It doesn't matter if the service is false or not. If somebody from the company claims to be a customer, even if it IS the best thing since sliced bread, that is illegal (evidently, based on the fine imposed).
Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for "endorsing" products that they don't actually use. Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays' estate for all the junk he's hawked over the years. Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy. Finally, the Sham-wow guy...err, wait, he has enough legal troubles it seems.
Yes, and since when have Apple desktops or laptops had "integrated" memory chips that couldn't be removed and replaced by the user? I've been using Macs since about 1988 and even way back then you could upgrade RAM (even though it was ridiculously expensive, across the industry).
Hyperbole is nice and all, but it's called hyperbole for a reason. Making the poor design choice of integrated batteries or leaving off card readers may not be optimal eingineering trade-offs, but it doesn't mean they have ever done the same thing with memory chips.
I guess that makes 2 of us who understand that our opinions don't determine what is or is not constitutional. Well stated! However, it is a relatively easy argument to make that wiretapping US citizens falls under unreasonable search and seizure.
Those are all valid links, but they actually support what I'm saying. If we really wanted the oil, we would have taken it, and used it to finance this mess. But, we didn't, as your links show. I don't think it was due to incompetence. I think rather that we didn't do it because it would have looked bad, and would have only fueled the "No Blood for Oil" crowd's fervor.
I didn't say it PREVENTS Bush and Obama from anything. I said it OUTLINES the limitations. In other words, it is complete BS to say there is no oversight, when there clearly is (USSID 18).
We are competent enough to sustain the deployment of 150,000 troops for over 8 years. Stealing oil that is freely streaming out of the ground in the country the US occupies is child's play, in comparison.
Well said. There are enough open source sources out their for even the most intellectually challenged to figure out what the NSA does. These fools on here who think they know what the NSA does are simply that--fools.
Here's a declassified version of the restrictions against collecting on US Persons, for example. This alone debunks 99% of the stupid comments that always pop-up in any NSA related thread. http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm
Are we supposed to believe they do not monitor and listen in any domestic conversations ?
Yes you are. And you should read USSID 18 while you are at it and see for yourself that their are specific restrictions against listening in on domestic conversations. You will also learn that it requires a warrant granted by the Attorney General (not the Director of the NSA, not the President, not a mythical National Security Czar, Not Your Mom).
Yes, because having an extra 1,000 sq. feet of air in one's home has a profound impact on the environment of a State that: a) is mostly uninhabited, and b) requires very little air conditioning.
The U.S. government spends more on surveillance of its citizens than any country in the entire history of the world.
Care to cite that?
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, all for profit.
Profit eh? So how much money does the US government earn every time a B1 Bomber drops another bomb? They have to pay for those planes, pilots and bombs, and get no monetary value in return. So where's the profit?
In Iraq, oil and weapons investors like Bush and Cheney wanted control over the oil, and didn't care how many people they killed. In Afghanistan, oil investors want to build an oil pipeline.
Care to explain why this mythical oil pipeline STILL hasn't shown up? It has been what, 8 years now since Moore made up this talking point? Also, if we invaded Iraq for the oil, then why do we not have ANY of the oil?
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example. Some U.S. states, such as Oregon, spend more on prisons than on education!
Perhaps there is a higher percentage of criminals in the US than in Europe, or our law enforcement is more efficient, or, gasp, we have a bunch of dumb laws that put dumb people in jail? So what.
Even in your own link it is clear to see that you are citing the Information Assurance mission, and oodaloop is citing the Signals Intelligence mission.
Actually, he was right. The NSA has multiple missions. The collection and decryption of signals (voice and non-voice) is one mission, making the guy you are trying to rip correct. You are also correct, as another mission of the NSA is to prevent foreign agencies from intercepting and decrypting our signals (voice and non-voice). There are a few more missions that you are conveniently leaving out in your zeal to look smarter than you might actually be in this instance.
Sweeping statements are not necessarily correct statements. For example, this statement is completely incorrect: "without oversight of law." United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (Intelligence Oversight), clearly outlines the limitations against collecting against and maintaining recordings of US Persons.
I'm not sure using my iPhone to get directions, make a call or check email qualifies as "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS" usage in "all public places". The dumbest jokes are the ones that are the least true. If you have to make something up, it isn't very funny.
Now replace every instance of "iPhone" with "Blutooth" and then it's funny.
I'm refraining from "agreeing or disagreeing", since it isn't you or I who decide what is Constitutional. If (big if, cuz I don't know) school authorities have been given approval to conduct searches (strip or otherwise), then as long as they pass the Constitutional muster of "reasonable" then who are you to disagree with school authority?
Well, the key phrase is "unreasonable". I think it is fairly obvious that this was an unreasonable search--not because they strip-searched a little girl, but because they had NO REASON to strip-search a little girl. Had they a legitimate suspicion she shoved them in her bra, then yes, that would be a constitutional search (IMHO, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer).
is that one judge actually dissented. This has to be one of the biggest "NO DUH" cases I've ever heard of. How did this make it to the Supreme Court again?
For those of you wondering why this is being put into the hands of the NSA, it's because they already do this stuff.
Our Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. Our Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
It's going under the NSA because it is already an NSA mission, albeit one people never talk about. In addition to electronic surveillance, the NSA has always been responsible for "cyber-security", under the other two functions of the NSA: cryptology and counter surveillance (assuring other countries don't do to us what the NSA does to them).
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if the service is false or not. If somebody from the company claims to be a customer, even if it IS the best thing since sliced bread, that is illegal (evidently, based on the fine imposed).
Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for "endorsing" products that they don't actually use. Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays' estate for all the junk he's hawked over the years. Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy. Finally, the Sham-wow guy...err, wait, he has enough legal troubles it seems.
Seriously? Well ain't that a load of crap! I'll stick with my plain ol' silver Macbook then.
Yes, and since when have Apple desktops or laptops had "integrated" memory chips that couldn't be removed and replaced by the user? I've been using Macs since about 1988 and even way back then you could upgrade RAM (even though it was ridiculously expensive, across the industry).
Hyperbole is nice and all, but it's called hyperbole for a reason. Making the poor design choice of integrated batteries or leaving off card readers may not be optimal eingineering trade-offs, but it doesn't mean they have ever done the same thing with memory chips.
I guess that makes 2 of us who understand that our opinions don't determine what is or is not constitutional. Well stated! However, it is a relatively easy argument to make that wiretapping US citizens falls under unreasonable search and seizure.
So if they got a warrant, even if it were rubber stamped by the FISA court, it isn't illegal. Duh.
Those are all valid links, but they actually support what I'm saying. If we really wanted the oil, we would have taken it, and used it to finance this mess. But, we didn't, as your links show. I don't think it was due to incompetence. I think rather that we didn't do it because it would have looked bad, and would have only fueled the "No Blood for Oil" crowd's fervor.
I didn't say it PREVENTS Bush and Obama from anything. I said it OUTLINES the limitations. In other words, it is complete BS to say there is no oversight, when there clearly is (USSID 18).
We are competent enough to sustain the deployment of 150,000 troops for over 8 years. Stealing oil that is freely streaming out of the ground in the country the US occupies is child's play, in comparison.
Here's a declassified version of the restrictions against collecting on US Persons, for example. This alone debunks 99% of the stupid comments that always pop-up in any NSA related thread. http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm
their=there
Are we supposed to believe they do not monitor and listen in any domestic conversations ?
Yes you are. And you should read USSID 18 while you are at it and see for yourself that their are specific restrictions against listening in on domestic conversations. You will also learn that it requires a warrant granted by the Attorney General (not the Director of the NSA, not the President, not a mythical National Security Czar, Not Your Mom).
Yes, because having an extra 1,000 sq. feet of air in one's home has a profound impact on the environment of a State that: a) is mostly uninhabited, and b) requires very little air conditioning.
Do they ever sleep? It's hard to sleep when you think the government is out to get you.
The U.S. government spends more on surveillance of its citizens than any country in the entire history of the world.
Care to cite that?
The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 25 countries since the end of the 2nd world war, all for profit.
Profit eh? So how much money does the US government earn every time a B1 Bomber drops another bomb? They have to pay for those planes, pilots and bombs, and get no monetary value in return. So where's the profit?
In Iraq, oil and weapons investors like Bush and Cheney wanted control over the oil, and didn't care how many people they killed. In Afghanistan, oil investors want to build an oil pipeline.
Care to explain why this mythical oil pipeline STILL hasn't shown up? It has been what, 8 years now since Moore made up this talking point? Also, if we invaded Iraq for the oil, then why do we not have ANY of the oil?
The U.S. government has a higher percentage of its people in prison than any country ever in the history of the world, over 6 times higher than in Europe, for example. Some U.S. states, such as Oregon, spend more on prisons than on education!
Perhaps there is a higher percentage of criminals in the US than in Europe, or our law enforcement is more efficient, or, gasp, we have a bunch of dumb laws that put dumb people in jail? So what.
Even in your own link it is clear to see that you are citing the Information Assurance mission, and oodaloop is citing the Signals Intelligence mission.
Actually, he was right. The NSA has multiple missions. The collection and decryption of signals (voice and non-voice) is one mission, making the guy you are trying to rip correct. You are also correct, as another mission of the NSA is to prevent foreign agencies from intercepting and decrypting our signals (voice and non-voice). There are a few more missions that you are conveniently leaving out in your zeal to look smarter than you might actually be in this instance.
Sweeping statements are not necessarily correct statements. For example, this statement is completely incorrect: "without oversight of law." United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (Intelligence Oversight), clearly outlines the limitations against collecting against and maintaining recordings of US Persons.
I'm not sure using my iPhone to get directions, make a call or check email qualifies as "BLATANTLY OBVIOUS" usage in "all public places". The dumbest jokes are the ones that are the least true. If you have to make something up, it isn't very funny.
Now replace every instance of "iPhone" with "Blutooth" and then it's funny.
I'm refraining from "agreeing or disagreeing", since it isn't you or I who decide what is Constitutional. If (big if, cuz I don't know) school authorities have been given approval to conduct searches (strip or otherwise), then as long as they pass the Constitutional muster of "reasonable" then who are you to disagree with school authority?
Your post says more about your own insecurities than anything else. Your worldview is very depressing and negative. I hope you get better soon.
Well, the key phrase is "unreasonable". I think it is fairly obvious that this was an unreasonable search--not because they strip-searched a little girl, but because they had NO REASON to strip-search a little girl. Had they a legitimate suspicion she shoved them in her bra, then yes, that would be a constitutional search (IMHO, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer).
is that one judge actually dissented. This has to be one of the biggest "NO DUH" cases I've ever heard of. How did this make it to the Supreme Court again?
Our Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. Our Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
It's going under the NSA because it is already an NSA mission, albeit one people never talk about. In addition to electronic surveillance, the NSA has always been responsible for "cyber-security", under the other two functions of the NSA: cryptology and counter surveillance (assuring other countries don't do to us what the NSA does to them).