NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily

[jcd11235 0]

quade

***Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

It says "facts," but since that's a handout from the DNI how, exactly, do we know?

It's tin foil hat time, ladies and gentlemen!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

Nope. I'm saying its foolish to believe this is an Obama issue. You can remove him entirely and the issue still exists.

Proof? Bush left office and the problem still exists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Whistleblower’s NSA warning: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg

Alright
Is this whistle blower a patriot or a traitor?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/the-national-security-agencys-collection-of-phone-/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

quade

*********Orwell, or Obama?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/orwell-or-obama
Click on the answer you think is correct.

Hey, you said you wanted a president that listened to the people. Now we have one!
According to Leno, instead of Snoop Dog, we have Snoop Obama.

Yes, idiots on TV will continue to make jokes about the wrong thing. Again, this is not an "Obama" issue; it's a whole government issue. The issue wouldn't exist without the cooperation of both Houses, both this and the previous Administration and the Surpeme Court.

If you want to blame just Obama, you're missing the real issue.

Chill the fuck out. It was a joke, he wasn't attacking your King.

[rushmc 23]

quade

Nope. I'm saying its foolish to believe this is an Obama issue. You can remove him entirely and the issue still exists.

Proof? Bush left office and the problem still exists.

I can go with that but, FACT is he is still running it

the most transparent admin in history

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

jcd11235

******Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

It says "facts," but since that's a handout from the DNI how, exactly, do we know?
It's tin foil hat time, ladies and gentlemen!

Being skeptical and asking how do we know if an intelligence agency is telling the truth about "facts" isn't exactly tin-foil hat territory. Intelligence agencies operate via obfuscation of information as standard operation procedure. To a certain extent, it's a requirement of what they do.

With that in mind, how can we,outsiders, ever know what is and isn't a "fact" from them?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Gravitymaster

************Orwell, or Obama?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/orwell-or-obama
Click on the answer you think is correct.

Hey, you said you wanted a president that listened to the people. Now we have one!
According to Leno, instead of Snoop Dog, we have Snoop Obama.

Yes, idiots on TV will continue to make jokes about the wrong thing. Again, this is not an "Obama" issue; it's a whole government issue. The issue wouldn't exist without the cooperation of both Houses, both this and the previous Administration and the Surpeme Court.

If you want to blame just Obama, you're missing the real issue.

Chill the fuck out. It was a joke, he wasn't attacking your King.

HEY!!!

Its messiah to you

OK?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

quade

******It says "facts," but since that's a handout from the DNI how, exactly, do we know?

It's tin foil hat time, ladies and gentlemen!

Being skeptical and asking how do we know if an intelligence agency is telling the truth about "facts" isn't exactly tin-foil hat territory. Intelligence agencies operate via obfuscation of information as standard operation procedure. To a certain extent, it's a requirement of what they do.

With that in mind, how can we,outsiders, ever know what is and isn't a "fact" from them?

I'm just pointing out that you're using the exact same tactics as conspiracy theorists:

"Well that exactly what we would expect them to say, isn't it?"

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

My nano-thermite dosage is non-existent. What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts." How, exactly, could we do that in this case?

In the case of planes flying into towers, we can see the planes hit, the fuel explode, the fires burn. We know the planes had hundreds of people on them and all of those people no longer exist. We can talk to hundreds of mechanical engineers and easily confirm nano-thermite isn't required for the tragedy to have taken place.

How do we do that with this document?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

I was just Messiah'in with him.

[rushmc 23]

quade

My nano-thermite dosage is non-existent. What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts." How, exactly, could we do that in this case?

In the case of planes flying into towers, we can see the planes hit, the fuel explode, the fires burn. We know the planes had hundreds of people on them and all of those people no longer exist. We can talk to hundreds of mechanical engineers and easily confirm nano-thermite isn't required for the tragedy to have taken place.

How do we do that with this document?

Funny
when it comes to Obama you want facts

Bush?
not so much

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Really? You think I didn't want facts from Bush? Seriously?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

Really? You think I didn't want facts from Bush? Seriously?

You vilified Bush without facts

Not happening with Obama

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

rushmc

***Really? You think I didn't want facts from Bush? Seriously?

You vilified Bush without facts
Not happening with Obama

Actually, Bush started a war without facts and that's a fact.

People pressed the Bush Admin on facts all the time. Few were forthcoming. That was the issue. The few stated "facts" turned out to obfuscation or outright lies.

Your line of reasoning is . . . bizarre.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

quade

******Really? You think I didn't want facts from Bush? Seriously?

You vilified Bush without facts
Not happening with Obama

Actually, he started a war without facts...and that's a fact.

A fact every one you can name believed

Clintons, (both of them)
Kerry and the list goes on

Keep telling yourself that lie
Still will not be true but you will feel better

you are still playing catch up
come on
you(think you) can do better

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

quade

What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts."

I fail to see where you were concerned with verification of the "facts" provided in the Guardian article. So it's okay to accept a reporter's word at face value, but not the word of someone actually familiar with the program being discussed, right?

Like I said, it's tin-foil hat time.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

jcd11235

***What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts."

I fail to see where you were concerned with verification of the "facts" provided in the Guardian article. So it's okay to accept a reporter's word at face value, but not the word of someone actually familiar with the program being discussed, right?

Like I said, it's tin-foil hat time.

So, you think the original article that was leaked and the one the Director of National Security responded to talking about the PRISM program, acknowledges and verifies in his own press handout on the subject isn't verified?

That's an interesting conclusion to make.

The article is now irrelevant to the discussion. It has been verified the program exists by the DNI. What hasn't been verified are the details of the program.

How could you, me or anybody outside of the intelligence community possibly hope to do that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Your "logic" is not logical. Your "reasoning" is not reasonable.

If a person A tells person B a lie and person B believes the lie because person A is the ONLY approved source of information, how the hell can person B possibly be held accountable for it?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Do you want me to go back AGAIN and post all the quotes ababout Iraq from a time before Bush was even running for office? Come on dude. Even I think you don't want me to do that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

I encourage you to look at the sources of intelligence leading up to the war on Iraq. Not the individuals who might have publicly stated them but the cherry picking and outright fabrications made. In particular, look at who directed the cherry picking and who used their influence on the man sitting in the Oval Office.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Interesting quote from Senator Obama in 2007 -

“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jcd11235 0]

quade

******What I'm concerned with is verification of stated "facts."

I fail to see where you were concerned with verification of the "facts" provided in the Guardian article. So it's okay to accept a reporter's word at face value, but not the word of someone actually familiar with the program being discussed, right?

Like I said, it's tin-foil hat time.

So, you think the original article that was leaked and the one the Director of National Security responded to talking about the PRISM program, acknowledges and verifies in his own press handout on the subject isn't verified?

So it's okay to take the DNI at his word when he acknowledges the program, but not when he discusses the limits of the program? That's awfully convenient for you, don't you think?

I think the extent of PRISM has been exaggerated in the media. For example, I find claims that the government has direct access to the servers of Google, MS, Apple, etc., to be highly dubious. Considering how the companies have unequivocally denied granting such access, and the government denies having such unilateral access, the claim seems highly doubtful and remains unsubstantiated.

The whole thing is comically inconsequential to the liberty of citizens (and non-citizen residents). I'm not being searched. My property is not being seized. Nor do I see where anyone else is having their rights unlawfully violated via PRISM.

With every new technology, the list of things the government is not allowed to do grows. So does the list of thing the government is allowed to do. That's the price of technology.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[turtlespeed 226]

quade

******"The Media" reports on what the public responds to.
"The Public" has an incredibly short attention span now.

The media reports what fits their political view
The public sucks it up

Nonsense. "The Media" isn't concerned with a political agenda. They are concerned with making money.

Some individual members on both sides have an axe to grind, but the vast majority are simply out to make coin.

They are after both.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ryoder 1,590]

Kennedy

Apparently it's fifty or more companies.

Of course Google CEO and CLO are denying it.

ETA: Apple and Facebook have also come out and denied it.

As they deny it, lets keep in mind things like Sprint. You know, the company that was required to hire Admiral Mullen (ret) as their new Security Director in order to get federal approval.

I am subscribed to the NANOG mailing list, (North American Network Operators' Group). A couple theories being proposed there:

1. Denials of giving gov't direct access does not mean they are not giving the access to a gov't contractor who is collecting it.

2. Given the gov't propensity to demand access while prohibiting the recipient from telling anyone, what is to stop them from going to the technical people of a company, demanding passive taps be installed in the network, and prohibiting them from even telling their mgt what they are doing? Then the corp mgt can deny it, and think they are telling the truth.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

jcd11235

So it's okay to take the DNI at his word when he acknowledges the program, but not when he discusses the limits of the program? That's awfully convenient for you, don't you think?

Let's say a mom opens a kid's computer, checks the web history and finds the address, "sexyasianporn.com." She tells dad about it. Dad then asks the kid about it and the kid says, "Oh, yeah, sexyasianporn.com was just something I was looking at for a school project."

By his own admission, the kid has VERIFIED he has looked at sexyasianporn.com.

Why, how long, how much, how much it might cost the family . . . that's all still to be determined.

BTW, I'm not really surprised the kid looked at sexyasianporn.com. It's what kids do when you give them the tools to do it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver