July 31, 2013

Revealed: NSA Tool "XKeyscore" Permits Warrantless Inspection of Email Metadata
— Ace

This is from the Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, and Edward Snowden, so some skepticism is warranted; but then, a great deal of concern is also warranted.

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.

...

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.

Now the reason I say "be skeptical" is because of agenda-driven misstatements like the following.

Greenwald's headline says this:


XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

The evidence supporting this headline (CONTENT WARNING: LINKS TO SLIDE OFFICIALLY DEEMED SECRET).

You can decide if that evidence supports that headline. I rather think it does not.

However, Greenwald's breathless overstatements aside, there is a lot here that is troublesome. Much of it is stuff we already knew, but we should probably hear it all again.

When a Query is put into the system for a specific email account, XKeystore returns all the "metadata" -- addressees and, importantly, the subject line, which, of course, usually summarizes the basic content of the email -- and also scans the email for additional email addresses inside the email. Like if someone said "Contact these other parties" and then listed some emails. And even here, a slide indicates that sometimes the system makes an error and includes a few words it mistook for an email address.

Some things Greenwald reports are important to know for the public debate, though I'm not sure of what people thought the NSA has been doing all these years. For example:

The XKeyscore program also allows an analyst to learn the IP addresses of every person who visits any website the analyst specifies.

Chilling, I suppose, for some, but I have to say-- did you think the NSA was not keeping tabs on who visited certain sites thought to be propagators of terrorism? I understand the objection-- but they could use this ability to spy on anyone! -- which is true, but that's been true of every single espionage method of technology since the dawn of man.

Another important revelation, but one I find more comforting than chilling:

The XKeyscore system is continuously collecting so much internet data that it can be stored only for short periods of time. Content remains on the system for only three to five days, while metadata is stored for 30 days. One document explains: "At some sites, the amount of data we receive per day (20+ terabytes) can only be stored for as little as 24 hours."

To solve this problem, the NSA has created a multi-tiered system that allows analysts to store "interesting" content in other databases, such as one named Pinwale which can store material for up to five years.

It is the databases of XKeyscore, one document shows, that now contain the greatest amount of communications data collected by the NSA.

Slide of the big scoop and successive sieves here; CONTENT WARNING: CONTAINS SLIDE OFFICIALLY DEEMED SECRET.

Not to be Joe Blase but when this story first started to break I postulated that something like this was being done -- a large-scale dragnet of information at the first level, yes, but then maybe it was being destroyed and only the "interesting stuff" was subject to further scrutiny.

While I understand libertarian alarm bells ringing here, I also am perplexed at how people think intelligence is conducted, or how it could possibly be conducted at all under a strong libertarian regime.

I keep saying this: After 9/11, we looked back at how we had gotten here, and how our intelligence services had become so impotent. Perhaps it was a too-easy answer*, but many pointed at the Chuch Committee hearings of the 1970s and subsequent "reforms," thinking perhaps we had gone rather too far in neutering the CIA -- we had defanged it and made it harmless to ourselves, but we'd also made it virtually harmless to evil-doers as well.

I'm not so much defending this program -- I just read this article and I have barely had time to digest it let alone reflect upon it -- as urging that we not repeat this endless spasmodic cycle of overreaction to the left followed by overreaction to the right followed, inevitably, by overreaction to the left again (and on, and on, and on).


* On second reflection, that almost certainly was a too-easy answer. After 9/11, the answers came quick and easy, and mostly involved rewarding the state with more power, because it had, thusfar, surely earned our trust with it.

Apologies: Red Sweater reminded me of the problem of posting these slides -- they are officially secret and a government worker can get into major trouble by viewing them, even if they are published in the Guardian.

I completely forgot about this problem. I have now taken the slides out and linked to them with a warning.

I will not forget next time. (Last time, it was Gabe who actually cleaned it up before I was made aware of it, so I had not actually gone through this before-- Gabe just fixed it and informed me.)

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (263)
Post contains 1089 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Didn't the NSA already cop to looking at all our metadata? And then claim it's "for the children"?

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:30 AM (X4HxX)

2 My comments are being devoured. DAMN U NSA!!!

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:32 AM (X4HxX)

3 I'll only over react if it makes obama look bad, otherwise ... meh...

Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at July 31, 2013 08:32 AM (9+ccr)

4 Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: Gaff at July 31, 2013 08:34 AM (jPS2y)

5 They have their hooks deep in the internet already. The only thing that's stopping them is "policy". Snowden, for all his faults, is right. Policy only ratchets one way. The power mongers at the top will never let go, and will only ratchet it up more.

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:34 AM (X4HxX)

6 And that data center in Utah has no bearing on capacity.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 08:34 AM (pZ0pM)

7 >>>They have their hooks deep in the internet already. The only thing that's stopping them is "policy". S

what did you expect to stop them?

Nothing stops a gun-owner from committing gun owner except internal policy against murder.




Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 08:35 AM (/IWYB)

8 Dang, they keep getting closer and closer to my giant campaign database of voters.  This is scary, seriously you guys.

Posted by: Bronco Bama at July 31, 2013 08:36 AM (1I4sj)

9 Hey, I posted this hours ago. Good to see we both read Drudge, Ace. I mean, you posted this analysis and shit, but hey, it's being first that counts, right? I win. /s

Posted by: BCochran1981 at July 31, 2013 08:36 AM (da5Wo)

10 Mostly what I get out of these Snowden leaks is that our national security apparatus makes spectacularly shitty PowerPoints.  And that Art Bell wasn't paranoid enough.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 08:36 AM (B/VB5)

11 Ace, I wonder if they don't have the word "tea party" already filtering into secondary review?

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:36 AM (X4HxX)

12 What the hell was the name of his sock puppet? Rio?

Posted by: tasker at July 31, 2013 08:36 AM (r2PLg)

13 It's up to the people, through Congress, to set the parameters for what the executive can do for the national security. You're right: NSA would be negligent if they WEREN'T doing something like this with respect for certain targets. The key is to keep this kind of surveillance focused on the enemy and try to limit how much of it can be aimed at law-abiding citizens. It should be an ongoing process of adjustment.

Posted by: joncelli at July 31, 2013 08:37 AM (RD7QR)

14 There are more choices than "strong libertarian regime" that prevents all intelligence gathering and "anything goes". There are choices in between there. I don't think there's any government we can trust Obama with though. So, until the election of an Obama becomes impossible, I'll be leaning toward government impotence. The threat in 2001 was terrorists. The threat in 2013 is the government in Washington. Responses should shift due to new realities.

Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 08:37 AM (e/V6S)

15 Nothing stops a gun-owner from committing gun owner except internal policy against murder. Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 01:35 PM (/IWYB) And yet I can't just "leave" the US and pick another government. It's too much power, and we can't escape.

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:38 AM (X4HxX)

16 This would explain a lot. Time after time I have laboriously penned lengthy pieces of staggeringly cogent insight on the issues of the day, only to have them appear here as fragmented, wandering, easily ignored, irrelevant dross. Sometimes there are even misspellings, run-on sentences and such. Clearly someone is tampering with my stuff.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at July 31, 2013 08:38 AM (aDwsi)

17 Looks interesting--guess I should read the post.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 08:38 AM (sQ0LB)

18 "After 9/11, we looked back at how we had gotten here, and how our intelligence services had become so impotent. Perhaps it was a too-easy answer, but many pointed at the Chuch Committee hearings of the 1970s and subsequent 'reforms,' thinking perhaps we had gone rather too far in neutering the CIA"

The 1990s "Chinese wall" restrictions put in place by mistress of disaster Jamie Gorelick (another Clinton triumph) were far more significant than anything the 1970s Church Committee came up with.

This can't be repeated too many times: all of the information necessary to detect and apprehend the 9/11 attackers was already in the hands of the federal government. It's just that the federal government is and was run by imbeciles who couldn't run a kids' roadside lemonade stand.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 08:39 AM (gqT4g)

19 I don't think its asking too much to require these guys to actually get warrants to collect this data as per the 4th Amendment, rather then dragnet the entire internet? Right?

And I'm not talking about a rubber stamp "yeah, go ahead and collect info on everyone whatever" court warrant either.

Posted by: Gaff at July 31, 2013 08:39 AM (jPS2y)

20

Isn't part of the problem though less the program itself being able to be used against anyone (which as ace pointed out is a long standing intel problem) but rather the complete lack of oversight.

 

The FISA courts are barely oversight.  Beyond that, maybe you have a congressional committee every once and a while.

That's hardly sufficient.

I have a new plan.  Once a year there's a closed door congressional hearing (closed because Top Secret Bitches!)  All of congress (house and senate) may attend.

They are briefed on current rules.  Maybe some votes are recorded.

Then when shit like this goes down, and the public is rightfully pissed off they can't say "well I'd have objected, but I'm not on the intel committee."

You either chose to show up, or your didn't object hard enough.

Posted by: tsrblke at July 31, 2013 08:39 AM (GaqMa)

21 Homeland Security has a new "voluntary" rule to make the snooping easier. When you are filling out an I9, which you do on temp jobs like I do, there is a space for your email account. How does this indicate eligibility to work? It doesn't! But then they can snoop on your emails without breaking a sweat.

Buried in the rules is the fact that it's voluntary, but every employer gives it back and says, fill it out or you don't work. They don't want to get dunned by HS so they say, just do it.

Just like the survey from the feds on my race was "voluntary" at the school I worked for. But you are engaged in a big argument if you point that out to the boss.

That's the nudge at work.

Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2013 08:40 AM (ZWaLo)

22 You know what would stop terrorism? Basic police work. But not, it's not sexy, and isn't PC, and doesn't intrude into all our daily lives on a daily basis.

Posted by: HoboJerky, Hash Hunter at July 31, 2013 08:40 AM (X4HxX)

23 It's just that the federal government is and was run by imbeciles who couldn't run a kids' roadside lemonade stand.

...and who regularly shut down actual kids' roadside lemonade stands.  Apparently they can't stand the competition.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 08:41 AM (B/VB5)

24 Ace, didn't we go through this before when the Snowden thing broke? You took the classified slides off the site for a reason then. Isn't that reason still relevant?

Posted by: red sweater at July 31, 2013 08:41 AM (oATMN)

25 " The Times also explains how the Obama campaign was able to out-optimize the Romney campaign on TV buys by obtaining set-top box TV show viewing information from cable companies for voters on the Obama campaign's 'persuadable voters' list. "

Persuadable voters list -- from the NSA!  Buwhahahahahah!

IRS - FEC - DOJ - EPA - NSA.  All these and more were working on my campaign. 

Posted by: Bronco Bama at July 31, 2013 08:42 AM (1I4sj)

26 " Mostly what I get out of these Snowden leaks is that our national security apparatus makes spectacularly shitty PowerPoints" Seriously. My 8 year old is more competent.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2013 08:43 AM (ELdpj)

27 Ace, I have no problem with anyone grabbing data that is freely available by inspecting traffic on the net. Consumers should learn to be more careful with their communications. You can learn a great deal of information without ever opening an email. You can gather that information in great data warehouses. Companies do this all of the time. Once you hit their domain they know much about you unless you take extraordinary measures. Now, taping into head-points to grab this information is wrong, and that is what the US gov is doing today. They are going so far as to asking for encryption keys from companies to 'break' into data. China for a week rerouted all Euro-Asian network traffic through their net. Of course they claim that it was all a mistake, but they gathered a butt load of data. Finally, always remember that metadata is information about other data. In this case we are the data they are collecting information about. That includes who we talk to and what we say/do. The IRS used Metadata to zero in on conservative groups. Walmart uses metadata to know what will entice you to enter their doors. You can downplay this if you want, but when the likes of Microsoft and Google open their doors and break their own encryption for Big Brother you have a problem. There is a reason why Cheney and Bush never used email, and it wasn't because they were too stupid.

Posted by: Mekan at July 31, 2013 08:43 AM (hm8tW)

28 If only the U.S. Border Patrol had resources to do its job on a par with the resources that are apparently being poured into the NSA.  I guess spying on American citizens has a higher priority than keeping non-citizens out.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 31, 2013 08:43 AM (8ZskC)

29 "While I understand libertarian alarm bells ringing here, I also am perplexed at how people think intelligence is conducted, or how it could possibly be conducted at all under a strong libertarian regime."

Well, how's this for a series of theses?

(a) If you're a citizen, you enjoy deep and resilient liberties against gov't snooping.

(b) If you're not a citizen, you do not.

(c) Don't hand out citizenship willy-nilly.

Seems like a reasonably robust scheme to me.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 08:43 AM (gqT4g)

30 We should review all this stuff again after it works (or fails) to prevent the 9/11 2013 attack. 

Why else would they be breaking all their buds out of jail at this time?

Posted by: SpongeBob ReaverSaget at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (epxV4)

31 So they are fishing the net for problems? I would hope so. They can not keep up with all the data? Good and bad. The bad guys get lost. Think Boston bombers.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (wR+pz)

32 Heh, really good point about policy re: gun owners.  And yet--there are consequences for gun owners who don't adhere to a strict policy.  Who punishes Leviathan?

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (sQ0LB)

33 While I understand libertarian alarm bells ringing here, I also am perplexed at how people think intelligence is conducted, or how it could possibly be conducted at all under a strong libertarian regime. It would be conducted against terrorists, not law-abiding citizens. If we allow ourselves to live in a Polics State because of 9/11, the terrorists have won.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (7ObY1)

34 off topic, but here's a new meaning to the phrase "free shit":

http://tinyurl.com/qheac2n

Posted by: Mallfly at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (bJm7W)

35 The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed. Just the thing for election time, no? Nothing like a little info stream to help out oppo research, as long as you're willing to put up with the eventual 'scandal' a few years later when you might have to shuffle a few low-level drones as penance.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 08:44 AM (MMC8r)

36 Isn't the NSA building a huge new data storage facility? They are up to no good, that I guarantee.

Posted by: maddogg at July 31, 2013 08:45 AM (OlN4e)

37 Snowden needs to die in a fire along with Greenwald.    They are firing up  some on the Right  with misinformation.    I find it akin to reputable doctors  telling a person  he has  a  certain condition  and one quack doctor telling that person  they do not.   Guess which doctor the  patient wants to believe. 

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 08:45 AM (m2CN7)

38

How can we best know who is in need of a good nudge?

We have to know all about you, in order to help you, and nudge you in the right direction.

Posted by: Federal Dept of Nudging at July 31, 2013 08:45 AM (F6vyp)

39 This can't be repeated too many times: all of the information necessary to detect and apprehend the 9/11 attackers was already in the hands of the federal government. It's just that the federal government is and was run by imbeciles who couldn't run a kids' roadside lemonade stand. And the solution was to make it even bigger and to collect MORE information without addressing The Suck. And people are surprised that some of us are alarmed.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 08:45 AM (cRPJq)

40 33 While I understand libertarian alarm bells ringing here, I also am perplexed at how people think intelligence is conducted, or how it could possibly be conducted at all under a strong libertarian regime. ************* In their fantasy lab?

Posted by: tasker at July 31, 2013 08:45 AM (r2PLg)

41 But we CAN'T fight welfare fraud.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 08:46 AM (MMC8r)

42 >>>You know what would stop terrorism?

Basic police work.

...

nonsense. The sort of crap spouted by those who don't want to wrestle with the actual question, which is difficult.

"Basic police work" is what you do when you have a suspect identified who's already committed a crime.  Sure, investigate, surveil, all that.

How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet?


Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 08:46 AM (/IWYB)

43

I'd rather we just kidnap and torture foreigners for information than turn into a police state here at home.

 

Seriously, what happened to Hum-Int spying? Do we just not do that anymore?

 

Furthermore, I'm sick of all of us being guilty for the crimes of a few. I didn't commit an act of terrorism. I will never do so, or even entertain the idea of doing so, but my data and the sites I visit and the content of my e-mails are subject to review by our government.

 

Oh and I can't fucking wait until the Democrats start using this like they're using the IRS. Soon we'll know every website visited by any Republican nominee for any position.

Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 08:46 AM (C2Y4l)

44 red sweater,

thank you, and I'm sorry, I forgot about that.


Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 08:46 AM (/IWYB)

45

Perhaps it was a too-easy answer, but many pointed at the Chuch Committee hearings of the 1970s and subsequent "reforms," thinking perhaps we had gone rather too far in neutering the CIA -- we had defanged it and made it harmless to ourselves, but we'd also made it virtually harmless to evil-doers as well.

 

It was also an incomplete and therefore over-utilized answer.  As    another commenter likes to note, 9/11 happened because ICE failed    to   account    for 20    foreign    students with expired visas.    Had ICE done that, 9/11 may never have happened and the Patriot ACT never would have been passed.

 

The CIA and NSA and FBI, etc, need a certain level of security access and privilege, this is true.  I don't debate that.    The question lies with   how much access they should have,   and why.      Is giving them GREATER access truly beneficial?   In the ICE 9/11 example, had pre-existing laws been followed and enforced by our government -- had ICE done its job, in other words --    then the expansion of the powers of ANOTHER segment of the government  -- the intelligence sector -- would not have been deemed    a   desperate necessity.  

 

I don't like how much power the government has to invade my privacy and my person, not least of all because the government is too big to handle it all.   The government is so big that even it doesn't know everything it has in its possession, or how      those data are being used,   or how NOT USING those    data may    effect someone working in another building across town.    Snowden and Manning are just two examples of how a lot of damning information can    slip through the cracks in an enormous government leviathan such as we have now. 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at July 31, 2013 08:47 AM (4df7R)

46 What! ...I was only nudging him.

Posted by: Big Hairy Bully at July 31, 2013 08:47 AM (F6vyp)

47 Homeland Security has a new "voluntary" rule to make the snooping easier. When you are filling out an I9, which you do on temp jobs like I do, there is a space for your email account. How does this indicate eligibility to work? It doesn't! But then they can snoop on your emails without breaking a sweat. Buried in the rules is the fact that it's voluntary, but every employer gives it back and says, fill it out or you don't work. They don't want to get dunned by HS so they say, just do it. Throw away email address. I have a couple for advertisements/registrations that I don't want clogging up my real email.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 08:47 AM (pZ0pM)

48

This information will be used to destroy innocent people. I guarantee it.

Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 08:47 AM (C2Y4l)

49 Please admire how brilliant I am!  Low level employees = Bronco Bama Supporters = able to harvest NSA data = my giant campaign database.  AND I can't be blamed!  I directed no one to do this!  They just did it!  I didn't even create the environment that made it possible -- Republicans did!  Isn't America beautiful?

Posted by: Bronco Bama at July 31, 2013 08:48 AM (1I4sj)

50 At this point, I simply must wonder: If the Tsarnaevs couldn't be stopped with this level of data collection, isn't this either primarily a political tool?

The only other explanation is that they're doing it for the 'lulz'. Yep... I'm sure that's the answer.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at July 31, 2013 08:48 AM (tWmgi)

51 44 red sweater,

thank you, and I'm sorry, I forgot about that.


Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 01:46 PM (/IWYB)


No problem. And thanks for the quick and polite reaction.

Posted by: red sweater at July 31, 2013 08:48 AM (oATMN)

52 Look, I just want to see some common sense applied to security issues. They could start by abolishing the fucking TSA. Then they could start checking visas. You know, like the overstayed ones of the 9-11 bombers, and the Tsarnov brothers? A little dash of deporting illegal felons. Then you can come and convince me you should have more money for spying on Americans. And for SWAT teams and guns for the IRS and all the rest.

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at July 31, 2013 08:48 AM (pginn)

53 Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 01:45 PM (m2CN7) Which AoSHQ rule # is it that taking the opposite position of polynikes or pep is a safe bet?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 08:48 AM (cRPJq)

54 I assume all of the posts on Facebook that people make saying that "It's Monday" and "I'm going to poop now"  aren't stored for very long. So, most idiot LIVs really have no concern here.

Posted by: Roy at July 31, 2013 08:49 AM (VndSC)

55 Seriously, what happened to Hum-Int spying? ****** We suck at that. I really don't know why--good damn question. Also since this is the Information Age you are kind of forced into the technological answers. It is what it is--new invention--try to keep up. A nation state will always be behind and slower.

Posted by: tasker at July 31, 2013 08:49 AM (r2PLg)

56 How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet? Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 01:46 PM (/IWYB) Three psychics in trance pods? (never saw the whole movie, don't know the terminology)

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 08:50 AM (cRPJq)

57 I don't even give them a real throw away email address.  notme@gheyspam.org  works every time.

Posted by: SpongeBob ReaverSaget at July 31, 2013 08:50 AM (epxV4)

58 This information will be used to destroy innocent people. I guarantee it.

Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 01:47 PM (C2Y4l)

 

There are no innocent people.  Only we Muslims and the playthings for our amusement/enslavement/slaughter.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at July 31, 2013 08:51 AM (ggRof)

59 50 years from now, when civilization analyses the world's largest database of lolcats and duckface selfies, what the bloody hell will they think?

Posted by: Fritz at July 31, 2013 08:51 AM (UzPAd)

60 How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet? You listen to the Russians when they tell you bad dude is bad dude?

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 08:51 AM (pZ0pM)

61 intelligence =/= investigation

it's the difference between prediction and mere reportage.


Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 08:51 AM (/IWYB)

62

Hum-Int has ongoing costs and a very high political capital price to be paid when it goes tits-up.

 

Satellites and data snooping don't get paraded around Qom before being beheaded in the public square if they get caught.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (sQ0LB)

63 I sure am glad the government has it's priorities straight. Months since Bangazi and they haven't done any investigation, but Zimmerman was procecuted to the max, and more to come. Yessir, trust yer government.

Posted by: maddogg at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (OlN4e)

64 It's just that the federal government is and was run by imbeciles who couldn't run a kids' roadside lemonade stand.  Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 01:39 PM (gqT4g)

Agreed, as we say here in Oklahoma, they are too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (kXoT0)

65 59 50 years from now, when civilization analyses the world's largest database of lolcats and duckface selfies, what the bloody hell will they think?

Posted by: Fritz at July 31, 2013 01:51 PM (UzPAd)


Cute cat. And look at the tits on that babe!

Posted by: joncelli at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (RD7QR)

66 O/T Ran in to editors of CLT paper. Nice enough, I know them so we had a little talk. They are so fucking clueless and trite. I have no idea why I am surprised. Their tears taste like wine, we kicked their ass on EVERY issue in the General Assembly.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (wR+pz)

67 "How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet?"

Easy peasy!

Assume _ab initio_ that EVERYONE IS A CRIMINAL. Treat them accordingly.

See also: Transportation Security Administration.

Remember, citizen, if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear! Now bend over and spread 'em.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (gqT4g)

68 At this point, I simply must wonder: If the Tsarnaevs couldn't be stopped with this level of data collection, isn't this either primarily a political tool?

The only other explanation is that they're doing it for the 'lulz'. Yep... I'm sure that's the answer.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at July 31, 2013 01:48 PM (tWmgi)



Absolutely.  The Boston bombings were far worse than 9/11 due to all the warning signs which were ignored; which can only otherwise be explained by either a willful fuckup or having retards doing the analyses.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 08:52 AM (Idczg)

69

Then they could start checking visas. You know, like the overstayed ones of the 9-11 bombers, and the Tsarnov brothers

 

One brother was a citizen, the other did not have an expired visa. 

 

The failure of the authorities  to follow up on the info they had on the Tsarnov brothers  has nothing to do with data collection.   The data  collected  should have been acted on.   That  it was not is  an  entirely different problem.  

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (m2CN7)

70 When a Query is put into the system for a specific email account, XKeystore returns all the "metadata" -- addressees and, importantly, the subject line, which, of course, usually summarizes the basic content of the email -- and also scans the email for additional email addresses inside the email. I do not consider the subject line metadata, though I can see that argument, but, I'm sorry, any scanning into the email is reading the email. In which case, Fourth Amendment, motherfucker, you better motherfucking read it you pathetic pieces of shit who want to cloak yourselves in the mantle of national security. You want to read email of US citizens? Then get a warrant and not one of those every American ever in the history of ever warrants from a FISA court. Of course, that's assuming that this is true. If not, then never mind. I'll slam these cards down on the table right now. I am willing to discuss the scope of analysis and intelligence gathering and the manner in which it can be conducted to comport with the Fourth Amendment given current technology. What I am not willing to do is listen to appeals to authority. I do not give a shit that John Bolton thinks this is awesome and handy or that Andrew McCarthy is hyperventilating about how this is a necessary tool. Hell, I would be very concerned if they didn't. But telling me that a national security expert and a prosecutor want to have nigh to unlimited scope of investigative authority isn't persuasive. No. Fucking. Shit. They damn well better. That's why there's a Constitutional limit to prevent exactly such actions. That's also why there are those who do this for a living who point out the problems if data is not gathered and analyzed. I agree that gathering IP information from websites is not as troublesome. That can be conceptualized as a camera taking a picture of every person who passes by on a spot on a street. Do I like that? No. Is it an impermissible technique? No. I'm far more concerned about who can access what. I'm sorry but given what happened with Manning, I have no confidence, at all, that there is sufficient oversight and proper controls in place to prevent the lowest level person from having access to nearly everything. I just don't. I keep saying this: After 9/11, we looked back at how we had gotten here, and how our intelligence services had become so impotent. Perhaps it was a too-easy answer*, but many pointed at the Chuch Committee hearings of the 1970s and subsequent "reforms," thinking perhaps we had gone rather too far in neutering the CIA -- we had defanged it and made it harmless to ourselves, but we'd also made it virtually harmless to evil-doers as well. I'm not so much defending this program -- I just read this article and I have barely had time to digest it let alone reflect upon it -- as urging that we not repeat this endless spasmodic cycle of overreaction to the left followed by overreaction to the right followed, inevitably, by overreaction to the left again (and on, and on, and on). And then there's all of this. Hard problems make for hard choices and sometimes you, by which I mean I, have to suck it up and concede that where I draw the line has such negative ramifications that made the line should inch over that way. But many of those on the other side seem unwilling to concede that living under a total surveillance state has severe negative ramifications as well. It's all screaming past each other and trying to show off who has the bigger Libertarian or national security dicks. That's helpful (says the person contributing to the problem). To add to the tl;dr, this is the biggest problem with the destruction of trust in the government institutions. The Left doesn't trust the Right, the Right doesn't trust the Left and I assume that anything I'm told by a government agency or official is a lie. In order for there to be a functioning intelligence gathering apparatus along with oversight to ensure that Constitutional protections are being met, there must be trust that the closed door hearings on such matters are being conducted by those with the best interest of the country in mind. Does anyone believe that? Anyone at all? Thus, we end up here. Yay.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (VtjlW)

71 Hey, I've got a great idea, let's put Lois Lerner in charge of it. Assuming she isn't already.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (MMC8r)

72 > How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet?

I'll take my chances on the 1 in 20 million shot I'll be killed by a terrorist attack the next year, thanks.

Or maybe don't import little angry guys from the sandbox by the thousands?  Nah, that's crazy talk.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (ZWvOb)

73 It's Wednesday and I'm going to poop.

Posted by: Low Information Voter at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (uLzrM)

74 Also re: Hum-Int, we can thank Bradley Manning for chilling that as well for the near future--knowing that a couple hundred Afghanis were shot or worse because their names got leaked tends to discourage other locals from wanting to help.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 08:53 AM (sQ0LB)

75 "Breathless overstatement" has so far proved more reliable an indicator of what the NSA is doing than "sober assessment". Much as I hate to admit it.

Posted by: MTF at July 31, 2013 08:54 AM (z6Elp)

76 Of course, the NSA is not so crass as to spy on mosques. That would be profiling.

Posted by: maddogg at July 31, 2013 08:54 AM (OlN4e)

77 Yeah, Billy Bob, the local newsies are still in a state of sad shock that the GOP actually did what they said they'd do. I love it.

Posted by: Lincolntf at July 31, 2013 08:54 AM (ZshNr)

78 " 50 At this point, I simply must wonder: If the Tsarnaevs couldn't be stopped with this level of data collection, isn't this either primarily a political tool?" Exactly. While there have been a few catches, the vast majority of post 9/11 terrorism has failed only because of incompetent terrorists, not tge NSA. Obama, however, had the ability to microtarget voters.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2013 08:55 AM (ELdpj)

79 (c) Don't hand out citizenship willy-nilly.

Seems like a reasonably robust scheme to me.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 01:43 PM...........Pffft.

Posted by: Marco Rubio at July 31, 2013 08:55 AM (vWlST)

80 to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals,

Hee hee, Fuck you NSA. 

I just wanted that in the database.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 31, 2013 08:55 AM (4+FWp)

81 How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet? Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 01:46 PM (/IWYB) --------------- LIBERTARIAN TOP GUN Stinger: Who's do we have that's high right now? Radar Operator: ***staring at tracers from radar sweep*** Stinger: Holy shit, dude is baked! Well, if they break 150 miles, like, light the Alert Five bowl and pass that shit, man...

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 31, 2013 08:55 AM (++Xuv)

82 Which AoSHQ rule # is it that taking the opposite position of polynikes or pep is a safe bet?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 01:48 PM (cRPJq)

 

For example? 

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 08:55 AM (m2CN7)

83 Obama, however, had the ability to microtarget voters. And candidates. And his oppositions' voters. This is way more powerful than the IRS, and they're already using that to eliminate opposition.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 08:57 AM (MMC8r)

84 How do you stop someone you don't even know about who hasn't committed a crime yet?

You listen carefully when the KGB tells you on multiple occasions that two of your nationals are looking to bomb things, and don't throw away the information because they're Muslims?

What I get out of both 9/11 and Boston is that the government has the capabilities but not the smarts to catch these guys.  Post-9/11 they ramped the capabilities way up but they never improved the smarts, and unlike in Person of Interest the computers can't do everything for them.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 08:57 AM (B/VB5)

85 It's Wednesday and I'm going to poop. While making duckfaces.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 08:57 AM (pZ0pM)

86 Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (VtjlW) I actually read all that. All I can say is: +100 Deserves a post on the main page as a rebuttal.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 08:59 AM (cRPJq)

87 62 Hum-Int has ongoing costs and a very high political capital price to be paid when it goes tits-up. Satellites and data snooping don't get paraded around Qom before being beheaded in the public square if they get caught. Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 01:52 PM (sQ0LB ****** 74 Also re: Hum-Int, we can thank Bradley Manning for chilling that as well for the near future--knowing that a couple hundred Afghanis were shot or worse because their names got leaked tends to discourage other locals from wanting to help. Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (sQ0LB) ****** Exactly--depressingly true.

Posted by: tasker at July 31, 2013 08:59 AM (r2PLg)

88 Who cares about the politics of a government shutdown, I am worried that the government will be allowed to continue.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 08:59 AM (wzlt7)

89 "Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 01:46 PM (/IWYB"

True, we don't know how many terrorists have been arrested and imprisoned in secret, but we do know that the 9/11 bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers and Nidal Hasan were terrorists openly walking around ignored by the law enforcement establishment and ticket agents and army doctors by the curse of PC.

Basic police work was the only solution there, but our betters reject that, lest someone gets offended. And people died.

Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2013 08:59 AM (ZWaLo)

90 unlike in Person of Interest the computers can't do everything for them.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 01:57 PM (B/VB5)



POI succeeds because Finch and Reese are smart and badass.  Contrast a program starring Butch Napolitano and the chinless shitstain and watch all the persons of interest die due to ineptitude and dumbfuckery.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 09:00 AM (Idczg)

91 "What I get out of both 9/11 and Boston is that the government has the capabilities but not the smarts to catch these guys."

The central argument of Mark Steyn's piece about Big Politically Correct Brother.

Who sees everything and nothing simultaneously.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 09:00 AM (gqT4g)

92 Sorry to interrupt, went over to amazon, and it opened up to "President Barack Obama The Kindle Single Interview by David Blum"

Posted by: Snarky the Bear at July 31, 2013 09:01 AM (/b8+5)

93

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (VtjlW)

You don't care what Bolton or McCarthy say but  it appears you have accepted the refuted statements of Snowden and Greenwald.  Your choice. 

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 09:01 AM (m2CN7)

94

OT

Ewenowhut? This idea is absolutely packed with awesome.

http://tinyurl.com/lzzq4b6

Posted by: maddogg at July 31, 2013 09:02 AM (OlN4e)

95 92 Sorry to interrupt, went over to amazon, and it opened up to "President Barack Obama The Kindle Single Interview by David Blum" Posted by: Snarky the Bear at July 31, 2013 02:01 PM (/b8+5) you are not sorry

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at July 31, 2013 09:02 AM (8JJ6O)

96 I'm with AtC - I might feel better about this if I actually trusted those who were doing it and overseeing it. Not after Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal. Not after watching DHS abuse passengers for years because they know that they can get away with it.
Don't trust any of them.

Posted by: Lizzy at July 31, 2013 09:02 AM (xvolr)

97 Mostly what I get out of these Snowden leaks is that our national security apparatus makes spectacularly shitty PowerPoints. And that Art Bell wasn't paranoid enough.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 01:36 PM (B/VB5)

 

Even paranoids have enemies.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at July 31, 2013 09:02 AM (zF6Iw)

98

"What I get out of both 9/11 and Boston is that the government has the capabilities but not the smarts to catch these guys."

-

They weren't the targets, we were.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 09:03 AM (wzlt7)

99


from Huff Po:

"The Russian side warned the American side about the Tsarnaev brothers, but this information was not taken seriously by the American side, which is what led to that tragedy," Valentina Matvienko, the speaker of Russia's senate, said Tuesday, referring to suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Interfax news agency reported.

Russia told the FBI in 2011 that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had plans to join insurgents in Chechnya. The agency did a cursory investigation and closed its assessment on Tsarnaev.

http://tinyurl.com/k758lgr.

Posted by: Mallfly at July 31, 2013 09:03 AM (bJm7W)

100 93 Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (VtjlW)
You don't care what Bolton or McCarthy say but it appears you have accepted the refuted statements of Snowden and Greenwald. Your choice.

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 02:01 PM (m2CN7)

 

The ravage will feed well tonight, methinks.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 09:04 AM (sQ0LB)

101 Drudge quotes McCain as saying he might vote for Hillary. Fucking asshole.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 09:05 AM (MMC8r)

102 The biggest problem for our ultra-hawks excusing the universal surveilance is that not a single person can prove to a finite degree that the systems in place not only won't be abused, but they can not demonstrate that abuses can't be excused by political appointees.

If a form of governance prone to abuse cannot allow the crimes of abusers be known, you guarantee unmitigated abuse.

Further, IF you don't understand how power corrupts, you are a naif. If you insist that power doesn't corrupt, you're are a termite in our constitutional republic. I am tired of the excuse crafting for a set of abuse machines in the hands of the worst administration this nation has ever seen.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 31, 2013 09:05 AM (3mJqV)

103 Despite you somewhat comfort that most of this date cannot be kept--because it's too large, here's the problem:

Data storage and retrieval technology is not static--it's like saying, "the Dewey Decimal System will always be the most efficient method of searching for relevant books on topic."

Sure chief.

Here's the other huge problem: There is not one single, solitary thread of evidence that this program has stopped a single terrorist attack. And the best proof of that is the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 31, 2013 09:05 AM (VjL9S)

104 Free Beacon:

Boston Police Department Commissioner Edward Davis said that he and other state law enforcement officials were never told that the Tsarnaev brothers had been cited as a potential radical threat, nor that they had been investigated by the FBI in 2011, long before the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and wounded hundreds more.

“Were you aware of the Russian intelligence warnings regarding” Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two radicalized ethnic Chechen brothers believed to have carried out the attack, asked House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R., Texas).

“We were not in fact informed of that particular development,” responded Davis, who admitted that he has at least four officials posted to a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) who were not given information by federal authorities until days after the attack

http://tinyurl.com/m7u729r


Posted by: Mallfly at July 31, 2013 09:05 AM (bJm7W)

105 you are not sorry Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at July 31, 2013 02:02 PM (8JJ6O) Oh geez how much older than me are you, that was right out of the mom playbook, but not the correct mom playbook, the one you should avoid.

Posted by: Snarky the Bear at July 31, 2013 09:05 AM (/b8+5)

106 This massive, indiscriminate collection of data is uneccesary. All of the 9/11 hijackers were here on visas that were expired. We knew Where they lived and breathed and they were known to law enforcement. If we had followed immigration law they would have been tracked down and expelled from the country. 9/11 would never happened. The boston bombers were known to law enforcement, the russians told our own state department that the brother was one to watch. They did nothing. The massive collection of data is not to stop external enemies, its to keep track of internal ones. And fuck you NSA monitors!

Posted by: kreplach at July 31, 2013 09:06 AM (49lPc)

107 It's not so much that our guys don't have the smarts to do it, it's that they don't have the will to do it. All of the intelligence in the world wouldn't have stopped Nidal Hassan because it was not PC to notice all of the alarm bells.

Janet Napolitano consistently de-emphasized concern for Islamic terrorism in favor of domestic right-wing terrorism. If they're told to, and rewarded for, finding domestic terrorisys then that's what they'll find. If they're prevented from, or discouraged from finding muslim terrorists then they won't find them.

Posted by: Lizzy at July 31, 2013 09:06 AM (xvolr)

108 The facts that Greenwald "broke" the story, and that Snowden had arranged to give it to him before applying for his last position, and that he fled to the safe libertarian arms of Red China and Putin's Russia might give serious people pause.  Of course, that lets out all the libertarian nut cases.

BUT the real problem isn't how far the law goes, is it?  That's always been like a pendulum on security issues, swinging towards the state during the World Wars and after 9/11 and away from it as those events' memories fade.  It will continue to swing back and forth.

The real problem is that elections matter, and when people like Obama and Holder win power their complete lack of respect for the law means no law can protect us.

Posted by: Adjoran at July 31, 2013 09:06 AM (473jB)

109 Speaking of losing track of visitors, homeland has lost track of a million or so.

http://tinyurl.com/mhkveu2


Posted by: Javems at July 31, 2013 09:06 AM (nTgAI)

110 There has been many issues pointed out with readily available information Known or available to the GOVT.

Allowing immigration/ or those  from State sponsored  terrorist states  . their ability to riot , demonstrating openly  with voice and literature advocating   killing of  (americans or others) that defy Allah or demanding America change law to sharia law.  breaking openly the previous contract  Constitution american citizens have with the constitution , bill of rights.. do to those who won't obey their religion.
we have other nations  telling  GOVT who is risky and are ignored?


yet , yet, they are looking at and harrassing average JTP with tools of the state, or average you and me with state agencies?

why should it be  accepted  govt to use tools of the state for only the purest of motives, when it has found to be different?


Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:06 AM (Jy4tI)

111

You ask me why I think the CIA/NSA/FBI/DOJ shouldn't have so much access to the private lives of every American resident when that access could    stop    another terror attack like 9/11.

 

I give you the following:

 

- Nidal    Hassan giving powerpoint presentations about Muslim persecution, emailing back and forth with radical   terrorist imams, and    nonetheless being promoted to Major,   then being charged with "workplace violence."

 

- The Tsarnaev brothers comign to this country for "asylum," yet flitting back and forth to their shithole country after the fact;   attending a mosque that has pumped out at least a dozen known terrorists since 9/11;   as our powers that be receive information from the Russians that Speedbump was    showing   signs of terrorist leanings.

 

-The 9/11 hijackers being   in this country on expired visas, and yet today our gubmint "betters" want to make millions more like them into legal residents of this country.

 

- Our   Ambassadors to Libya sending cables to the State Department about growing Al Qaeda influence in taht country, asking for greater security, noting that local security forces were inadequate and unreliable.   Those cables being ignored, security being DIMINISHED, and an Ambassador's murder -- as well as the murder of three other Americans -- brushed under the rug as "unavoidable" and spuriously blamed on a YouTube video.

 

-  So-called "facts" and "figures" spouted by politicians and activists about how so much Mexican gun violence is due to American guns being sold to drug cartels because of unscrupulous dealers, and then finding out that    it was the gubmint itself selling the    cartels those guns.

 

I could go on, but I won't.  

 

I will agree that the   intelligence community can    invade my privacy a little when they, and the gubmint they work for, can prove to ME that they'll act on the things that   are served to them on a silver platter     that   DID NOT require them      to tap the metadata from my emails, txt messages, phone conversations, Facebook posts, Twitter feed...

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at July 31, 2013 09:07 AM (4df7R)

112

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (VtjlW)

 

AtC, if I weren't already married, I'd be after you in a heartbeat.  You, dear Empress, have one hell of a mind.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at July 31, 2013 09:07 AM (zF6Iw)

113 All of the metadata is collected and stored at our manned outpost on Neptune.

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at July 31, 2013 09:07 AM (fWAjv)

114 MWR,  a wonderful post!

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:08 AM (Jy4tI)

115 Janet Napolitano consistently de-emphasized concern for Islamic terrorism in favor of domestic right-wing terrorism. That was the early set up to justify using all this for political purposes.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 09:08 AM (MMC8r)

116 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at July 31, 2013 02:07 PM (4df7R)


Bravo.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at July 31, 2013 09:10 AM (8ZskC)

117 The CIA was neutered at birth.

Posted by: baldilocks at July 31, 2013 09:10 AM (Tnlh/)

118 no just no.

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:10 AM (Jy4tI)

119 Somehow, I don't think "basic police work" is the Libertarian answer to intel collection. Cop: "Good evening, sir. Could you roll down your window?" Libertarian: FUCK YOU, OINKER!!! THIS IS STILL AMERICA - YOU DON'T HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ASK ME ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS!!!" Cop: "Maybe I didn't. Until you started hopping up and down and screeching like a fucking organ grinder's monkey going through heroin withdrawal. Outta the fucking car. NOW." Libertarian: "SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYS - ! ***jerks and twitches as cop drive-stuns him into pavement***

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 31, 2013 09:10 AM (++Xuv)

120

If our government is going to be in the business of preventing the possibility of     terrorism, then by its very nature it will require that every person's every word be recorded and analyzed.  Prior restraint is the least efficient and most expensive method of control.  Gone are probable cause and warrants, enter the    enormous   police state.  And, seriously, how far are we from preventing crime to codifying thoughtcrime?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 09:12 AM (wzlt7)

121 Just wait til we have your medical records, wingnuts.

Posted by: The NSA, Now With 20% More Trustworthiness at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (8ZskC)

122 I'll put AtC's rebuttal up after a while. I'm going to do some other stories (best to mix up topics), then I'll post that.


Posted by: ace at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (/IWYB)

123 Drudge quotes McCain as saying he might vote for Hillary.

Fucking asshole.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 02:05 PM .....................Fucker should have stayed in the Hanoi HIlton. I should have never voted for him because he was a little shinier turd than the JEF. If I could go back in time I would have voted for some third party guy who had no chance of winning. I did it with Mittens too and have learned my lesson and never again. RINO = protest third party vote.

Posted by: Minnfidel at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (vWlST)

124 Drudge quotes McCain as saying he might vote for Hillary. Fucking asshole. Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 02:05 PM (MMC8r) Looked through the article Drudge linked. McShitty didn't say that.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (cRPJq)

125 Richar Fernandez made the best case for why the NSA's wide net approach is so dangerous: http://tinyurl.com/lr5bvzf

"...
it means that the administration is able to draw a graph (like a network chart) of who is talking to whom. It is able to say what are the key nodes through which any business passes, find all its Internet ‘friends’ and interlocutors and potentially drill down into the comms themselves — in time series.
. . . .

The fact that you belong to a large group, for example the 50% of the US population that is conservative or Republican, does not give you safety in numbers. Within this large group of millions are a much smaller number of key leadership nodes. They are the nodes that matter, the top of the hierarchy mandated by Dunbar’s Number.

If you can control, corrupt or even bait those nodes you can reduce the entire group to impotence. You can effectively decapitate it, a strategy applied not only to al-Qaeda but apparently also by the IRS in its hunt of Tea Party and Republican fundraising groups."

Posted by: Lizzy at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (xvolr)

126 117 The CIA was neutered at birth.

Posted by: baldilocks at July 31, 2013 02:10 PM (Tnlh/)


No, the hawks lost an internal battle to the liberals. Wild Bill built the CIA; Stansfield Turner (and Jimmy Carter, and Frank Church) mortally wounded it.

Posted by: joncelli at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (RD7QR)

127 Oh, and here's another measure that, while leaving the liberties of US citizens safely alone, would make it a hell of a lot harder for foreign criminals and foreign terrorists.

Stop handing out "student visas" like crazy.

The push to get huge numbers of students from the rest of the world to come here was another brilliant innovation of the Kennedy-Johnson years.

Because, their thinking went, if we don't let young Third World types come here to learn about Truth, Justice, And The American Way, then they'll instead be subverted by Commies and go to Patrice Lumumba University to learn Marxist doctrine, and then start blowing shit up.

Except it didn't work that way. Today, a bunch of Third World types come here on student visas with the EXPRESS INTENTION of blowing shit up.

And, even for the ones who aren't blowing shit up, a typical American university education circa 2013 is essentially indistinguishable from what was taught at Patrice Lumumba University back in the day.

I don't see why propagating more of that crap is in anyone's best interests. Plus, shutting that flow off would be a giant agonizing nut shot to the already tottering leftist education-industrial complex.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 09:13 AM (gqT4g)

128 damn it , i missed atc's rebuttal, what's the comment number#?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:14 AM (Jy4tI)

129 please think of addign MWRS?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:14 AM (Jy4tI)

130 I'll put AtC's rebuttal up after a while. I'm going to do some other stories (best to mix up topics), then I'll post that. Wow. Thanks ace. This is why I just can't quit you.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:15 AM (cRPJq)

131 didn't we have a 3 times removed from a possible terrorist link ?

on just online chatting?

eevryone of us?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:15 AM (Jy4tI)

132 >>damn it , i missed atc's rebuttal, what's the comment number#?

70

Posted by: Lizzy at July 31, 2013 09:16 AM (xvolr)

133 OT: NJ fines TGIF $500k for serving ValuRite instead of Absolut. Link in the nic

Posted by: McCool at July 31, 2013 09:16 AM (nCSwS)

134 It'd be one thing if our government was actually competent, actually trustworthy, and actually stopping terrorists. This program won't make a single American safer, because they'll be too busy investigating political enemies while the terrorists are still going to be greeted with open arms and given free reign to blow shit up.

Posted by: Cato at July 31, 2013 09:16 AM (EhvsK)

135 fine, i will go back and read every comment,


and then i will say something to an empty room again.

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:16 AM (Jy4tI)

136 128 damn it , i missed atc's rebuttal, what's the comment number#?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 02:14 PM (Jy4tI

Look for the wall of text around 80 or so I think--yes I'm too lazy to scroll back up myself.

 

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 09:16 AM (sQ0LB)

137 is it  number 70 atc?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:17 AM (Jy4tI)

138 Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 02:16 PM (Jy4tI) I'm detecting a little bit of sass here.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:17 AM (cRPJq)

139 Conservative CraWhen a Query is put into the system for a specific email account, XKeystore returns all the "metadata" -- addressees and, importantly, the subject line, which, of course, usually summarizes the basic content of the email -- and also scans the email for additional email addresses inside the email.


I do not consider the subject line metadata, though I can see that argument, but, I'm sorry, any scanning into the email is reading the email. In which case, Fourth Amendment, motherfucker, you better motherfucking read it you pathetic pieces of shit who want to cloak yourselves in the mantle of national security. You want to read email of US citizens? Then get a warrant and not one of those every American ever in the history of ever warrants from a FISA court. Of course, that's assuming that this is true. If not, then never mind.


I'll slam these cards down on the table right now. I am willing to discuss the scope of analysis and intelligence gathering and the manner in which it can be conducted to comport with the Fourth Amendment given current technology. What I am not willing to do is listen to appeals to authority. I do not give a shit that John Bolton thinks this is awesome and handy or that Andrew McCarthy is hyperventilating about how this is a necessary tool. Hell, I would be very concerned if they didn't. But telling me that a national security expert and a prosecutor want to have nigh to unlimited scope of investigative authority isn't persuasive. No. Fucking. Shit. They damn well better. That's why there's a Constitutional limit to prevent exactly such actions. That's also why there are those who do this for a living who point out the problems if data is not gathered and analyzed.


I agree that gathering IP information from websites is not as troublesome. That can be conceptualized as a camera taking a picture of every person who passes by on a spot on a street. Do I like that? No. Is it an impermissible technique? No.


I'm far more concerned about who can access what. I'm sorry but given what happened with Manning, I have no confidence, at all, that there is sufficient oversight and proper controls in place to prevent the lowest level person from having access to nearly everything. I just don't.


I keep saying this: After 9/11, we looked back at how we had gotten here, and how our intelligence services had become so impotent. Perhaps it was a too-easy answer*, but many pointed at the Chuch Committee hearings of the 1970s and subsequent "reforms," thinking perhaps we had gone rather too far in neutering the CIA -- we had defanged it and made it harmless to ourselves, but we'd also made it virtually harmless to evil-doers as well.

I'm not so much defending this program -- I just read this article and I have barely had time to digest it let alone reflect upon it -- as urging that we not repeat this endless spasmodic cycle of overreaction to the left followed by overreaction to the right followed, inevitably, by overreaction to the left again (and on, and on, and on).



And then there's all of this. Hard problems make for hard choices and sometimes you, by which I mean I, have to suck it up and concede that where I draw the line has such negative ramifications that made the line should inch over that way. But many of those on the other side seem unwilling to concede that living under a total surveillance state has severe negative ramifications as well. It's all screaming past each other and trying to show off who has the bigger Libertarian or national security dicks. That's helpful (says the person contributing to the problem).


To add to the tl;dr, this is the biggest problem with the destruction of trust in the government institutions. The Left doesn't trust the Right, the Right doesn't trust the Left and I assume that anything I'm told by a government agency or official is a lie. In order for there to be a functioning intelligence gathering apparatus along with oversight to ensure that Constitutional protections are being met, there must be trust that the closed door hearings on such matters are being conducted by those with the best interest of the country in mind. Does anyone believe that? Anyone at all?


Thus, we end up here. Yay.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 01:53 PM (VtjlW)

nk

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:18 AM (Jy4tI)

140 Gabe Valerie just fixed it and informed me.
Fixed!

Posted by: president o'bumbles at July 31, 2013 09:18 AM (BQ10H)

141 OT:  Media completely misses the point of this sculpture about Detroit's bankruptcy.

http://tinyurl.com/n6gdxzs

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 31, 2013 09:18 AM (Hx5uv)

142 Burn the Witch?

i have eaten my wheaties today.

lol

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:18 AM (Jy4tI)

143 You don't care what Bolton or McCarthy say but it appears you have accepted the refuted statements of Snowden and Greenwald. Your choice. Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 02:01 PM (m2CN7) Thank you ever so for extending to me the courtesy of presuming that I am arguing from good faith that I have extended to you in the past. That is so very gracious of you. I'm also thrilled to see that your reading comprehension skills remain up to par. Shall I use the puppets to explain the concept of appeal to authority that I am rejecting? I wouldn't want you to miss it again. I do not care about what they say being used as a means to stop the argument on this matter which is, after all, the sine non qua of the concept of an appeal to authority. To clarify, no, I do not care what they say *as being the final word on the subject*. I must beg your abject forgiveness for not making that crystalline clear. I was fairly certain, after all, that the pains I took to note why they would believe what they do and the reasonable basis for such beliefs would have granted to any moderately competent reader the presumption that I was not rejecting their positions in full simply because they hold those positions but rather merely the arguments from those who appeal to their authority and then mic drop. Please note that I also specifically referenced that this may not be true, in which case, never mind. I mean, my God, it's as if I was leaving open the possibility that Snowden and Greenwald are full of shit. As far as refuted, I have yet to see the claims refuted. Neither have I seen the claims fully established. I do not trust Snowden and Greenwald. I do not trust any government agency or representative. This presents rather a quandary, now, doesn't it?

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 09:19 AM (VtjlW)

144 No, the hawks lost an internal battle to the liberals. Wild Bill built the CIA; Stansfield Turner (and Jimmy Carter, and Frank Church) mortally wounded it. Posted by: joncelli at July 31, 2013 02:13 PM (RD7QR) Frank Church is the guy....his public "investigation" of the CIA cost dozens, if not hundreds of lives, literally, and set intelligence gathering back 50 years.

Posted by: MoeRon at July 31, 2013 09:20 AM (TFsVB)

145 And candidates. And his oppositions' voters.

This is way more powerful than the IRS, and they're already using that to eliminate opposition.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 01:57 PM (MMC8r)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

But, combined,  it's  a vast leviathon that can't be overcome, even by a well-organized opposition campaign.   It's why I say that while the dems control this array of tools, the fix will always be in for any future elections.

 

It's why they  aren't afraid anymore of exposing exactly who they are and what they want to do to this nation.  Plus, their smugness while they do it.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 09:20 AM (7Rs5x)

146 alex, clapping,  you and mwr  really laid it out, thank you!

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:21 AM (Jy4tI)

147

I do not trust Snowden and Greenwald. I do not trust any government agency or representative. This presents rather a quandary, now, doesn't it?

 

It has ramifications beyond just the NSA.  Once trust has been destroyed in the instruments of government, what justification is there for obeying the dictates of that government, other than the threat of deadly force?

 

A very poisonous stew is being cooked here.


Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at July 31, 2013 09:21 AM (zF6Iw)

148 Oh willow, I'd already read it, I was trying to tell you where it was--but thanks!

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 09:22 AM (sQ0LB)

149 Looked through the article Drudge linked. McShitty didn't say that. Not in those words. Q: "When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?" McAsshole: "It's gonna be a tough choice".

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:23 AM (pZ0pM)

150

142...i have eaten my wheaties today.

 

And you didn't even take us to dinner first!

 

 

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 09:23 AM (F6vyp)

151 ooo Troll getting busted.

Posted by: buzzion at July 31, 2013 09:23 AM (LI48c)

152 I do not trust Snowden and Greenwald. I do not trust any government agency or representative. This presents rather a quandary, now, doesn't it?

****

This must be what it's like to be born in Mexico or Zimbabwe.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 31, 2013 09:23 AM (Hx5uv)

153 Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 02:19 PM (VtjlW) That was better than I anticipated.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:23 AM (cRPJq)

154 AoS HQ Poll: Which COB will stomp AtC's rebuttal posting? for funeral arrangement purposes

Posted by: RWC at July 31, 2013 09:24 AM (fWAjv)

155 I think an important point is being missed here.  Besides the reality that one party is using this data to throw elections,   I, and millions of    other people are perfectly willing to accept an increased risk of being killed by a terrorist in return for retaining my personal information.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 09:24 AM (wzlt7)

156 Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 02:23 PM (pZ0pM) You omitted the laughter that was included in the article. You can easily interpret that exchange to mean anything you want it to mean.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (cRPJq)

157 freedom or security? i'll take freedom and take care of my own security......

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (8JJ6O)

158 Agreed, Vashta, I'd rather be marginally less safe and free than "safer" but living under constant surveillance.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (ELdpj)

159 Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 02:16 PM (Jy4tI) I'm detecting a little bit of sass here. That's hawt.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (pZ0pM)

160 But then how will we save you from people like the Boston Bombers, Vashta?

Posted by: president o'bumbles at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (BQ10H)

161 OT: HEY! I just remembered. The Q2 economic numbers should be the first one under their new calculation scheme-- which experts were saying would produce higher numbers over the old way. And, even so, they were a shitty 1.7% that will undoubtedly get revised to ~1% like Q1's were, even under the new methods. In short, Occam's boof-buddy is a miserable failure.

Posted by: zsasz at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (MMC8r)

162 I lay $20 on ace stomping it himself.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (sQ0LB)

163 One of Alex' sentences is like eight of mine. Alexs' ? Alex's ? Alexes ? Alexteses

Posted by: eleven at July 31, 2013 09:25 AM (KXm42)

164 I'll put AtC's rebuttal up after a while. I'm going to do some other stories (best to mix up topics), then I'll post that. Wow. Thanks ace. This is why I just can't quit you. Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 02:15 PM (cRPJq) Thank you, but I didn't quite mean it as a rebuttal. Your point about the wild swings from extreme to extreme is incredibly well taken. Hell, I'm not sure that we necessarily disagree. I do think that I am inclined to a more libertarian view on this than you are but that doesn't mean I reject that national security first viewpoint in toto. There has to be intelligence gathering. There must. The way intelligence is gathered isn't pretty but not many necessary things are. It's just that I am deeply, deeply worried that given the tools available now and given human nature, very bad things indeed can be done very quickly by people very low on the food chain. Again, I don't trust me with this power. I don't. Why would I trust anyone else?

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 09:26 AM (VtjlW)

165 torquewrenc, the other reason foreign students were sought is that they paid tuition in big buckets to the universities, clients of whichever administration would give them more money.

Posted by: PJ at July 31, 2013 09:26 AM (ZWaLo)

166 157 freedom or security? i'll take freedom and take care of my own security......

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at July 31, 2013 02:25 PM (8JJ6O)

 

Ask the people of Boston how much security it gets.  The inept security theater of the TSA has done a better job.

Posted by: buzzion at July 31, 2013 09:26 AM (LI48c)

167 In the days after 9/11 there were voices raised over the fear of increased surveillance and arguments broke out over the TSA screening of passengers. Those voices were the minority.

So we hope for the best, eh? There is always hope. 

Posted by: Hope Springs Eternal at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (xIHlt)

168

My earlier comment dealt   with situations in which the government ignored     genuine intelligence     or fabricated    data.    But what about the reverse?   What about instances of the gubmint using data inappropriately,   or using inaccurate    information?    Or just plain fucking up?

 

- First of course is the IRS    targeting scandal, which is so far beyond I scandal I can't even think of an appropriate term.   "Criminal enterprise" seems to fit, but then that fits this entire "administration."

 

- How many times have you read a story in the local paper about some poor soul who comes home from work to find their house demolished, or all their belongings removed, only to find out that the repomen or the    demolition company got the wrong house   because their GPS was off,    or because the bank gave them the wrong address?   Now instead of      a bulldozer knocking over your house    because   a bank manager has dyslexia,  imagine the NSA drone striking your    cousins' home in Pakistan.     And before you protest, I give you Clinton and his fucking aspirin factory.

 

- Two women in a blue truck    delivering newspapers    mistaken    by the LAPD    for a burly black man in a gray truck      and shot full of holes.

 

- Every instance of SWATting

 

- The Zimmerman    Show   Trial and it's insistence on denying clear evidence in favor of FEEEEEELINGS.  

 

- The young man who was just awarded $4.1 million by the DEA for leaving him locked in a cell for five days with no food or water and no charges filed.

 

 

The government makes mistakes every day, and the government deliberately exercises malevolent will against the people every day, too.   Giving them greater opportunity,    access, and ability     to do either of these things is not, in my opinion, a good idea.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (4df7R)

169 157 freedom or security? i'll take freedom and take care of my own security...... Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at July 31, 2013 02:25 PM (8JJ6O) Amen.

Posted by: RWC at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (fWAjv)

170 I'm a rock star, baby!

Posted by: hillary at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (BQ10H)

171 This program won't make a single American safer, because they'll be too busy investigating political enemies while the terrorists are still going to be greeted with open arms and given free reign to blow shit up.

***

Maybe that's how DHS lost track of 1,000,000 aliens.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (Hx5uv)

172 Just a correction for you Ace (I'm a network engineer by profession):  If these slides are correct, and they are storing HTTP traffic for 3-5 days, this is *not* about metadata, this is about *all* web traffic that isn't encrypted.  This is chat, this is email, this is twitter, this is web browsing *including content.*  The fact they only claim to store the data for a short period of time gives an indication of the quantity of data we're talking about.  So the cocksuckers who get up there and say "Pfft, this is just metadata" are lying (assuming this is true, and given the NSA non-denial issued to the Guardian, I think we can make that assumption.)

Anyway, good post, glad to see people discussing it. 

Posted by: DanInMN at July 31, 2013 09:27 AM (XqeyF)

173 Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 02:18 PM (Jy4tI) Still a thing of beauty! , second time around. I hates the iPad.

Posted by: Weimar Republican at July 31, 2013 09:28 AM (XdnQT)

174 "I was fairly certain, after all, that the pains I took to note why they would believe what they do and the reasonable basis for such beliefs would have granted to any moderately competent reader the presumption that I was not rejecting their positions in full simply because they hold those positions but rather merely the arguments from those who appeal to their authority and then mic drop."

Damn, AtC brings the stomp.

Posted by: torquewrench at July 31, 2013 09:28 AM (gqT4g)

175 Umm... did you guys actually click the links?

The first one is less than nothing.  It just points out why HTTP is important.

The second doesn't really tell us much either, and Snowden can't be trusted to explain it- he's already been shown a liar who doesn't really know what he's talking about.  He's a former IT guy who scooped up a bunch of data he didn't understand nor would be expected to.

Maybe there's more out there, but without context those two linked slides don't mean much of anything.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 31, 2013 09:28 AM (SY2Kh)

176 I think an important point is being missed here. Besides the reality that one party is using this data to throw elections, I, and millions of other people are perfectly willing to accept an increased risk of being killed by a terrorist in return for retaining my personal information.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 02:24 PM (wzlt7)

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

I'm with you.  Give me my  "individual freedom" back.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 09:30 AM (7Rs5x)

177 142...i have eaten my wheaties today.

And you didn't even take us to dinner first!

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 02:23 PM (F6vyp)


woops!  smiles, hug.

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:30 AM (Jy4tI)

178 Instead of looking at what they're allowed to do to everyone, can we have a list of what they're not allowed to do? It would have to be pretty small and succinct, though. Something on the scale of our Bill of Rights.

Posted by: MegaIndependento at July 31, 2013 09:31 AM (uvaJ1)

179

Not being able to 'profile' serves the Left's purposes...

 

Because they can't profile...the NSA has to snoop on everyone.

 

This requires bigger government to do this.

They like bigger government, so...winning!

 

And they get all this additional information on everyone, to better know how to 'nudge' us.

Bonus!

 

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 09:31 AM (F6vyp)

180 Did anybody watch the Morning Joke segment where ScarredRINO teed off on Ted Cruz?  Newsbusters doesn't have it but Tammy Bruce played a segment of it.  It featured Mike "JFK Jr was the greatest pilot in the history of aviation" Barnicle, Tina "there's no buzz in my vibrator" Brown and Meeka the barely trained parakeet, all calling Cruz a member of the "no government Taliban wing of the Republican party" which, as near as I can tell, doesn't approve of murdering congressional interns.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 09:32 AM (Idczg)

181 *swoons over the 'etts* What they all said

Posted by: CaveJohnson at July 31, 2013 09:33 AM (9qihi)

182 obama/carney "Officially" declare IRS scandal phony? Outrage in the MSM........yawn

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 31, 2013 09:33 AM (jE38p)

183 >>>While I understand libertarian alarm bells ringing here

Ace,

My issue isn't with what they are doing per se. It is with what they can do.

Noting who I am sending and receiving email from. That is arguably public data as I place that data in the message so that others with whom I have no affiliation or agreement may route my message to the appropriate destination. Again that's is probably public and can be examined without warrant.

However, ANY portion of the contents of that email message that I wrote or specifically included, even other email addresses I may have mentioned in the message that were not part of the routing instructions, however is not intended for public use and should be considered private, that includes the subject line.

More disturbingly the only thing holding them back from full on 1984 is the RULES IN A SEARCH ENGINE. Which are trivial to change.

I'm sorry Ace. Security aside, this is way over the line for a free society. I am NOT comfortable with the government examining that much information about its people, even if for the time being it's limiting it's ability to search that data. It spells C-O-N-T-R-O-L in to to many ways to allow it to stand. I hate the slippery slope argument, but, in this case it is really apt since this is like 9/10ths already down the slope and only one more small step and we are living in tyranny.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at July 31, 2013 09:34 AM (0q2P7)

184 Looks like the State of Texas is about to send another unique snowflake to meet his maker. Guy shot dead a trucker he claimed cut him off, proceeded to a fueling station where he shot dead a second trucker just for the hell of it, and shot a third guy standing in front of Taco Bell 4x who luckily survived just because... Gawker has some stupid project where they are writing murderers trying to portray them as poor saps. They weren't prepared for the vitriol from this asshole.

Posted by: Waldo at July 31, 2013 09:34 AM (tCBZk)

185

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 02:19 PM (VtjlW)

 

I  should have know that it was okay to rage against the machine as long as you can say nevermind at the end like Emily Litella.   I will concede I did not read after the second paragraph. 

Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 09:35 AM (m2CN7)

186 "no government Taliban wing of the Republican party"

Really not too familiar with the Taliban's mission statement, are they?

Posted by: Jaws at July 31, 2013 09:35 AM (4I3Uo)

187 .i have eaten my wheaties today.  


And you didn't even take us to dinner first!



You mean....this was an option???

....

:::: shaves, showers, pops breath mint ::::

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/u][/i][/s][/b] at July 31, 2013 09:35 AM (JpC1K)

188 Again, I don't trust me with this power. I don't. Why would I trust anyone else?

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 02:26 PM (VtjlW)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

.....she says as the ravage stirs.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 09:35 AM (7Rs5x)

189

Late to the thread, I know, but is there anyone in DC suggesting  that this massive and needless capturing of data on innocent Americans  be stopped?

 

Or  even scaled down to, oh I  don't know, known actors (like muzzies, for instance)?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at July 31, 2013 09:35 AM (0HooB)

190 It's just that I am deeply, deeply worried that given the tools available now and given human nature, very bad things indeed can be done very quickly by people very low on the food chain.


Again, I don't trust me with this power. I don't. Why would I trust anyone else?

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 02:26 PM (VtjlW)

Yep, and with Obamacare, the lowest political operatives imaginable will have your medical records and an annotated file of your political beliefs--what could possibly go wrong with that?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at July 31, 2013 09:36 AM (kXoT0)

191 Waldo, apparently that asshole ripped the phone out of the wall during his press conference to beg for clemency. I'm not really a fan of the government having the power to kill, but in this case I think I have to say "Adios MoFo"

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2013 09:36 AM (ELdpj)

192 22 > You know what would stop terrorism?

A blanket ban on Visas for citizens from a short list of countries or regions would have stopped all terrorism on US soil since the OKC bombing.....But that would be profiling. 

Posted by: DanInMN at July 31, 2013 09:36 AM (XqeyF)

193 Gawker has some stupid project where they are writing murderers trying to portray them as poor saps. They weren't prepared for the vitriol from this asshole.

Posted by: Waldo at July 31, 2013 02:34 PM (tCBZk)



Gawker is on the same level as those Westboro turds.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 09:37 AM (Idczg)

194 .....she says as the ravage stirs.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 02:35 PM (7Rs5x)



Thanks for reminding me.  I almost missed their mid-afternoon snack.

Hey!  Where is Cochran anyway?

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/u][/i][/s][/b] at July 31, 2013 09:37 AM (JpC1K)

195 .....she says as the ravage stirs.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 02:35 PM (7Rs5x)

Hey, Soona, do you happen to remember when/why Oklahoma reformed its voting system?  I was posting about it on earlier threads and could not remember...

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at July 31, 2013 09:38 AM (kXoT0)

196 Maybe there's more out there, but without context those two linked slides don't mean much of anything.

Fortunately the full article and the rest of the slides fill in a great deal of the meaning.  And makesyou really want to slap around whoever makes clip art for the NSA.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 09:38 AM (B/VB5)

197 >>Drudge quotes McCain as saying he might vote for Hillary.
>>Fucking asshole.
>>Posted by: zsasz

Looked through the article Drudge linked. McShitty didn't say that.
Posted by: Burn the Witch


He says that a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary would be 'a tough choice.'

That a possible vote for Hillary exists is implicit in his response. Considering that the overwhelming majority of us voted for him in 2008 despite his less than perfect conservative record adds a special sheen to this coyness.

He is a petty, craven shyster. Fuck him.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 31, 2013 09:39 AM (3mJqV)

198 Dear Congressman Rogers: Sorry, don't believe you.

Posted by: old grouch at July 31, 2013 09:39 AM (bNV2T)

199 Really not too familiar with the Taliban's mission statement, are they?

Posted by: Jaws at July 31, 2013 02:35 PM (4I3Uo)



They just throw dumbass shit out there like a tourette's sufferer on meth.  MSNBC must be so proud of the balance that ScarredRINO brings their dogshit network.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 09:39 AM (Idczg)

200 The securityhawk vs liberty wars are as bad as the fiscon ,socon wars?Can't we all agree that we don't trust the fucking government to have this kind of access?

Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2013 09:40 AM (9XBK2)

201

As economic information is manipulated to make things look better, today's propaganda had the following inserted....

 

"GDP is the broadest measure of the nation's output of goods and services. It includes everything from manicures to industrial machinery. But the government's comprehensive revisions included changes in how GDP is defined.

Research and development spending is now counted as investment, rather than an expense. So is spending on the development of entertainment products such as movies, music, books and TV shows. Those changes increased the size of the economy by about $470 billion, or about 3 percent, as of the end of 2012.

Pension benefit promises are now counted as income. That's a shift from the previous approach, which counted only actual cash payments by companies and government agencies into pension plans. This change boosted the savings rate by 1.5 percentage points in 2011 and 2012 to about 5.6 percent. In the second quarter, Americans saved 4.5 percent of their after-tax income, up from 4 percent in the first quarter."

This could do with it's own thread...but it's interesting to note.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at July 31, 2013 09:41 AM (EGPJQ)

202 Fortunately the full article and the rest of the slides fill in a great deal of the meaning. And makes you really want to slap around whoever makes clip art for the NSA.

I skimmed through the full article, and the slides themselves again don't really tell us much, at least with respect to domestic surveillance.

I think I liked the NSA better when they refused to acknowledge it existed.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 31, 2013 09:41 AM (SY2Kh)

203
Its not that the NSA could follow me per say around the internet, its that they can, will, and do, do it for political purposes.  And when someone like Obullshit is in charge, that is a very dangerous thing.


(and OT, could someone tell John McCain to officially switch parties because his "I have switched but am keeping it secret" is not fooling anyone.)

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 31, 2013 09:41 AM (4+FWp)

204 Noting who I am sending and receiving email from. That is arguably public data as I place that data in the message so that others with whom I have no affiliation or agreement may route my message to the appropriate destination. Again that's is probably public and can be examined without warrant. However, ANY portion of the contents of that email message that I wrote or specifically included, even other email addresses I may have mentioned in the message that were not part of the routing instructions, however is not intended for public use and should be considered private, that includes the subject line. Mike, agreeing with you. How is the above different than opening snail mail? And wouldn't people pass a kidney if it was being done?

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:42 AM (pZ0pM)

205 Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2013 02:40 PM (9XBK2)

There is a slippery slope that some people are willing to risk.

I'm not. The Bill of Rights is pretty clear.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at July 31, 2013 09:42 AM (gqgiP)

206 Foghorn Leghorn,

are they also counting unemployment insurance, EBT cards section 8 rents and so on?

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:42 AM (Jy4tI)

207 Can we just refer to McCain as Charlie Crist v2.0?

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at July 31, 2013 09:42 AM (EGPJQ)

208 201 I've posted about the changes making GDP even more of a bullshit number than it was  on many occassions.Again,the LIV's don't know or care.

Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2013 09:43 AM (9XBK2)

209 Drudge quotes McCain as saying he might vote for Hillary. >>Fucking asshole. >>Posted by: zsasz Looked through the article Drudge linked. McShitty didn't say that. Posted by: Burn the Witch He says that a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary would be 'a tough choice.' That a possible vote for Hillary exists is implicit in his response. Considering that the overwhelming majority of us voted for him in 2008 despite his less than perfect conservative record adds a special sheen to this coyness. He is a petty, craven shyster. Fuck him. Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 31, 2013 02:39 PM (3mJqV) When any Republican is asked if he/she would ever vote for shillary the only acceptable answer is: I'd vote for that road kill over there before I'd ever vote for her and what are you a fuckin asshole for asking a question like that.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 31, 2013 09:43 AM (jE38p)

210 I think I liked the NSA better when they refused to acknowledge it existed.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 31, 2013 02:41 PM (SY2Kh)



I liked it better when it was that big building at the edge of Fort Meade where a bunch of weird people worked.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 31, 2013 09:44 AM (Idczg)

211     NSA can collect anything they want from foreigners with my blessing.

Posted by: steevy at July 31, 2013 09:44 AM (9XBK2)

212 ... second look at HAM radio?

Posted by: Jean at July 31, 2013 09:44 AM (x0UH9)

213
ugh, per say > per se

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 31, 2013 09:45 AM (4+FWp)

214 Thanks for cleaning up the slides Ace.  Don't want people who like your website to get trouble, but rather to cause trouble and change minds.

Posted by: Draki at July 31, 2013 09:45 AM (L8r/r)

215 McCain strolls into Dem caucus meeting By Judy Kurtz - 07/31/13 12:31 PM ET Sen. John McCain — a Democrat? There was confusion Wednesday after the Arizona Republican mistakenly strolled into President Obama’s meeting with Senate Democrats at the Capitol. The room full of Democrats — who happened to be meeting in the same room where the Senate GOP usually holds their weekly policy luncheons — erupted in applause and laughter as the former Republican presidential candidate made his entrance. Mistake my ass. On the other hand, he is senile

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 31, 2013 09:46 AM (jE38p)

216 #155 Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 31, 2013 02:24 PM You're also agreeing to let other people get killed by terrorists. It's not a good argument. (I'm on the side of reigning in the NSA. Please don't make it harder for our side by offering this argument.)

Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 09:46 AM (e/V6S)

217

201...Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at July 31, 2013 02:41 PM (EGPJQ)

 

This new way of calculating the GDP is a thinly disguised way of inflating it.

 

That way, Barky can point to it and say..."The GDP has shot up under my excellent leadership!"

 

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 09:47 AM (F6vyp)

218 Hey, Soona, do you happen to remember when/why Oklahoma reformed its voting system? I was posting about it on earlier threads and could not remember...

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at July 31, 2013 02:38 PM (kXoT0)

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

I just know that it was in it's formative stage when I returned to the  state in the mid-80's.  I think it was during the 90's (with better machines) that it became the system we have now.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 09:47 AM (7Rs5x)

219 He says that a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary would be 'a tough choice.' And then he laughed, which indicated he was joking around. Look, I'm not saying he's not craven or that he's not turd. He is. Hell, I've got a bigger problem with him saying (seriously it seems) that Hillary is a fucking "rock star". Really? We need the House and Senate getting to the bottom of her failures as SoS, which involved deaths of her people, and she's a fucking "rockstar"??

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:47 AM (cRPJq)

220 Ace : " I also am perplexed at how people think intelligence is conducted" ---- I thought the point was to look at people, who are mostly foreigners, not Americans. I honestly wonder sometimes which party is worse. If it wasn't for some Democrats and Rand Paul, we would have no pols condemning this stuff.

Posted by: Baldy at July 31, 2013 09:47 AM (tyDFN)

221 He says that a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary would be 'a tough choice.'

OH FUCK YOU McCAIN. You weren't good enough for me in '08. But under no circumstance did I even entertain the thought of voting for BO, despite your unabashed sucktitude. You just Fucked your party in my eyes asshole. In '16 if I don't really like him/her, it's off FUCKING TICKET. I'm tired of the "GET ON THE TEAM THIS IS OUR CHOICE, when apparently that street only goes ONE WAY, when your squishy ass invertebrate wanna be progs get the spot, but not when a classic liberal/libertarian gets the spot. You just signed my permission slip to dump your stupid ass party in the general if you don't fall into line with what I like jerk.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at July 31, 2013 09:48 AM (0q2P7)

222 So they are fishing the net for problems? I would hope so.

At issue:  What you define as a "problem" is not the same thing a career politician defines as a "problem". 

Posted by: bonhomme at July 31, 2013 09:48 AM (QehQP)

223 192 22 > You know what would stop terrorism?

A blanket ban on Visas for citizens from a short list of countries or regions would have stopped all terrorism on US soil since the OKC bombing.....But that would be profiling.

Posted by: DanInMN at July 31, 2013 02:36 PM (XqeyF)

Some call it profiling--I call it not a suicidal devotion to some misplaced sense of fairness.

 

Posted by: Conservative Crank at July 31, 2013 09:48 AM (sQ0LB)

224 ... second look at HAM radio? Triangulation if they want you. The FCC is pretty good at nailing illegal stations now. And Pixy couldn't handle the Dragon software needed.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:49 AM (pZ0pM)

225 Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 31, 2013 02:45 PM (4+FWp)

purr se?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at July 31, 2013 09:49 AM (gqgiP)

226 "... second look at HAM radio?"

The FCC has facilities all over the country that pulls down that traffic as well. 

Ain't  American freedom great?




Posted by: Jaws at July 31, 2013 09:50 AM (4I3Uo)

227 This new way of calculating the GDP is a thinly disguised way of inflating it.

That way, Barky can point to it and say..."The GDP has shot up under my excellent leadership!"

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 02:47 PM (F6vyp)

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

As  AtC has been lamenting above, I can't trust anything (ANYTHING) coming out of DC now.  They've turned the whole reporting mechanism into a steaming pile of lies.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 09:50 AM (7Rs5x)

228
And then he laughed, which indicated he was joking around.

Posted by: Burn the Witch


Yeah, like Obama joked about siccing the IRS on his critics.

Ha.
Ha.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 31, 2013 09:50 AM (3mJqV)

229 28 minutes ago Source: Obama was 'rude and dismissive' in exchange with Democrat Posted by CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and CNN Capitol Hill Reporter Lisa Desjardins Sounds about right. The nastiest POS ever

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 31, 2013 09:50 AM (jE38p)

230 >Some call it profiling--I call it not a suicidal devotion to some misplaced sense of fairness.

Agreed.  Also, let's start with the position that access to the interior of the United States is not the god given right of every man, woman, and child on the fucking planet and go from there.  A bunch of your shitbag countrymen blow up a building here?  Sorry, we aren't going to take the risk on any more of you.  And yes, I'm talking directly to Saudi Arabia.  They need us more than we need them.

Posted by: DanInMN at July 31, 2013 09:51 AM (XqeyF)

231 Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 02:49 PM (pZ0pM)

NVIS HF

Posted by: Country Singer at July 31, 2013 09:51 AM (L8r/r)

232 219 He says that a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary would be 'a tough choice.' And then he laughed, which indicated he was joking around. Look, I'm not saying he's not craven or that he's not turd. He is. Hell, I've got a bigger problem with him saying (seriously it seems) that Hillary is a fucking "rock star". Really? We need the House and Senate getting to the bottom of her failures as SoS, which involved deaths of her people, and she's a fucking "rockstar"?? Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 02:47 PM (cRPJq) McCain also laughed after he said he would rather have good government than a strong first amendment. He doesn't laugh when he's joking around he laughs when he realizes he said something he probably shouldn't but does believe.

Posted by: Buzzion at July 31, 2013 09:51 AM (kwhUR)

233 I just know that it was in it's formative stage when I returned to the state in the mid-80's. I think it was during the 90's (with better machines) that it became the system we have now.

Posted by: Soona at July 31, 2013 02:47 PM (7Rs5x)

That is what I was thinking.  It was a response to Democratic Governor David Hall going to federal jail for racketeering and extortion...right?

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes C'est Magnifique at July 31, 2013 09:51 AM (kXoT0)

234 @113 All of the metadata is collected and stored at our manned outpost on Neptune.

Close. You're just one planet too far out.

that doesn't mean I reject that national security first viewpoint in toto.
Ah, the old Dorothy in Oz gambit. It's in Toto, is it?
I know not what course others may take, but I'm going to "open the pig."

Posted by: comatus at July 31, 2013 09:52 AM (JNUY4)

235 Rude and dismissive to a Democrat? Second look at Obama...

Posted by: Lincolntf at July 31, 2013 09:52 AM (ZshNr)

236 He doesn't laugh when he's joking around he laughs when he realizes he said something he probably shouldn't but does believe. A very, very strong point. I withdraw my argument.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at July 31, 2013 09:52 AM (cRPJq)

237
Can we just refer to McCain as Charlie Crist v2.0?

They both do have flabby jowls.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at July 31, 2013 09:53 AM (qoQi/)

238 My perverted mind continues to think of the firestorm that the Bush administration would be under if these revelations came out during his tenure. Face it, SCOAMF can do or not do just about anything in terms of his Administration without feeling any heat for it. It's not "The Obama Administration's IRS scandal", its "the IRS Scandal". It's not "The Obama Administration's Pursuit of AP journalists or James Rogen", it's "the Justice Departments" pursuit of journalists. It's not "The Obama Administration's Failure on Benghazi", it's "Unsupported Political Allegations about Benghazi"..... SCOAMF could not do it without the sycophantic press and a bunch of government loving, power loving "Republican" senators.....

Posted by: MoeRon at July 31, 2013 09:54 AM (TFsVB)

239

227...As AtC has been lamenting above, I can't trust anything (ANYTHING) coming out of DC now. They've turned the whole reporting mechanism into a steaming pile of lies.

 

Yeah, Soona.

Their figures for Inflation are totally bogus too...since they took Gas and Food out of their equation.

 

How can inflation figures be accurate at all without including Gas and Food?

 

Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 09:54 AM (F6vyp)

240 If we are not allowed to defend our rights to our privacy, papers etc.
I would hope we demand that our GOVT also be tagged . I want every email, every conversation , private, in a meeting, in the bedroom,  or not be open to the public online text.


Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 09:55 AM (Jy4tI)

241 How can inflation figures be accurate at all without including Gas and Food? Posted by: wheatie at July 31, 2013 02:54 PM (F6vyp) RACIST!!!

Posted by: MoeRon at July 31, 2013 09:55 AM (TFsVB)

242 Source: Obama was 'rude and dismissive' in exchange with Democrat Posted by CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and CNN Capitol Hill Reporter Lisa Desjardins Sounds about right. The nastiest POS ever Minor bundeler. Low $$.

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:56 AM (pZ0pM)

243 This information will be used to destroy innocent people. I guarantee it.
Posted by: Ben at July 31, 2013 01:47 PM (C2Y4l)

============
You can't rule over an innocent man.

And they seek to rule, not govern.

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 31, 2013 09:57 AM (VjL9S)

244 You can't rule over an innocent man. And they seek to rule, not govern. So did Ceasar. All it got him were sharp pains...

Posted by: rickb223 at July 31, 2013 09:58 AM (pZ0pM)

245 NSA can collect anything they want from foreigners with my blessing.

And that goes double for Scandis.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 31, 2013 10:01 AM (B/VB5)

246 How insane is it, to go spying on basically everyone on the planet, to stop the next 19 swarthy guys with beards? I really think this country has lost its mind.

Posted by: Baldy at July 31, 2013 10:02 AM (tyDFN)

247 OK,  here is what I see going on.  In the original NSA mission,  they were to watch foreigners,  specifically terrorists or people from terrorist-friendly countries.

Some time when the Patriot Act was reenacted,  the mission got expanded.  (Note this might have been in -ta-da! - 2009.)

People like Bolton and McCarthy are assuming that things are as they were.  Snowden and Greenwald didn't like it in the original form, so they hatched their plot,  wanting to undermine national security.

Meanwhile, Obama has people in their who are combing through stuff in order to get dirt on people they want to control.   As we have seen,  a little thing like a law or the Constitution wouldn't stop him.

Heck,  there could be people in there like Snowden who are getting stuff for the White House,  and the head of NSA wouldn't even be aware of it.

I don't trust any government agency after I saw the IRS in operation.  And I do not like these hints of "nudges" and "navigators" and other such minions who will try to tell me what to do.

And I don't like every comment I make here,  or on Pinterest,  or eBay,  or anywhere else monitored.  It is too intrusive and against the Bill of Rights.

The fact that Obama wants to keep this going and wants Snowden arrested indicates to me that we do NOT want the program as it currently stands.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 31, 2013 10:05 AM (GoIUi)

248

The only way for these systems could work... is they are doing a 'Statefull Inspection' at the primary routers... the ISPs (ATT, Verizon, Comcast...).

 

ie... they take the IP data streams of packets, and look at EACH one, then decide to either store the 'meta data', or go deeper at look at content.

 

So YES... they can look at anything you are doing on the internet... and can then decide what type of packets or data they wish.... ie... are you looking at websites... or does that IP packet house part of an email.

 

And no, it does not look like there are any controls on the use of the system, beyond POLICY of those looking... just like there is a Non Porn Policy at every workplace... and we know how well THAT works...

 

The US Government is spying on EVERYONE... and I submit we are NOT safe in our persons, and papers, if the Government does so.

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 31, 2013 10:09 AM (lZBBB)

249

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 31, 2013 03:05 PM (GoIUi)

 

At one time the FBI, NSA, CIA, and DOD Spooks were all competing agencies....

 

ie... it was designed so no one single person short of the President could control the entire apparatus...

 

Just like the CIA and FBI were designed to be apart... because they have different rule sets....

 

Now... thanks to Bush.... they are all merged together... we no longer have a counterbalance of competing agencies to protect us...

 

And so.... a Political Hack as National Security Advisor, can now do just about anything they wish...

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 31, 2013 10:13 AM (lZBBB)

250 Obama threw an indignant fit to keep his blackberry private .

Posted by: Herronblade at July 31, 2013 10:15 AM (6zjiY)

251 I should have know that it was okay to rage against the machine as long as you can say nevermind at the end like Emily Litella. You also have been here long enough to know that I am rather fond of understatement and that the Emily Litellaing was a not so subtle reference to the fact that should the premise of my raging against the machine be proven unfounded, then there was no reason for the raging in the first place. This was not an overly fine point. The reason that Emily Litella was so funny was because she was always wrong in her knee jerk reactions. Or, to use the puppets for you, I was mocking myself for engaging in such behavior. I will concede I did not read after the second paragraph. Posted by: polynikes at July 31, 2013 02:35 PM (m2CN7) So, in other words, you did not, in fact, extend to me the common courtesy of presuming that I was arguing from good faith or actually reading or making any attempt to interact with the full nature of my argument. Not to mention failing, utterly, to comprehend what it was that I was rejecting within the portion that you did read, despite the fact that I explicitly noted I was referring to appeals to authority. I shall take into consideration such willingness to give heed to the positions of others when reading the positions you take and shall extend such reciprocal courtesy to your statements.

Posted by: alexthechick - Here SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 31, 2013 10:18 AM (VtjlW)

252 Who was it that told Andrea Mitchell that he gave "the least untruthful" answer during Senate testimony this year?

Posted by: mrp at July 31, 2013 10:25 AM (HjPtV)

253 I do not only want to share a part in alextopia, i would like alex to be my atty  if ever the needs arises.

because she is just that good.
(and bad) but that is also good.

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 10:26 AM (Jy4tI)

254 of course that would require me breaking the law  (or not with this administration) and money.


sigh.

Posted by: willow at July 31, 2013 10:26 AM (Jy4tI)

255

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

"A society that will trade
a little liberty for a little order
will lose both, and deserve neither." Thomas Jefferson

Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 31, 2013 10:43 AM (lZBBB)

256 Nothing stops a gun-owner from committing gun murder except internal policy against murder. What stops a faceless, nameless bureaucrat from wielding power useful to his/her aggregation of power? they don't necessarily have that internal policy barring them from abusing their position. As an example, consider the IRS. They have a policy against targeting particular segments of the population that have committed no wrong doing. How is that working out?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at July 31, 2013 10:43 AM (1hM1d)

257 This looks a bit fishy: Australian fisherman 'fights his way' OUT of a shark http://goo.gl/jennux Fake but real! I want a copy.

Posted by: Hands Off My Weiner! at July 31, 2013 10:46 AM (tCBZk)

258 The proof that the NSA is collecting data on political enemies and not on the actual enemies of the country is pretty obvious: contrast the highly effective intelligence that the Obama campaign had in the last election with the utterly inept job done on the Boston Bombers.

Anyone who thinks the NSA is being aimed at the country's enemies is clueless.


Posted by: [/i] [/s] [/u] [/b] An Observation at July 31, 2013 11:30 AM (ylhEn)

259 "I'm not so much defending this program -- I just read this article and I have barely had time to digest it let alone reflect upon it -- as urging that we not repeat this endless spasmodic cycle of overreaction to the left followed by overreaction to the right followed, inevitably, by overreaction to the left again (and on, and on, and on)."

Keep calm and trust Chris Christie.

Posted by: Ken at July 31, 2013 12:26 PM (fFh95)

260 This all seems to be a bit out of proportion. The story implies that you can punch in someone's email and see literally everything they're up to. This doesn't make sense. For this to be possible they'd have to have everything databased. I mean everything. They would literally have to create a mirror copy of everything that exists on the internet, and not only this, but a historical archive of everything with related tracking details. How many computers are there in the world? Ok, well that's how many NSA needs in their server room essentially, except even more for archiving requirements. The amount of data storage required for this much information is sort of beyond comprehension. We're talking about storage capacity in the exabytes, 10^18, and that's just for general web traffic. Using conventional hard drive sizes that would be tens of millions of hard drives. So we're talking a budget in the BILLIONS just for hard drives, not including the storage arrays and servers and everything else required just to get them to a point where we can save information on them, much less organize it in a useful way. In order to do the kind of surveillance that is suggested here would require a budget rivaling the entire department of defense and developing a software system that makes the google indexing engine look like a high school project. And also, all this assumes complete and open cooperation of every single company that has a web server anywhere. And what burden would such cooperation place on all these companies? Long story short, it's a bunch of b.s. IMHO I have no doubt the NSA is doing something. And I have no doubt whatever they're doing is a 4th amendment violation and should tick us all off. But whatever that actually is, nobody is going to be entering your name and getting a detailed report of every single thing you do on the internet or phone. Not buying it.

Posted by: Andrew at July 31, 2013 12:44 PM (HS3dy)

261 I accept your apologies. Don't let it happen again.

Posted by: rammer at July 31, 2013 03:51 PM (+GfSF)

262 Thanks for the warning on the links.  Don't need none of that.

Posted by: Justanotherguy at July 31, 2013 07:10 PM (xKB6u)

263

Hey Ace:

 

What you've linked isn't merely Secret, it's Top Secret, Special Intelligence (Communications Intercepts), Originator Controlled data, with limited foreign dissemination.

 

I'm an old school, data handling protocol, kinda guy. I decipher, you decide...

 

BoE

Posted by: Beasts of England at July 31, 2013 09:27 PM (Kd1Lp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
239kb generated in CPU 0.22, elapsed 1.3024 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1234 seconds, 499 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.