The NSA watches you poop.

Malakriss · Aug 10, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
mmmm blacks and southerners suffered. i wonder who will suffer this time.

Well presumably the skinny, potentially athletic ones that can do the monkey bars have all been droneified. So fat vampire desktop jockies?

khalid · Aug 10, 2013

Soysauceonrice_sl said:
I refer you to your wiki link a few posts up. Unless you genuinely thought that I've never read the 4th amendment in my entire life, in which case I apologize. What's good for the goose right ?

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. On the other hand, you completely ignored me pointing out that your stand of expectation of privacy is only if there is 0% chance that someone might see it (legally or illegally), which is absurd.

Also, yeah, I do wonder if you have ever read the 4th amendment. You sure don't seem to have any understanding of the text.

khalid · Aug 10, 2013

Wait, you were the fucking tard that was arguing that it was pointless to talk about the unconstitutionality of gun laws because no one could actually know if it was unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling.

Uggh, tad was right, I'm out.

Soysauceonrice_sl · Aug 10, 2013

khalid_sl said:
Wait, you were the fucking tard that was arguing that it was pointless to talk about the unconstitutionality of gun laws because no one could actually know if it was unconstitutional until the supreme court made a ruling.

Uggh, tad was right, I'm out.

People say the same things about Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, and every other controversial SCOTUS decision that's come out in the last century. Great thing is that we can all have our opinions on the constitutionality of governmental actions. But at the end of the day, 9 old wrinkly pajama wearing curmudgeons have opinions that actually mater. If you don't fucking cite the SCOTUS, then all arguments boil down to "YOU'RE WRONG, I'M RIGHT, SHUT UP!" There isn't any way to "win" an argument over opinions unless you cite to the opinions that actually have legal weight. I'm sorry that by citing the peoples' opinions who mater, I have upset you. That's how our system of government functions; deal with it.

TrollfaceDeux · Aug 10, 2013

yeh, supreme court is important in that regard.

tad10 · Aug 10, 2013

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-in-one-attack

In a hearing before the Senate in April, Yemeni journalist Farea al-Muslimi testified, ?The US thinks it understands Yemen but the drones have been one of the most effective tools for AQAP to succeed in Yemen. A big part of al-Qaeda power at the moment is convincing Yemenis that they are in a war with America, (that) America is attacking the sovereignty of Yemen and this government is non-legitimate.?

Per earlier discussion of drones.

Apparently, we blew up a middle school in Yemen

Grain of salt since it's not confirmed by other media, but seems plausible given we've blown up cafes.

W4RH34D_sl · Aug 10, 2013

The more I think about it the more it makes sense for them to track meta data. If the cops can track and scan your transit vehicle but need probable cause to search the contents of that transit vehicle then logically, wouldn't the same apply to electronic data? They scan the transit information but not its contents. The only difference is they're making a copy of the electronic transit data's contents and storing it. That is where the issue is.

Big Phoenix · Aug 10, 2013

Soysauceonrice_sl said:
The point im trying to make is that you people who have already concluded the law is unconstitutional have jumped the gun. Admit it, you know the plain letter of the law but you don't know anything about how it has been applied. If this law was so obviously unconstitutional, it would have never passed congress and it would have never been signed by the POTUS. The fact that it was passed in the first place means there is plenty of ambiguity. You cannot proclaim the law is unconstitutional without a doubt because YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. I don't know, but I sure as fuck won't jump to conclusions and proclaim the law's illegality when I know for a fact I'm not the smartest person in the world.

You dont need to eat your own shit to know its gonna taste terrible.

tad10 · Aug 10, 2013

W4RH34D_sl said:
The more I think about it the more it makes sense for them to track meta data. If the cops can track and scan your transit vehicle but need probable cause to search the contents of that transit vehicle then logically, wouldn't the same apply to electronic data? They scan the transit information but not its contents. The only difference is they're making a copy of the electronic transit data's contents and storing it. That is where the issue is.

It's all bullshit. Including the huge database of our driver's license, vehicle reg and etc being kept by the FBI or whomever is doing it. Look there is no need for the government to have this information, and you can't trust the government it this information (as the IRS has proved).

Juvarisx · Aug 10, 2013

Its not like your state government wouldn't provide that information to the FBI anyways, it has just centralized that information. Anyways Warhead is essentially correct here, hell phone companies have been doing this forever to charge people for long distance, and it is hard to say weather storing but not using or viewing (the key part here) the information is unconstitutional. Hating on the entire thing is a total valid thing to do but yelling unconstitutional and saying nothing else about it will do as much as pissing into the wind will.

Soysauceonrice_sl · Aug 10, 2013

W4RH34D_sl said:
The more I think about it the more it makes sense for them to track meta data. If the cops can track and scan your transit vehicle but need probable cause to search the contents of that transit vehicle then logically, wouldn't the same apply to electronic data? They scan the transit information but not its contents. The only difference is they're making a copy of the electronic transit data's contents and storing it. That is where the issue is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

That's the case that dealt with what you're talking about. Pen registers make a record of your telephone calls. They record who you call, but not the content of your call (ie. metadata). When you call mom, you know the phone company has a record of you calling mom. They may not know the content of your call, but they know when and to whom you made that call. But a pen register isn't considered a "search" under the 4th amendment because you have no reasonable expectation that the fact that you called mom would be private. The same goes with emails. You may have a reasonable expectation that they not read your emails, but you don't have such an expectation for the record of that email.

chaos · Aug 10, 2013

Iannis_sl said:
But this is the kind of shit that leads to civil wars.

No, it really isn't. Sure, it sucks and everything, but people largely don't understand it or don't care enough to try. Even people following the leaks have some pretty blatant misconceptions of how it works in reality, the layperson doesn't even understand it beyond the headlines. Civil wars go down over economic concerns and shit like that. People aren't even getting off the couch for this shit.

TrollfaceDeux · Aug 11, 2013

chaos_sl said:
No, it really isn't. Sure, it sucks and everything, but people largely don't understand it or don't care enough to try. Even people following the leaks have some pretty blatant misconceptions of how it works in reality, the layperson doesn't even understand it beyond the headlines. Civil wars go down over economic concerns and shit like that. People aren't even getting off the couch for this shit.

I think he was saying that let's be excellent to each other. could be wrong tho.

iannis · Aug 11, 2013

It's not like "if you ignore the spirit of the 4th ammendment everybody dies". It's more like that skiing is supposed to be fun southpark meme -- "if you create a strong enough disparity between the transparent and responsible exercise of power in the government and the general welfare of the people -- you're gonna have a bad time"

Are people going to riot over NSA wiretaps? Nah, I agree with Chaos. Even if they understood they wouldn't care that much. This aggression is gonna stand, man.

But shit like this inches us closer to a societal meltdown through the gradual erosion of civil liberties. We're not chinks.

tad10 · Aug 11, 2013

Juvarisx_sl said:
it has just centralized that information.

You say that like it's no biggee. The whole fucking issue is about centralization of information - AT&T has my metadata and I don't give a fuck because they're not going to do anything with it - the problem arises when the Government gets its hands on it and decides that I'm someone they want to keep tabs on for whatever reason.

So no it is not hard at all to say the gathering of information is unconstitutional.

TrollfaceDeux · Aug 11, 2013

Iannis_sl said:
But shit like this inches us closer to a societal meltdown through the gradual erosion of civil liberties. We're not chinks.

this racism...

will stand.

Soysauceonrice_sl · Aug 11, 2013

tad10_sl said:
You say that like it's no biggee. The whole fucking issue is about centralization of information - AT&T has my metadata and I don't give a fuck because they're not going to do anything with it - the problem arises when the Government gets its hands on it and decides that I'm someone they want to keep tabs on for whatever reason.

So no it is not hard at all to say the gathering of information is unconstitutional.

The naivete here is hilarious. You don't trust THE MAN but you're ok with companies having your metadata because "they're not going to do anything with it." News flash bozo, they do. Google has been scanning the shit out of your emails for YEARS looking for key-words to send you targeted ads. Is it nefarious ? Maybe, maybe not. But they're still snooping on your private conversations to try and make MONEY off of your ignorant ass.

I still remember 5 years or so ago, I had a big fight with one of my best friends. I sent that person a long email detailing my grievances and explaining why I was pissed. The VERY NEXT FUCKING DAY, my gmail inbox was advertising a book on how to "repair friendships." Needless to say, I was weirded out, but I didn't cry like a little bitch about my constitutional rights.

And the latest:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/22/gmail-email-ads/

Now they're disguising ads to look like unread email !

I'll also add, what companies like google does with our metadata isn't in dispute. It's as plain as day and we all know they use it to make profit off of us. But it isn't obvious what the government does. All your complaints on governmental abuse of citizens' data is speculation. I'll bet my left toe that even after snowden blows his load, there still will be no evidence of actual abuse of any individual's personal information.

fanaskin · Aug 11, 2013

Soysauceonrice_sl said:
As for the NSA snooping, the administration is saying that there has been no abuse of the information gathered. All the leaks show is that there is a potential for abuse, not that any abuse has occurred.

Ugh you haven't been paying attention the dea was already caught using nsa data to criminally investigate people, not even related to terror crimes, so yes they have already abused the system.

BrutulTM · Aug 11, 2013

Soysauceonrice_sl said:
The naivete here is hilarious. You don't trust THE MAN but you're ok with companies having your metadata because "they're not going to do anything with it." News flash bozo, they do. Google has been scanning the shit out of your emails for YEARS looking for key-words to send you targeted ads. Is it nefarious ? Maybe, maybe not. But they're still snooping on your private conversations to try and make MONEY off of your ignorant ass.

I still remember 5 years or so ago, I had a big fight with one of my best friends. I sent that person a long email detailing my grievances and explaining why I was pissed. The VERY NEXT FUCKING DAY, my gmail inbox was advertising a book on how to "repair friendships." Needless to say, I was weirded out, but I didn't cry like a little bitch about my constitutional rights.

And the latest:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/22/gmail-email-ads/

Now they're disguising ads to look like unread email !

I'll also add, what companies like google does with our metadata isn't in dispute. It's as plain as day and we all know they use it to make profit off of us. But it isn't obvious what the government does. All your complaints on governmental abuse of citizens' data is speculation. I'll bet my left toe that even after snowden blows his load, there still will be no evidence of actual abuse of any individual's personal information.

If I'm going to see ads, it might as well be for stuff I'm intersted in. Google doesn't assassinate people or put them in prison indefinitely without trial. The government does.

Furry · Aug 11, 2013

BrutulTM_sl said:
If I'm going to see ads, it might as well be for stuff I'm intersted in. Google doesn't assassinate people or put them in prison indefinitely without trial. The government does.

Yep. This and theres a major difference. You can choose to give a company that power. The government is taking this power for themselves. Comparing the two things is simply incorrect.

The NSA watches you poop.

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Unelected Mod

Unelected Mod

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Elisha Dushku

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Elisha Dushku

Florida

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Musty Nester

Elisha Dushku

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

shitlord

Well known agitator

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭