The NSA watches you poop.

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
Yet even if you support the premise that case law is ultimately the only thing that matters as far as the Supreme Court goes, I think a far more interesting topic is whether or not the current NSA stuff should be legal or not. Even if it is legal now (and there are arguments both ways on this), SHOULD it be legal? I think the answer is definitely no. This is because it sets up a situation where future governments could easily choose to abuse it with very little oversight. If it started to be abused, the only way we might know about it is if we had another Snowden. I don't want to have to rely on someone like Snowden to provide a check on government power.
Click to expand...
This is probably a decent conversation to have. Now, one of the problems you've cited is the secrecy of all this intelligence gathering. If everything is secret, how do you know that the government isn't really abusing their power ? But the problem of secrecy is also a thorn in the government's side too. How can the government prove to you that the intelligence gathering is worth it, if they can't disclose the fruits of the surveillance ? The government can't just post a step by step guide of how they collect data online, because that would be akin to posting our playbook for the other side.

What is SUPPOSED to be the answer to this, is that there are members of Congress who DO see the intelligence, and they are the ones who are supposed to safeguard your rights. Notice how even Diane Feinstein doesn't raise a stink because she sees the intelligence and knew all along about the data collection. Problem is, most people won't trust Congress to babysit their goldfish, letalone protect privacy rights.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,037
138,821
Well that's too fucking bad if the public knowing makes things a little more difficult for them. like having to go get warrants.

Alot of times they barely know what they are doing and probably cause more harm than good in the long run anyways.


rrr_img_40038.jpg




I mean the UK was utterly convinced iraq was involved in 9/11 and that specific info was used to justify the invasion of iraq. We put trust in that they knew what the hell they are talking about, turned out it was completely false.

There was also a ton of western scholars and analysts whoswore the soviet union was strong and wouldn't collapse in the future the same decade that it did

-------
The recent revelations by the whistle blower Edward Snowden were fascinating. But they - and all the reactions to them - had one enormous assumption at their heart.

That the spies know what they are doing.

I think your taking some assumptions for granted, like this program actually can do what "WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS:" claim it can do. look at how bin laden lived for example completely off the grid and untouchable, who says that al qaeda has to use the internet to do what it wants to do.

There is a large degree of paranoia driving the whole situation.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,886
83,297
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
How can the government prove to you that the intelligence gathering is worth it, if they can't disclose the fruits of the surveillance ? The government can't just post a step by step guide of how they collect data online, because that would be akin to posting our playbook for the other side.
Click to expand...
Oh ho, you just stop right there. We've got secret data collections being given the O.K. by secret courts operating with impunity and no ability for these procedures to be challenged or rulings appealed. I don't need the government to prove to me that the program is useful. I need the government to prove to me that what they are doing is constitutional. Those fruit? In all likelihood they came from a poisoned tree.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
Notice how even Diane Feinstein doesn't raise a stink because she sees the intelligence and knew all along about the data collection. Problem is, most people won't trust Congress to babysit their goldfish, letalone protect privacy rights.
Click to expand...
You have said several times in various posts "even Diane Feinstein was fine with this" or words to that effect. Look, Diane Feinstein is one of the last people I would want determining what is private and what isn't. She has essentially zero respect for the 2nd amendment. She has recently supportedshit like thiswhich shows she has not a whole lot of respect for what I consider to be the 1st amendment either. I would say the pattern would be that she has little respect for the 4th either.

So at least with respect to not wanting to make me nash my teeth, please stop citing her as evidence of great congressional oversight.
frown.png
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Trollface_sl said:
learn to appreciate freedom, bro.
Click to expand...
Uh. I didn't have it where I was born, that's why I can actually appreciate and understand the freedoms I do have. Morons like Tad wants to talk about a police state ? I have uncles and family members I will never know because they died fleeing a real police state. So when idiots like him thinks this shit makes us a police state, I laugh. Just because some people crawled out of the womb and landed on U.S. soil, they were born with a golden spoon of rights shoved so far up their ass that they don't even know what actually being deprived of rights feels like. I love it here, and I love my rights. AMERRRICUH !
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
You have said several times in various posts "even Diane Feinstein was fine with this" or words to that effect. Look, Diane Feinstein is one of the last people I would want determining what is private and what isn't. She has essentially zero respect for the 2nd amendment. She has recently supportedshit like thiswhich shows she has not a whole lot of respect for what I consider to be the 1st amendment either. I would say the pattern would be that she has little respect for the 4th either.

So at least with respect to not wanting to make me nash my teeth, please stop citing her as evidence of great congressional oversight.
frown.png
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But she's actually the chair of the intelligence committee, so we're kinda stuck with her.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,037
138,821
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
Uh. I didn't have it where I was born, that's why I can actually appreciate and understand the freedoms I do have. Morons like Tad wants to talk about a police state ? I have uncles and family members I will never know because they died fleeing a real police state.
Click to expand...
Well duh people who have a problem with this don't want to let it get to that point someplace in the near to distance future.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
29,886
83,297
Yeah, it would be just like if someone escaped from Eastern Germany, came to America, and then defended the implementation of tactics and procedures that mimicked the Stasi on the basis that it was much much worse in Eastern Germany and we should all just be happy with the freedom that we've got.

You fucking tool.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Torrid_sl said:
Uh, me? Encryption is commonly employed; google turned it on by default just to do searches (if you're logged in) let alone email. Not even your ISP can see your searches or email. Using SSL is obviously an expectation of privacy. This is why the NSA is trying so hard to get backdoor access, because they can't get what they want through DPI (deep packet inspection) alone.
Click to expand...
Encryption on email doesn't work like you seem to think unless you are talking PGP or something. SMTP traffic is not encrypted by default. And traffic analysis allows a lot of insight into what you do and who you are, even using stuff like VPN or TOR. There is no such thing as privacy.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,037
138,821
well you're saying meta data is powerful and it is, however if everyone started encrypting everything in a more effective manner it would make the task of reading the contents alot harder, that is true.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,037
138,821
somehow nsa meta data collection and the tsa didn't exist in the 70's and people didn't go around shitting their pants with extreme fear paranoia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.