Hekotat
FoH nuclear response team
- 12,402
- 12,203
The NSA watches you poop.
- Thread starter Beef Supreme_sl
- Start date
-
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!
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
Figured this would have been posted by now...Snowden granted temporary asylum in Russia. Be interesting to see where he ends up going now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9700N120130801
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9700N120130801
AladainAF
Best Rabbit
- 12,941
- 31,084
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...Xy7zQ.facebook
Better not google backpack and pressure cooker at the same time, or else....
Better not google backpack and pressure cooker at the same time, or else....
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
I could almost,almostunderstand using certain flags as a starting point, as a way to say "Hey, maybe we should check into this." Make a phone call, even send a police officer or something. But six armed guys in three SUVs doing the rounds a hundred times a week (almost exclusively over nothing) is so obscenely over-the-top it's ridiculous. How much does that cost? How can two unrelated Google searches give the police grounds to send 6 armed men to your house? What happened to actually doing some investigation before deciding that sending 6 armed men to someone's house is the next logical step?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the fact that these are "consented if casual" searches mean that they didn't have a warrant? And if they didn't have a warrant, isn't the fact that were able to flag Google searches in the first place a violation of citizens' privacy? I thought the whole defense of the NSA bullshit was that it wasn't taking away anyone's rights because there was a chain of command that needed to be followed and a warrant had to be issued before authorities could access people's online activity. This story seems to indicate that A LOT of steps are just being skipped. What the fuck, man.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,042
- 138,855
It comes down legally to whether or not you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, making an outgoing phone call you do not, receiving a phone call you do for example.
do you think you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy making google searches in your own home?
do you think you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy making google searches in your own home?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
So what defines whether or not someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy? Can I assume some degree of privacy when I surf porn on the net in my own home? What if that same porn is burned onto a DVD first so I'm not accessing the net while I watch it? What if it's on VHS? I mean, the standardshouldbe "I can have as much privacy as I want unless I'm doing something illegal" but the only way to find out if I'm doing anything illegal is to violate said privacy in the first place. What they're doing now is violating the privacy of innocent people on theadmitted1 in 100 chance that they, in fact, are doing something illegal. It's an affront to our liberties and ahugewaste of resources. It makes me sick to my stomach that we apparently accept this as the new norm now.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,042
- 138,855
reasonable expectation of privacy.
and you gotta remember it's mostly cops and lawyers that push for this shit, "so they can do their job".
and you gotta remember it's mostly cops and lawyers that push for this shit, "so they can do their job".
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,464
It costs you exactly one Freedom.
It's really not that complicated, it boils down to one simple question: Is it lawful to have a permanent, complete observation of every single law abiding citizen or is it not?
Does the Fourth amendment answer this question not fo you?
Hoss
Make America's Team Great Again
- 27,662
- 16,106
Reading the article, it sounds like the cops are saying she made it up. Only one way to find out, I'm doing the google searches now.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Well according to that, your home is a place where you can have "An objective, legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy".
Checking on your Google searches is absolutely a violation of that privacy. The cops are doing this specifically so theywon't have todo "their job" (which is to actually investigate people who they have reason to believe are suspicious).
Let me put it this way: If cops occasionally walked by your house and peeked into your windows just to make sure you weren't up to anything illegal, nobody would consider that acceptable in any way. Today, a huge portion of the day-to-day shit we do at home involves using the computer and, yes, accessing the internet. Checking people's Google searches/browsing history/etc is virtually the same thing as peeking into their windows. What people do online in their own homes is nobody's fucking business and the government is WAY overstepping its bounds by tracking and observing this data. Having this information is already well past "bad enough", but using Google searches as justification to send armed teams to families' homes is fucking Orwellian. How are we not marching on the streets en masse?
No, it is not. Now what?
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,062
- 4,451
Yea sounds like they are saying the people involved made it up. Even if it is made up the fact people could totally buy that it is true kind of shows this shit has gone too far. I will say though the fact Fox isn't reporting the story at all leads me to believe it probably is made up, they would absolutely LOVE this to be true.
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,464
so to you the bill of rights is just a fancy piece of toilet paper. Now what?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
What are you talking about?
Your question: "Is it lawful to have a permanent, complete observation of every single law abiding citizen or is it not?"
My answer: No, it is not lawful to have permanent, complete observation of every single law-abiding citizen. To have permanent, complete observation of every single law-abiding citizen would go against the Bill of Rights, would it not?
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,042
- 138,855
Reddit has a few threads going on the matter.Here is the cited article, although I've no idea how legit it is.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
So according to that article, the whole situation is not "made up", but rather some of the circumstances are different.
Apparently, the woman's husband searched "pressure cooker bomb" and "backpacks" from a work computer in April. The company (Speco) noticed this suspicious search and reported it to the police, who then sent armed men to the house to investigate. This version of the story was apparentlyconfirmedby the woman who wrote the original story (she says when the police came they didn't specify that the searches were made at work).
What does this mean? For one, the Google searches were made in a place where one can NOT expect to have privacy (at work), which is at least a little reassuring. On the other hand, as soon as authorities were informed about the "suspicious" searches, their first step was to send a team of armed men to a family's house. That's still pretty over-the-top if you ask me.
Apparently, the woman's husband searched "pressure cooker bomb" and "backpacks" from a work computer in April. The company (Speco) noticed this suspicious search and reported it to the police, who then sent armed men to the house to investigate. This version of the story was apparentlyconfirmedby the woman who wrote the original story (she says when the police came they didn't specify that the searches were made at work).
What does this mean? For one, the Google searches were made in a place where one can NOT expect to have privacy (at work), which is at least a little reassuring. On the other hand, as soon as authorities were informed about the "suspicious" searches, their first step was to send a team of armed men to a family's house. That's still pretty over-the-top if you ask me.
Quineloe
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,978
- 4,464
My bad, I thought you went the other way because of the "now what". Shouldn't post while asleep.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-575...ach-to-spying/
Time to have Sweden make an SSL key signing business that wont cave to other govt demands.
Time to have Sweden make an SSL key signing business that wont cave to other govt demands.
Sweden is definitely susceptible to American pressure though.
I'm not sure who might qualify as a neutral party really and think a decentralized system might be the only workable solution. Perhaps some private non-governmental entity could be trusted but it is pretty dicey no matter how you look at it.
I'm not sure who might qualify as a neutral party really and think a decentralized system might be the only workable solution. Perhaps some private non-governmental entity could be trusted but it is pretty dicey no matter how you look at it.