PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=5-basic-unknowns-nsa-black-hole-prism"]5 Basic Unknowns about the NSA "Black Hole"[/URL]

[I]Last week saw revelations that the FBI and the NSA have been collecting Americans' phone records en masse and that the agencies have access to data from nine tech companies.[/I]
[I]But secrecy around the programs has meant even basic questions are still unanswered.[/I]


Some people on this forum are under the impression we don't have the technology for this type of thing. Hilarious!

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/parents-navy-seal-killed-afghan-crash-file-first-164807941.html"]First Class Action lawsuit:
[/URL]
[I]A couple in Philadelphia has filed a class-action lawsuit against the National Security Agency and Verizon, claiming they and their phone records were targeted for surveillance because of their outspoken criticism of Barack Obama and the U.S. military. This is believed to be the first official lawsuit filed against the government and the company, since it was revealed that Verizon had been ordered to turn over phone metadata for all of its customers.

The couple who filed the class-action suit are not just any disgruntled Verizon customers, however. They are Charles and Mary Ann Strange, the parents of a Navy SEAL who was killed along with 37 others, when his helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan in 2011. Several of the families of those lost in the attack have questioned the Defense Department's official story of the incident — one of the deadliest single events of the entire war for American troops — and they specifically blame President Obama's polices for leading to those deaths. Among their many complaints: that Afghan forces working with the Americans may have set them up; that because many of those killed that day were members of the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden, publicizing their role in the earlier mission made them targets for retaliation; and that rules of engagement prevented the helicopter and the men on it from fighting back. They also claim that a Muslim cleric was invited to speak at the funeral, who then insulted the dead servicemen in Arabic, although there's little evidence to support that charge[/I]

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;1011607][URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=5-basic-unknowns-nsa-black-hole-prism"]5 Basic Unknowns about the NSA "Black Hole"[/URL]

[I]Last week saw revelations that the FBI and the NSA have been collecting Americans' phone records en masse and that the agencies have access to data from nine tech companies.[/I]
[I]But secrecy around the programs has meant even basic questions are still unanswered.[/I]


Some people on this forum are under the impression we don't have the technology for this type of thing. Hilarious![/QUOTE]

who has ever said we don't have that type of capability?

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[YT]qptZOMEwFXM[/YT]

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1011626][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/parents-navy-seal-killed-afghan-crash-file-first-164807941.html"]First Class Action lawsuit:
[/URL]
[I]A couple in Philadelphia has filed a class-action lawsuit against the National Security Agency and Verizon, claiming they and their phone records were targeted for surveillance because of their outspoken criticism of Barack Obama and the U.S. military. This is believed to be the first official lawsuit filed against the government and the company, since it was revealed that Verizon had been ordered to turn over phone metadata for all of its customers.

The couple who filed the class-action suit are not just any disgruntled Verizon customers, however. They are Charles and Mary Ann Strange, the parents of a Navy SEAL who was killed along with 37 others, when his helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan in 2011. Several of the families of those lost in the attack have questioned the Defense Department's official story of the incident — one of the deadliest single events of the entire war for American troops — and they specifically blame President Obama's polices for leading to those deaths. Among their many complaints: that Afghan forces working with the Americans may have set them up; that because many of those killed that day were members of the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden, publicizing their role in the earlier mission made them targets for retaliation; and that rules of engagement prevented the helicopter and the men on it from fighting back. They also claim that a Muslim cleric was invited to speak at the funeral, who then insulted the dead servicemen in Arabic, although there's little evidence to support that charge[/I][/quote]

I feel terrible they lost their son and the man made the ultimate sacrifice, but this lawsuit is bullshit.

People really need to sit back and wait for more facts on this one.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011645][YT]qptZOMEwFXM[/YT][/quote]

Sitting through a few security briefs made him change his tune.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=cpayne5;1011649]Sitting through a few security briefs made him change his tune.[/quote]

Yeahh....no.


You mean the same "security briefs" that gave our last president credible info that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Those same guys? /facepalm


There is no security brief I could ever attend that would make me change my mind about spying on our own people without legal warrants. None.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011652]Yeahh....no.


You mean the same "security briefs" that gave our last president credible info that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Those same guys? /facepalm


There is no security brief I could ever attend that would make me change my mind about spying on our own people with legal warrants. None.[/quote]

You sound like Obama 6 years ago (I bet that stings a little, lol)...before he knew what he knows now.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/16295123396/why-james-clapper-should-be-impeached-lying-to-congress.shtml]Why James Clapper Should Be Impeached For Lying To Congress | Techdirt[/url]


Roger Clemens lies to Congress and they go after him relentlessly. The head of NSA lies to Congress and I imagine nothing will happen.

Why isn't he being charged? Why isn't he being impeached?


You want me to have faith in these guys to properly brief the President? **** no. Absolutely not.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011652]Yeahh....no.


You mean the same "security briefs" that gave our last president credible info that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Those same guys? /facepalm


There is no security brief I could ever attend that would make me change my mind about spying on our own people with legal warrants. None.[/quote]


Well thank God you are not in charge.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011658][URL="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/16295123396/why-james-clapper-should-be-impeached-lying-to-congress.shtml"]Why James Clapper Should Be Impeached For Lying To Congress | Techdirt[/URL]


Roger Clemens lies to Congress and they go after him relentlessly. The head of NSA lies to Congress and I imagine nothing will happen.

Why isn't he being charged? Why isn't he being impeached?


You want me to have faith in these guys to properly brief the President? **** no. Absolutely not.[/quote]


LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011652]There is no security brief I could ever attend that would make me change my mind about spying on our own people with legal warrants. None.[/quote]

Says the person who has never been to a security brief.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=Giantone;1011671]LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .[/quote]

Well, I think his point is you would rather have Congress worry more if the Head of the NSA is covering up activities, then if a baseball player used ped's.

I know I certainly would.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=Giantone;1011670]Well thank God you are not in charge.[/quote]

Why? I'd get rid of big money lobbying and changed campaign finance all together. I would then get rid of the god awful Patriot Act and do away with the Homeland Security waste.


I'd be a much better President than the one we currently have or the one previous to him as well.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=Giantone;1011671]LOL , and you want to know why people laugh at you? You just compared the Head of NSA to Roger Clemens .[/quote]


I haven't asked why people are laughing at me, mainly because they are not. Are you so dense that you don't realize that lying to congress is a crime? The fact that you think government officials should be above the law is mind boggling to say the least.


[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001]18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute[/url]

[quote]Regarding testimony given while NOT under oath:


(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
[/quote]

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=FRPLG;1011691]Says the person who has never been to a security brief.[/quote]

There is absolutely nothing that a security brief could tell me that would make me change my mind about the Fourth Amendment. Also, Obama had those briefs prior to his administration and yet he still said he didn't support any of it.


[quote]The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution restrict government searches and seizures. The amendment reads:

“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.”[/quote]

Ron Paul has been in those meetings and he's saying the same thing.


I guess some of you are OK with doing away with the Fourth Amendment completely. We might as well. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care" mentality should also apply to your home. Well ****, let the cops and government come search your house at will because....after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. But..but ...that's different. No, no it's not, which is exactly why our founding fathers put that in place.


Also, to think that the government wouldn't use this against political enemies is laughable to say the least. Surely they wouldn't use the IRS to target peo.....oh wait. I'm sure many other agencies have been used to target political enemies as well, and now you want to give them access to your person life. God damn this country and its people have gone to shit. They've bought into this warped mentality that the government is doing what's right for the people and you should sit back and let them go unquestioned and unchecked.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=firstdown;1011695]I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.[/quote]

I have no problem with them tracking a particular citizen if they obtained a warrant and went about it the legal way. Just collecting ALL information from citizens is well beyond criminal.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

If they have this much awesome technical firepower, how do things like Boston happen? Particularly given that they were also warned by the Russians and the Saudis.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[URL="http://www.zdnet.com/prism-heres-how-the-nsa-wiretapped-the-internet-7000016565/"]ZDNet Article[/URL]

[I]Editor's note: The following article should be treated as strictly hypothetical. It has been editorialized to simplify the content in certain areas, while maintaining as much technical detail as we can offer. Companies named in this article have been publicly disclosed, or used in example only. This piece should not be taken necessarily as fact but as a working theory that portrays only one possible implementation of the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM program as it may exist today. Several ZDNet writers contributed to this report.[/I]

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1011630]who has ever said we don't have that type of capability?[/quote]

It was during the 'Computers should be in charge' thread, I'm too lazy to find it. It happened, [I]trust me[/I]....

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

You know what's eery? Bin Laden said this in 2002.

[url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/index.html?share=1]CNN.com - Bin Laden's sole post-September 11 TV interview aired - February 5, 2002[/url]

[quote]"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," bin Laden said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life." [/quote]

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[url=http://twitpic.com/cwjkg6]Denny's knows what you're craving before they do. on Twitpic[/url][IMG]https://twitter.com/dennysdiner/status/344205950271488000[/IMG]

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1011710]It was during the 'Computers should be in charge' thread, I'm too lazy to find it. It happened, [I]trust me[/I]....[/quote]

You sure it happened here?

I can't find a thread by that name.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=Mattyk;1011718]You sure it happened here?

I can't find a thread by that name.[/quote]

I looked too... no dice.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

Starts here:

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-11.html#post919796[/url]

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;1011726]Starts here:

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-11.html#post919796[/url][/QUOTE]

I figured the robot judge jury thing is what he is referring to, but data collection like the NSA issue is a far cry from having a computerized judicial system. I doubt anyone questions that the government could collect and computerize tons of information.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1011729]I figured the robot judge jury thing is what he is referring to, but data collection like the NSA issue is a far cry from having a computerized judicial system. I doubt anyone questions that the government could collect and computerize tons of information.[/quote]

It was a thread where I made a statement about the impending Singularity, someone said it wasn't possible as they were an Admin on a network with SQL and I laughed at them. I know that doesn't narrow it down as mocking is my default position.

Not that important as I make outlandish statements all the time, I'm surprised anyone reads anything I post.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1011734]It was a thread where I made a statement about the impending Singularity, someone said it wasn't possible as they were an Admin on a network with SQL and I laughed at them. I know that doesn't narrow it down as mocking is my default position.[/quote]

I don't think it was on this forum my friend.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1011729]I figured the robot judge jury thing is what he is referring to, but data collection like the NSA issue is a far cry from having a computerized judicial system. I doubt anyone questions that the government could collect and computerize tons of information.[/quote]

I think it started with the whole judicial system and went onto data collection.

Who knows. Who cares

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1011741]I think it started with the whole judicial system and went onto data collection.

Who knows. [B]Who cares[/B][/quote]

truth

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1011741]I think it started with the whole judicial system and went onto data collection.

Who knows. Who cares[/quote]

I CARE!! It's the offseason and, apparently, it's either this or Tebow. Delving into the validity of a semi-tangential comment in an obscure parking lot thread is emminently more interesting than discussing the possibility of a marginal player making the roster as 3rd QB on a team I don't particularly like.

It's been said before and will again [I]ad nauseum[/I] in the next 6 weeks: I HATE THE OFFSEASON.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1011707]If they have this much awesome technical firepower, how do things like Boston happen? Particularly given that they were also warned by the Russians and the Saudis.[/quote]

It's like John Stewart said on his bit about this stuff - When the govt. wants to do something evil and bad, it works with incredible power and efficiency. When it tries to do good things, it bumbles about like a blind, drunk, multi-armed bufoon in a china shop. (or something to that effect).

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1011752]It's like John Stewart said on his bit about this stuff - When the govt. wants to do something evil and bad, it works with incredible power and efficiency. When it tries to do good things, it bumbles about like a blind, drunk, multi-armed bufoon in a china shop. (or something to that effect).[/quote]

So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011763]So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?[/quote]

<FACEPALM>

Never, never, [B][I]NEVER[/I][/B] ask for JR's opinion! Have you learned [I][B]NOTHING![/B][/I]

He's all in favor as it drums up more business. But we'll get a 20 page legalese diatribe on the topic now.

Eff the offseason! <[I]shakes fist at sky[/I]>

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011763]So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?[/quote]

My "legal" take is that the Prez. has some very creative lawyers who have taken something that was intended to be a small doorway for rational use and driven a bulldozer or two through it to broaden it beyond any original intent. I believe it will take some equally creative lawyering to oppose it - the public security argument carries lots of weight.

I am with you. Freedom requires risk. Unfortunately, we are becoming such a risk averse society that individual liberty falls by the wayside.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1011790]<FACEPALM>

Never, never, [B][I]NEVER[/I][/B] ask for JR's opinion! Have you learned [I][B]NOTHING![/B][/I]

He's all in favor as it drums up more business. But we'll get a 20 page legalese diatribe on the topic now.

Eff the offseason! <[I]shakes fist at sky[/I]>[/quote]

Oh ye of little faith.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1011703]I have no problem with them tracking a particular citizen if they obtained a warrant and went about it the legal way. Just collecting ALL information from citizens is well beyond criminal.[/quote]

I actually agree with your basic sentiments...I was just poking the bear a little. BUT...your misinformed on this. They are not "Just collecting ALL information from citizens". Far from it. Aren't they collecting the meta-data? I sthat ok? Not sure either...but it isn't the full content.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1011791]....the public security argument carries lots of weight.
[/quote]

Only if they can prove it's working, which they can easily sidestep by saying "[I]We'd love to tell you but we'd have to kill you[/I]" kind of thing.

This Administration has been really quick to 'inadvertently' let slip their awesomeness, not so good on taking responsibility for the FUBARS.

Re: PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!
 

^^ When I say it carries a lot of weight, I mean in legal precedence. The Judicial branch give great deference to excutive branch's assertions that public security required certain actions. Particularly when the legislative branch created laws which [i]ostensibly[/i] permit the executive to take the actions under scrutiny.