A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.
That is, until someone in some government somewhere decides you look more like a needle.
if you send a sealed package, you have the expectation of that package staying sealed. you have no expectation that UPS won't keep track of where they picked up the package, and where it was delivered to; that data belongs to them. you have an expectation that the cel carrier won't read your text (not much of one), but where they pick up the text and who they deliver it to is not data that belongs soley to you.
OK, so that explains tracking in/outbound call origin/destination information... but not location tracking or any of their other questionable practices. Besides, you said that we "shouldn't have an expectation of privacy" when it comes to carrier services in general, a philosophy I not only disagree with, but find incredibly dangerous were it to become the status quo (yea, yea, I know, don't remind me).
you have an expectation that the cel carrier won't read your text (not much of one)
if you are using a cel phone, and paying a carrier to provide service to your phone, it's a 50/50 relationship. as crappy as it is, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
Hmm, let's apply that mentality to a few other arenas, and see how well it works:
If you are sending a package, and paying a carrier to deliver it, it's a 50/50 relationship... you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; UPS can just rip open your package and go through it.
If you are traveling, and paying a service to move you (taxi/airline/etc), you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; Taxi drivers can strip search passengers.
If you use electricity, and pay a service to provide it, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; the utility company can go through all your shit to see what you're using the electricity for.
Applied to pretty much any other service available/necessary, that sort of thinking obviously does not fly; so why would it be OK with communications?
To explain is not to excuse. Don't read more into people's comments than is there.
(which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
Not reading anything that's not already there; how the hell does one pilot a $20 million dollar aircraft with only a single 4" monitor, anyway? Don't those things have windows?
Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
Being third in the list of things sworn to does not make it "an afterthought". It makes it only third in the list. Your 'matter of fact' is your imagination and hope.
So the fuck what? Are you disagreeing that it's an ordered list, or did you just decide that you disagree with me and thus, latched on to the one sentence in the post that's indicative of an opinion?
As for not mentioning "secret documents", remember that it does say "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." If you think there is nothing in the regulations or UCMJ that deals with how someone treats classified material, you're wrong.
I think that support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, trumps all other clauses and addendums. Kinda like how the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, unable to be superseded by anything but a Constitutional Amendment.
Of course, I not only stayed awake, but enjoyed my Civics classes... sadly it seems most people today do not share that quality.
I did not. I hate when some jackass statist "news" conglomerate insists on showing me some retarded film instead of giving me the words to read for myself.
I did, however, do a bit of my own research, and found this article, in which Gen. Alexander repeatedly states "we have [concrete] proof that Snowden's actions have helped terrorists/hurt America blah blah blah," Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
Or a sucker.
Speaking of which, I have a lovely piece of property spanning the East River in NY, NY, that would be a perfect investment opportunity for you...
Getting a government security clearance is a long and painful process that is entirely besides any status of enlistment or commision and includes additional oaths and regulations well beyond those.
In fact civilians can get a clearance without being in the military at all (I know a fewe folks who haev done this). The oaths are probably publically available but no one with a clearance is likely to volunteer to post them on/., if I had to guess.
So, those oaths supersede their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution above all else?
What US secrets and concessions did this Administration have to offer the Russians in exchange for that? It won't come out until the party in power leaves office.
Shit, longer than that - they've reclassified the JFK assassination documents, what, 3 or 4 times now?
You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
Wow; this has to be the first time I've ever seen someone try to excused fucked-up behavior with the excuse, "well, you could see more detail in the Youtube video than the people who were actually there when it happened!"
Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
Name them.
I hear this excuse a lot, but to date not a soul has managed to provide any examples of other venues that would A) have been equally or more effective at bringing these events to the public's attention, and B) protected Manning from the persecution and downright criminal treatment he's faced the last 3 years or so.
You also swear an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies. If you feel that your oath to protect papers violates your oath to defend the constitution which do you go with?
The oath doesn't so much as mention protecting any papers other than the Constitution.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Army Oath of Office (for commissioned officers):
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
No where in either oath are secret documents or information so much as mentioned; conversely, both oaths seem to place support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, above all other duties. Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
I don't mind other people making the choice to become herbivores, but when you start shoving it down everyone else's throat, or talk shit because other people don't choose the lifestyle you've chosen, I tend to develop a nasty case of gofuckyourself.
Someone posted this elsewhere, but it seems an appropriate response considering the 'holier-than-thou' tone of your post.
tl;dr summary - you veg{ans, etarians} are just as responsible for fucking up the environment as we omnivores, moreso in some ways. Take your high-and-mighty attitude and blow it out your quinoa-shooter.
We've slaughtered them before, but always export the meat. It is illegal to sell in the US, which makes us raving silly hypocrites.
American horses are filled with poisons, namely ivermectin. Often, over the life of a horse, these poisons can build up in the muscle tissue to levels that can be lethal to humans.
Hypocrisy, nothing - it's illegal for the same reason the FDA puts a limit on how much rat shit can be in your Mcdonald's burger.
Slashdot Mirror
No, wait, it was yesterday.
Still funny.
Next time, go and buy doggy treats and condoms.
What? I don't want my dog to ruin the fun by barking so I have to keep him busy somehow while I fuck hi... my girlfriend.
In a hilariously incidental twist, today is the ASPCA's annual adopt-a-pet gala on Capitol Hill...
A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.
That is, until someone in some government somewhere decides you look more like a needle.
Yes I saw that, and although it shouldn't by now it really pisses me off.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation
"Massive distributed Linux cluster"
"System can scale Linearly - simply add a new server to the cluster"
How about we get Linus to bury some code in there so we can spy on the NSA? See how they like it?
Yea... something tells me they aren't on a current, publicly available release.
Although, the idea of secret NSA servers hitting http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ quantal main restricted does kinda crack me up.
if you send a sealed package, you have the expectation of that package staying sealed. you have no expectation that UPS won't keep track of where they picked up the package, and where it was delivered to; that data belongs to them. you have an expectation that the cel carrier won't read your text (not much of one), but where they pick up the text and who they deliver it to is not data that belongs soley to you.
OK, so that explains tracking in/outbound call origin/destination information... but not location tracking or any of their other questionable practices. Besides, you said that we "shouldn't have an expectation of privacy" when it comes to carrier services in general, a philosophy I not only disagree with, but find incredibly dangerous were it to become the status quo (yea, yea, I know, don't remind me).
you have an expectation that the cel carrier won't read your text (not much of one)
Say hello to 2 years ago
if you are using a cel phone, and paying a carrier to provide service to your phone, it's a 50/50 relationship. as crappy as it is, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
Hmm, let's apply that mentality to a few other arenas, and see how well it works:
If you are sending a package, and paying a carrier to deliver it, it's a 50/50 relationship... you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; UPS can just rip open your package and go through it.
If you are traveling, and paying a service to move you (taxi/airline/etc), you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; Taxi drivers can strip search passengers.
If you use electricity, and pay a service to provide it, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy; the utility company can go through all your shit to see what you're using the electricity for.
Applied to pretty much any other service available/necessary, that sort of thinking obviously does not fly; so why would it be OK with communications?
So now you're relegating yourself to 2 year old phones or low end phones?
Guess so. Darn, the world will come to a hard stop, and it's all my fault :P
Looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, bud.
To explain is not to excuse. Don't read more into people's comments than is there.
(which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
Not reading anything that's not already there; how the hell does one pilot a $20 million dollar aircraft with only a single 4" monitor, anyway? Don't those things have windows?
Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
Being third in the list of things sworn to does not make it "an afterthought". It makes it only third in the list. Your 'matter of fact' is your imagination and hope.
So the fuck what? Are you disagreeing that it's an ordered list, or did you just decide that you disagree with me and thus, latched on to the one sentence in the post that's indicative of an opinion?
As for not mentioning "secret documents", remember that it does say "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." If you think there is nothing in the regulations or UCMJ that deals with how someone treats classified material, you're wrong.
I think that support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, trumps all other clauses and addendums. Kinda like how the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, unable to be superseded by anything but a Constitutional Amendment.
Of course, I not only stayed awake, but enjoyed my Civics classes... sadly it seems most people today do not share that quality.
I did not. I hate when some jackass statist "news" conglomerate insists on showing me some retarded film instead of giving me the words to read for myself.
I did, however, do a bit of my own research, and found this article, in which Gen. Alexander repeatedly states "we have [concrete] proof that Snowden's actions have helped terrorists/hurt America blah blah blah," Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.
Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.
Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.
Or a sucker.
Speaking of which, I have a lovely piece of property spanning the East River in NY, NY, that would be a perfect investment opportunity for you...
In case you aren't trolling...
Getting a government security clearance is a long and painful process that is entirely besides any status of enlistment or commision and includes additional oaths and regulations well beyond those.
In fact civilians can get a clearance without being in the military at all (I know a fewe folks who haev done this). The oaths are probably publically available but no one with a clearance is likely to volunteer to post them on /., if I had to guess.
So, those oaths supersede their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution above all else?
I disagree.
Damn, I thought you had a loophole that would let us sell rat shit burgers to Canada! :)
Just drown them in maple syrup and call 'em "Tasty Pucks;" the Canucks'll never know the difference.
It doesn't appear that he had the attention span to properly figure out how leak the info.
Hmm, did not know there was an official methodology for how to "properly" point out criminal activities perpetuated by government entities.
Are these guidelines publicly available, or are you full of shit?
What US secrets and concessions did this Administration have to offer the Russians in exchange for that? It won't come out until the party in power leaves office.
Shit, longer than that - they've reclassified the JFK assassination documents, what, 3 or 4 times now?
You probably haven't even looked at the video they deliberately mislabeled "collateral murder". (which, by the way, is almost certainly clearer for you on your computer than the pilot had on their little 4" screen in the apache)
Wow; this has to be the first time I've ever seen someone try to excused fucked-up behavior with the excuse, "well, you could see more detail in the Youtube video than the people who were actually there when it happened!"
Ho. Lee. Fuck. Man.
Except that's not what happened, there are several ways to report violations that are legal and secure, and even anonymous.
Name them.
I hear this excuse a lot, but to date not a soul has managed to provide any examples of other venues that would A) have been equally or more effective at bringing these events to the public's attention, and B) protected Manning from the persecution and downright criminal treatment he's faced the last 3 years or so.
Although I have no idea how it is possible, it seems the director of the NSA disagrees with you.
You mean James "Least Untruthful" Clapper? The guy who honestly believes his job is to lie to the American people?
Well, if I were to have anyone disagree with me, a proven pathological liar would be my first choice.
Why do you have to pick one? Can't you "fight" both?
THANK YOU for being able to see the difference between what's truly wrong, and what offends partisan sensibilities.
You also swear an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies. If you feel that your oath to protect papers violates your oath to defend the constitution which do you go with?
The oath doesn't so much as mention protecting any papers other than the Constitution.
Seems a pretty simple answer to me.
But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information.
Not that I see:
Army Oath of Enlistment:
Army Oath of Office (for commissioned officers):
No where in either oath are secret documents or information so much as mentioned; conversely, both oaths seem to place support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, above all other duties. Matter of fact, obeying orders appears to have been an afterthought.
But it's fine for us to package them into steaks and sell them to other people? Huh, no that doesn't seem hypocritical at all...
Definitely got me there.
Your entire post is nothing but a pile of self-aggrandizing offal:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein-full-story/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2157221/Maybe-Prince-Charles-right-British-scientists-reveal-plants-really-talk.html
I don't mind other people making the choice to become herbivores, but when you start shoving it down everyone else's throat, or talk shit because other people don't choose the lifestyle you've chosen, I tend to develop a nasty case of gofuckyourself.
Get off that high horse, putz.
Someone posted this elsewhere, but it seems an appropriate response considering the 'holier-than-thou' tone of your post.
tl;dr summary - you veg{ans, etarians} are just as responsible for fucking up the environment as we omnivores, moreso in some ways. Take your high-and-mighty attitude and blow it out your quinoa-shooter.
We've slaughtered them before, but always export the meat. It is illegal to sell in the US, which makes us raving silly hypocrites.
American horses are filled with poisons, namely ivermectin. Often, over the life of a horse, these poisons can build up in the muscle tissue to levels that can be lethal to humans.
Hypocrisy, nothing - it's illegal for the same reason the FDA puts a limit on how much rat shit can be in your Mcdonald's burger.