeling a little bit lonely, talk to myself for a while (is this still legal in US?) using all privileges of lawyer-client communication
      4) Sue the government for breaking my constitutional privileges (this time hiring some other lawyer), demanding multi-milion penalty (see 6) and immediate injunction against NSA
      5) ???
      6) Profit! *
      7) Drop the charges for tresspassing my property
      * Depends on the outcome of 5)

    3. Re:Do the easy one first ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      number 1..."tresspassing my property" if you were a real American, you would have shot him dead and claimed stand your ground.

  15. Re:Big government desire fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People want certain elements of government expanded and other elements of government removed. If that means the result happens to be a government that is "big" then the opinion is usually so be it, but "bigness" is usually considered a side effect that is harmless with regards to the features desired.

    Oh! Kinda like when Microsoft added Internet Explorer as an integral (and inseparable!) part of Windows 98.

  16. U.S. Judge Missiing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    U.S. judge suspected of terrorism went missing today. Circumstances are unclear. Senor officials at the NSA said; we certainly haven't seen him.

    1. Re:U.S. Judge Missiing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senor Officials calls for a FIESTA!

  17. Re:Ok, so when do they stop violating everyone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My fourth amendment rights should matter too, not just a law firm's.

    No no. You are little people. Only big people's rights matter. Big people are either rich or connected to the rich (like lawyers and politicians). This judgement solves this perfectly.

    Think of this: Whenever Bill is travelling far away and can't get home for the night, instead of just calling Melinda he'll also conference in his lawyer. That way their phone sex will be guaranteed fully private.

  18. thanks AC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whenever Bill is travelling far away and can't get home for the night, instead of just calling Melinda he'll also conference in his lawyer. That way their phone sex will be guaranteed fully private.

    not enough brain bleach in the world

  19. Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez you're full of shit APK. How do you like being the resident joke here. Fucking dickwad spammer and malware author.

  20. Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You attracted my attention. Doing so by ac as I don't want Coren's sig stupidity. Coren made big mistakes admitting it not apk.

  21. Re:Big government desire fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly! You could disable it and ignore it, even though it was still there you'd never even have to use it and could in fact uninstall it.

  22. Appeal to FISA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Federal Circuit Court rulings against the NSA are appealed to FISA, which will, of course, overturn the ruling with no opportunity for Plaintiff to bring it to a higher court. FISA is the "Supreme Court" for national security measures.

  23. Because I like to be fair to readers of my posts. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Why bother to guess, when the answer is in the article, and someone already posted the correct answer?

    Because this time I didn't have enough time before a hard deadline, but thought some people might value my opinion anyhow. If I checked those items first, and the posting was still appropriate, I would not have had the time to compose and post it.

    So I put the caveat right at the top:
      - If a reader only wants something researched, he is free to stop right there and move on to another posting.
      - If a reader values both my researched and my off-the-top-of-the-head postings, he knows this was the latter, and should check before trusting it.

    Now I COULD have just posted it WITHOUT the caveat - as many posters do. Let me know if that's what you prefer. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  24. What makes anyone think they'll stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These government agencies have made it quite clear that they believe they are above the law. What makes anyone think for one second that they are going to stop just because some lowly judge tells them to?

  25. Re:Coren22 likes telling lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you suck dicks?

  26. Re:Ok, so when do they stop violating everyone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My fourth amendment rights should matter too, not just a law firm's.

    Does the government have a reason to fear you specifically?
    If not then you don't really have amendment rights.

  27. Re:Coren22 likes telling lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I love big dicks in my ass and mouth, please take me now, I am on my knees for you

    APK

    P.S.=> Will you give me a reach around? ... apk

  28. Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    APK, why do you try to act like you are an independent person? No one believes this isn't you posting, as the language and style is the same.

    My "sig stupidity" is visible to all users, anyone can see it, they just need to create an account. Also, why would I pick on anyone that has an account as they are willing to have adult conversations and not act like incessant trolls.

    The only mistake I ever made was trying to engage you in intelligent conversation to attempt to improve your offerings. As you have no interest in listening to anything critical of yourself or your work, even when accurate, you are apparently also incapable of holding an intelligent conversation without insulting multiple times per post and going way off subject.

    I found this AC post pretty funny, because the Psychiatric diagnostic codes pretty well fit your behavior, you really should get those issues looked at by a professional, they can have lifelong consequences.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  29. I can't see it & you know it - b.s.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your mistakes will be posted next & they're malicious in intent (who're you trying to fool? Yourself??) - all "you & yours" have is attempts @ playing "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNkS of /." in failing ad hominem attacks, nothing more...

    * :)

    (HOWEVER on the flipside? I have your MASSIVE screwups in technicals - & you CLAIM to be an MCSE, a "security guru", & what-not? Please - make me laugh - someone of that calibre wouldn't try hassle me much less make the massive mistakes you have vs. myself which I'll post next for "posterities sake" & defending myself with facts, using YOUR OWN WORDS & MISTAKES quoted!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Attempts @ libeling me aren't valid you know... apk

    1. Re:I can't see it & you know it - b.s.! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It would be great if you actually had any mistakes I have made, instead of the same tired arguments I already replied to.

      I am not playing sidewalk shrink, but you calling me retarded is somehow not? I pointed to a post that suggested possible answers to your unusual behavior, but I am acting a shrink?

      You claim I have libeled you, where have I done so, and what makes you think it is libel?

      Yes, I am a MCSE, and working on my CISSP, but that is ok if you don't believe me, my managers have a copy of my MCSE number, so I don't have to worry about it too much. Since you care so much about credentials, where are yours? Where is your security certification? Where is your degree in computer security? Where is any kind of indication that you actually work in the security industry rather than make programs that collate other people's work?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:I can't see it & you know it - b.s.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any mistakes? You are a mistake. A genetic aberration mentally abnormal retarded aspergers autistic freak psycho Coren22.

  30. Coren22 "impersonating" me now? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & grow up boy - if that's the "best ya got", it ain't much!

    APK

    P.S.=> Utterly pitiful... apk

  31. Re:Ok, so when do they stop violating everyone els by david_thornley · · Score: 2

    Read the Fourth Amendment text about warrants. A general warrant would be unconstitutional. Was there any probable cause to keep track of the communications of this particular law office?

    I don't know the exact pretext the NSA uses. Either they consider such a blanket search reasonable, or they consider it not a search unless and until some human access the records or some action is taken on them.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Re:Big government desire fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disabling IE resulting in a broken system because other part of the OS relied on browser libs.

    Fucking MS