jcd11235

I'd prefer non-secret warrants and non-secret judges, but secret warrants and secret judges are FAR better than no warrants and no judges. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think one thing we have to get used to in the age of big data is that not everything we wish to be private is actually private. And if something isn't private, there is no violation of privacy when that something is observed by a third party, even if that third party is the government. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You mean limited monitoring of anonymous non-private metadata with judicial and legislative oversight? No, I don't see that as a violation of privacy or civil rights. So what? the material from pre-Miranda interviews won't be admissible in court, i.e., civil rights are preserved. Fair point. I would like to see Gitmo closed, but I recognize that it isn't as simple as shutting it down. People get killed during times of war. Would you prefer carpet bombing so no one can claim any particular person is specifically targeted? It's smart, and will (hopefully) ultimately eliminate opportunities for future presidents and congresspersons to enshrine bigotry in federal law. Etc., etc. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We still do. So neither the President nor Feinstein nor Holder are liberals? I don't follow Feinstein, as she represents neither me nor my state. I haven't seen any evidence (real evidence, not your typical twisted logic) suggesting President Obama opposes civil rights. Similarly, with Holder. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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

Our options are limited, due to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'll take objective, science based intel gathering over the useful art BS methodology that brought us the Iraq war. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Where I live, we also pay personal property taxes, but it goes towards school funding, not road maintenance. Much of road maintenance comes from sales taxes, though, IIRC. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Road use taxes should go as the cube of the axle weight in order to accurately pay for the damage caused to roads. Shouldn't depend on the power source. I'd be fine with that. It might reduce the subsidization I provide for motorists as I pedal from point A to point B, paying far more in road maintenance than justified by the wear and tear I cause to the roads I use. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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. The article in the guardian prompted a response from the White House, DCI and DNI, and Sen Feinstein and other "read-in" congresscritters. There's no doubt the software named and programs described exist in the intelligence community. The only question is how accurate the specifics were. Some were a little too Hollywood, and they're backing off a bit, but the substance remains substantially unchanged. When it comes to DNI talking points, well, he's allowed to lie to congress even in closed hearings if POTUS oks it, so his comments to the public should always be well-seasoned. Or maybe you believed that carnivore never existed, and they never eavesdropped on American phone calls. I've got a bridge to sell you. Great location, recently updated, heavy traffic. Just privatized. Yes, the PRISM program exists. The accuracy of the specifics, however, is important. I haven't seen anything that suggests a risk to privacy. I don't believe (more importantly, the courts don't seem to believe) that discriminant monitoring of anonymous communications metadata crosses that line. Personally, I don't think it even approaches that line. In my experience, attempts to curtail rights are far more likely to occur at the local and state levels of government than at the federal level. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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. Your analogy might make sense if the kid was known to be studying porn production in school. Yes, the NDI confirmed PRISM. Thus far there isn't any credible indication that the program goes beyond what the NDI claims. Is it possible that it is more pervasive than the NDI acknowledges? Sure. It's also possible that fire breathing dragons exist. The burden of proof lies with those claiming the NDI is lying or that fire-breathing dragons exist. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

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!

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!

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!

Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I appreciate the clicky that opened a new tab for me, but I'm still too lazy to go to google.com and type in the search terms myself. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You could before, simply by choice and avoidance … That would be a textbook example of an inability to exercise a right. That's like claiming that laws against murder violate the second amendment. Smokers have a right to smoke, but do not have a right to poison others with their toxic emissions. They still have a right to smoke. That right has not been infringed. So making others have to avoid is acceptable, depending on your point of view. Gotcha. It's ironic that you're advocating exactly the same thing that your criticizing me for. The difference is that I think it is the polluters who have an obligation to respect the right to breathe clean air, while you feel that it is the an obligation of people who breathe to respect that others have a right to carelessly pollute the air in public spaces. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Alternately, we could save our outrage for actual abuses of power. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't see anything unconstitutional about monitoring metadata, and the courts apparently do not, either. In other words, in order to make the practice illegal would require either a SCOTUS ruling overturning previous rulings or an amendment to the Constitution. Personally, I find it difficult to feel outraged that the government has the ability to analyze non-private metadata just like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, grocery stores, etc., do. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You could before, simply by choice and avoidance … That would be a textbook example of an inability to exercise a right. That's like claiming that laws against murder violate the second amendment. Smokers have a right to smoke, but do not have a right to poison others with their toxic emissions. They still have a right to smoke. That right has not been infringed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is so difficult to know if they are correctly attributed." - Winston Churchill Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can now exercise my right to breathe clean air in public places, which was all but impossible 10-15 years ago. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

there is no jury - he waived his right to one and will just have the judge rule. Which is probably the most sensible - juries make emotional decisions. Interesting. I didn't realize that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

He's already pleaded guilty to the leaks. He won't go free. Even if he's acquitted of the charges for which he's being tried, he's still facing up to 20 years. I just don't think releasing the information in the manner he did constitutes providing aid to the enemy. I don't think that was his intent. (Again, since I'm not on the jury judge, it's irrelevant what I think.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!