Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (9 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

So Feinstein is OK with the NSA and CIA searching everyone else's e-mail, phones, and internet history, but not hers. Then it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Is she still a great patriot, or just another run of the mill political hypocrite?

I think you just convoluted the CIA into the NSA. She might argue you those specifics with you.

But I agree and she can suck a bag of dicks when it comes to usurping our citizens privacy.

I did mix the two together, yes. However, my reading of the Fourth Amendment doesn't say the CIA can't or NSA can't; it says the government can't. There's really no way to interpret the text in such a way that makes it legal for the NSA to search everyone but illegal for the CIA to do the same, so I'm OK with mixing and matching there.

All citizens are equal, but Congressmen are more equal than others.

 

[The Commish]

How does anyone take our politicians seriously anymore??

 

[Slapdash]

Foreign Officials In the Dark About Their Own Spy Agencies’ Cooperation with NSAOne of the more bizarre aspects of the last nine months of Snowden revelations is how top political officials in other nations have repeatedly demonstrated, or even explicitly claimed, wholesale ignorance about their nations’ cooperation with the National Security Agency, as well as their own spying activities. This has led to widespread speculation about the authenticity of these reactions: Were these top officials truly unaware, or were they pretending to be, in order to distance themselves from surveillance operations that became highly controversial once disclosed?

In Germany, when Der Spiegel first reported last June that the NSA was engaged in mass spying aimed at the German population, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other senior officials publicly expressed outrage – only for that paper to then reveal documents showing extensive cooperation between the NSA and the German spy agency BND. In the Netherlands, a cabinet minister was forced to survive a no-confidence vote after he admitted to having wrongfully attributed the collection of metadata from 1.8 million calls to the NSA rather than the Dutch spying agency.

In the UK, Chris Huhne, a former cabinet minister and member of the national security council until 2012, insisted that ministers were in “utter ignorance” about even the largest GCHQ spying program, known as Tempora, “or its US counterpart, the NSA’s Prism,” as well as “about their extraordinary capability to hoover up and store personal emails, voice contact, social networking activity and even internet searches.”

A similar controversy arose in the U.S., when the White House claimed that President Obama was kept unaware of the NSA’s surveillance of Merkel’s personal cell phone and those of other allied leaders. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein claimed the same ignorance, while an unnamed NSA source told a German newspaper that the White House knew.

A new NSA document published today by The Intercept sheds considerable light on these questions. The classified document contains an internal NSA interview with an official from the SIGINT Operations Group in NSA’s Foreign Affairs Directorate. Titled “What Are We After with Our Third Party Relationships? — And What Do They Want from Us, Generally Speaking?”, the discussion explores the NSA’s cooperative relationship with its surveillance partners. Upon being asked whether political shifts within those nations affect the NSA’s relationships, the SIGINT official explains why such changes generally have no effect: because only a handful of military officials in those countries are aware of the spying activities. Few, if any, elected leaders have any knowledge of the surveillance.

Are our foreign intelligence relationships usually insulated from short-term political ups and downs, or not?

(S//SI//REL) For a variety of reasons, our intelligence relationships are rarely disrupted by foreign political perturbations, international or domestic. First, we are helping our partners address critical intelligence shortfalls, just as they are assisting us. Second, in many of our foreign partners’ capitals, few senior officials outside of their defense-intelligence apparatuses are witting to any SIGINT connection to the U.S./NSA [emphasis added].

The official adds that there “are exceptions, both on the positive and negative sides.” He gives two examples: “For instance, since the election of a pro-American president, one European partner has been much more open to providing information on their own capabilities and techniques, in hope of raising our intelligence collaboration to a higher level. Conversely, another of our partnerships has stalled, due largely to that country’s regional objectives not being in synch with those of the U.S.” In general, however, many of these “relationships have, indeed, spanned several decades” and are unaffected by changes due to elections, in large part because the mere existence of these activities is kept from the political class.

The implications for democratic accountability are clear. In an October Guardian op-ed, Huhne, the British former cabinet minister, noted that “when it comes to the secret world of GCHQ and the [NSA], the depth of my ‘privileged information’ has been dwarfed by the information provided by Edward Snowden to the Guardian.” Detailing what appears to be the systematic attempt to keep political officials in the dark, he wrote: ”The Snowden revelations put a giant question mark into the middle of our surveillance state. It is time our elected representatives insisted on some answers before destroying the values we should protect.”

The dangers posed by a rogue national security state, operating in secret and without the knowledge of democratically elected officials, have long been understood. After serving two terms as president, Dwight D. Eisenhower famously worried in his 1961 Farewell Address about the accumulated power of the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry,” warning of what he called the “grave implications” of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” He urged citizens: “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

A secret GCHQ memo, reported by the Guardian in October, demonstrates that the agency’s primary motive for concealing its surveillance activities is that disclosure could trigger what it called ”damaging public debate,” as well as legal challenges throughout Europe. Those fears became realized when, in the wake of Snowden revelations, privacy lawsuits against the agency were filed in Europe, GCHQ officials were forced to publicly testify for the first time before Parliament, and an EU Parliamentary inquiry earlier this year concluded NSA/GCHQ activities were likely illegal. The British agency was also concerned about “damage to partner relationships if sensitive information were accidentally released in open court,” given that such disclosures could make citizens in other countries aware, for the first time, of their government’s involvement in mass surveillance.

The revelations of a global system of blanket surveillance have come as a great surprise to hundreds of millions of citizens around the world whose governments were operating these systems without their knowledge. But they also came as a surprise to many high-ranking political officials in countries around the world who were previously ignorant of those programs, a fact which the NSA seems to view as quite valuable in ensuring that its surveillance activities remain immune from election outcomes and democratic debate.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/03/13/nsa-elected-officials-foreign-countries-unaware-countries-cooperation-us/

This really hits at one of the points I believe DougB was making earlier in the thread.

 

[The Commish]

Our intelligence agencies are more powerful than the gov't itself. That should be a major concern to everyone.

 

[Slapdash]

Our intelligence agencies are more powerful than the gov't itself. That should be a major concern to everyone.

Don't worry buddy, the internet will keep us safe from them.

 

[Ilov80s]

"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

 

[Sand]

According to a new study even the metadata that the NSA is collecting serves to give anyone analyzing it a deep look into individual, private associations and conditions.

So much for the argument that "it's just metadata".

 

[The Commish]

According to a new study even the metadata that the NSA is collecting serves to give anyone analyzing it a deep look into individual, private associations and conditions.

So much for the argument that "it's just metadata".

What a waste of time and effort on a "study".

 

[Slapdash]

According to a new study even the metadata that the NSA is collecting serves to give anyone analyzing it a deep look into individual, private associations and conditions.

So much for the argument that "it's just metadata".

That arguement has always been obviously silly except those ignorant about technology.

 

[tom22406]

A Close Look at the NSA’s Most Powerful Internet Attack Tool

We already knew that the NSA has weaponized the internet, enabling it to “shoot” exploits at anyone it desires. A single web fetch, imitated by an identified target, is sufficient for the NSA to exploit its victim.
But the Edward Snowden slides and story published yesterday at The Intercept convey a wealth of new detailed information about the NSA’s technology and its limitations.

First, it’s clear that the NSA has settled on a system called QUANTUM as its preferred, if not near-universal, internet exploitation mechanism. QUANTUM is vastly more effective than just sending spam. But since its launch at NSA, the program has clearly suffered from both mission creep and target creep.

If NSA only used QUANTUM to attack wannabee terrorists attempting to read Inspire, hardly anyone would object. But instead the agency expanded it greatly, not only in target scope (including its confirmed use against Belgacom) but also in functionality.


Today QUANTUM packs a suite of attack tools, including both DNS injection (upgrading the man-on-the-side to a man-in-the-middle, allowing bogus certificates and similar routines to break SSL) and HTTP injection. That reasonable enough. But it also includes gadgets like a plug-in to inject into MySQL connections, allowing the NSA to quietly mess with the contents of a third-party’s database. (This also surprisingly suggests that unencrypted MySQL on the internet is common enough to attract NSA attention.)

And it allows the NSA to hijack both IRC and HTTP-based criminal botnets, and also includes routines which use packet-injection to create phantom servers, and even attempting (poorly) to use this for defense.

The reaching can be extensive. The most glaring example is a QUANTUMDEFENSE idea that has the NSA wiretaps look for DNS requests for NIPRnet addresses, and packet-inject a bogus DNS reply redirecting the attacker to a NSA controlled site.

NIPRNET is the Defense Department’s portion of the internet – it’s unclassified, and reachable by the public. So QUANTUMDEFENSE is a classic case of “if all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.” The DoD controls the DNS authority record that the attacker is looking up, and could directly send the attacker off on a wild goose chase.

Moreover, for all its utility, QUANTUM has three limitations that come through in the slides: classification bureaucracy, a limited implementation, and weaknesses on defense.

A previous mystery was how 100 “tips” (the wiretap detecting something of interesting and telling another computer about it) would result in only 5 successful “shots” (an exploitive packet received by the victim) in one test, and why previous QUANTUM slides showed an obviously broken design where the “shot” was executed by a remote computer, adding latency and reducing effectiveness. It turns out this is almost entirely due to classification.

The wiretap itself lies on the internet, in “system low” space. The logic behind the attack lives in the NSA’s classified, “system high” land.

It’s easy to send data (tips in this case) from system low to system high – from the unclassified internet to the classified NSA network. But by design, going the other way is almost impossible. A special one-way “diode” gateway controls the communication to keep information from backwashing out of the classified network.

This is the underlying reason for the split design and subsequent poor performance. NSA required the attack logic be in “system high” and the rest just flowed from that design decision. The “system high” systems needs high protection, may need to be located in a different secure location, and can’t just send out requests to the internet.

Rather than go through the bureaucratic fight to move the attack logic into “system low” (and co-located on the wiretap), the NSA sought to work around it in the case of QUANTUMHAND. Instead of targeting just any web connection for exploitation, it targeted persistent “push” connections from Facebook, where a user’s browser would leave an idle connection open, waiting for a command from the server.

This way, even the slow, broken, classified architecture could exploit Facebook users. Sadly for NSA and GCHQ (and FSB, and DGSE, and every other spy agency), Facebook turned on encryption a few months ago, which should thwart this attack.

The second limitation is revealed in the description of an experiment. The NSA/GCHQ was looking to add “pwn by keyword”: check if a user’s email through Hotmail or Yahoo mail contained any keyword and, if so, exploit them automatically.

The agencies conducted and experiment to see if this attack would work. This experiment reveals that the QUANTUMTHEORY wiretaps only look at individual packets, not complete TCP streams, making it a surprisingly limited tool.

QUANTUM, at heart, really is airpwn without the goatse.

The final limitation involves QUANTUMSMACKDOWN, the NSA’s plan to use packet injection to block attacks against DoD assets that they were testing. This seems like wishful thinking to me.

In order for this to work, the wiretap needs to identify ‘evil traffic’ headed to a Pentagon network– a hard problem further compounded by the wiretap’s packet-only nature. Even when ‘evil’ is identified, QUANTUM can only block requests and terminate replies early: By the time QUANTUM decides to terminate a connection (a problem made worse by the classification structure), the damage is likely already done.

QUANTUMSMACKDOWN can keep some bottom-feeders off the DoD networks — but only that, the bottom feeders. Any DoD network infected by such low-level adversaries deserves to be infected, and the contractors responsible fired. Professional adversaries will breeze past the QUANTUMSMACKDOWN like it doesn’t exist.

Finally, there is the big guide of possible selectors an analyst can use for targeting. There has been much back and forth about private companies also doing NSA-like data collection. Yet this single slide shows just how serious this symbiosis has become, with both private companies and the NSA using and exploiting the same information. Most of the data is involved in some form of user tracking.

Both the content networks like Google and Facebook as well as numerous ad networks have built a global network of user monitoring, so it’s natural that the NSA not only piggybacks off this monitoring but uses it to guide attacks. Behind the scenes, the NSA also performs user-linking, which allows them to fully deanonymize the supposedly “anonymous” advertisement cookies.

Everything we’ve seen about QUANTUM and other internet activity can be replicated with a surprisingly moderate budget, using existing tools with just a little modification.

The biggest limitation on QUANTUM is location: The attacker must be able to see a request which identifies the target. Since the same techniques can work on a Wi-Fi network, a $50 Raspberry Pi, located in a Foggy Bottom Starbucks, can provide any country, big and small, with a little window of QUANTUM exploitation. A foreign government can perform the QUANTUM attack NSA-style wherever your traffic passes through their country.

And that’s the bottom line with the NSA’s QUANTUM program. The NSA does not have a monopoly on the technology, and their widespread use acts as implicit permission to others, both nation-state and criminal.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/03/quantum/

 

[Slapdash]

Shocking everyone, we find out that these programs are actually targeted.

They told the hearing hosted by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) that the NSA did not aim to scoop up all web transmissions, but that the surveillance was narrowly tailored to track or uncover terror suspects and other threats.

"We figure out what we want and we get that specifically, that's why it's targeted collection rather than bulk collection," Robert Litt, general counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told the hearing.

http://www.securityweek.com/us-intel-program-targets-email-addresses-not-keywords

 

[tom22406]

NSA performed warrantless searches on Americans' calls and emails – Clapper


US intelligence chiefs have confirmed that the National Security Agency has used a "back door" in surveillance law to perform warrantless searches on Americans’ communications.

The NSA's collection programs are ostensibly targeted at foreigners, but in August the Guardian revealed a secret rule change allowing NSA analysts to search for Americans' details within the databases.

Now, in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has confirmed the use of this legal authority to search for data related to “US persons”.

“There have been queries, using US person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence targeting non-US persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” Clapper wrote in the letter, which has been obtained by the Guardian.

“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

The legal authority to perform the searches, revealed in top-secret NSA documents provided to the Guardian by Edward Snowden, was denounced by Wyden as a “backdoor search loophole.”

Many of the NSA's most controversial programs collect information under the law affected by the so-called loophole. These include Prism, which allows the agency to collect data from Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo and other tech companies, and the agency's Upstream program – a huge network of internet cable taps.

Clapper did not say how many warrantless searches had been performed by the NSA. It was not the first time the searches had been confirmed: after the Snowden leaks, the office of the director of national intelligence declassified documents that discussed the rule change. But Clapper's letter drew greater attention to the issue.

Confirmation that the NSA has searched for Americans’ communications in its phone call and email databases complicates President Barack Obama’s initial defenses of the broad surveillance in June.

“When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about,” Obama said. “As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content.”

Obama was referring specifically to the bulk collection of US phone records, but his answer misleadingly suggested that the NSA could not examine Americans’ phone calls and emails.

At a recent hearing of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, administration lawyers defended their latitude to perform such searches. The board is scheduled to deliver a report on the legal authority under which the communications are collected, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), passed in 2008.

Wyden and Colorado Democrat Mark Udall failed in 2012 to persuade their fellow Senate intelligence committee members to prevent such warrantless searches during the re-authorisation of the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act, which wrote Section 702 into law.

Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the committee, defended the practice, and argued that it did not violate the act’s “reverse targeting” prohibition on using NSA’s vast powers to collect content on Americans.

“With respect to analysing the information lawfully collected under Section 702, however, the intelligence community provided several examples in which it might have a legitimate foreign intelligence need to conduct queries in order to analyze data already in its possession,” Feinstein said in June 2012.

“The Department of Justice and the intelligence community reaffirmed that any queries made of Section 702 data will be conducted in strict compliance with applicable guidelines and procedures, and do not provide a means to circumvent the general requirement to obtain a court order before targeting a US person under Fisa.”

Clapper referred to that debate in his letter to Wyden, which came in response to the senator’s request in January for a public answer on whether the NSA had in fact conducted such searches.

“As you know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately not adopted,” Clapper wrote.

Much of the NSA's bulk data collection is covered by section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act. This allows for the collection of communications – content and metadata alike – without individual warrants, so long as there is a reasonable belief the communications are both foreign and overseas.

The communications of Americans in direct contact with foreign targets can also be collected without a warrant, and the intelligence agencies acknowledge that purely domestic communications can also be inadvertently swept into its databases. That process is known as "incidental collection".

Initially, NSA rules on such data prevented the databases being searched for any details relating to "US persons" – that is, citizens or residents of the US. However, in October 2011 the Fisa court approved new procedures which allowed the agency to search for US person data, a revelation contained in documents revealed by Snowden.

The ruling appears to give the agency free access to search for information relating to US people within its vast databases, though not to specifically collect information against US citizens in the first place. However, until the DNI's disclosure to Wyden, it was not clear whether the NSA had ever actually used these powers.

On Tuesday, Wyden and Udall said the NSA’s warrantless searches of Americans’ emails and phone calls “should be concerning to all.”

“This is unacceptable. It raises serious constitutional questions, and poses a real threat to the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. If a government agency thinks that a particular American is engaged in terrorism or espionage, the fourth amendment requires that the government secure a warrant or emergency authorisation before monitoring his or her communications. This fact should be beyond dispute,” the two senators said in a joint statement.

They continued: “Today’s admission by the Director of National Intelligence is further proof that meaningful surveillance reform must include closing the back-door searches loophole and requiring the intelligence community to show probable cause before deliberately searching through data collected under section 702 to find the communications of individual Americans."

• This article was amended on 1 April to correct the month in 2012 when the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act was reauthorsied. It was further amended on 2 April to make it clear that in August 2013, the US government declassified documents that first confirmed the searches of US persons' data under Section 702 of Fisa.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

 

[Ilov80s]

Nothing we didnt already assume to be true. Obama said he is going to get this under control...I won't hold my breathe.

 

[Slapdash]

No telling how deep this rabbit hole really goes, but it is already clear that the concepts of privacy and freedom from the government have become illusions. Sadly, the media is more interested in protecting the establishment than informing the people. Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

 

[timschochet]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

 

[Slapdash]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

Pretty telling that you think so

 

[timschochet]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

Pretty telling that you think so

Well, I don't think I'm a useful idiot- just assuming that YOU think I am.

 

[Ilov80s]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

Pretty telling that you think so

Well, I don't think I'm a useful idiot- just assuming that YOU think I am.

Agreed,you really aren't all that useful.

 

[Slapdash]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

Pretty telling that you think so

Well, I don't think I'm a useful idiot- just assuming that YOU think I am.

And once again, Tim derails a discussion by making it about him. GFY

 

[timschochet]

Then you have the useful idiots who are more concerned about the terrorism boogeyman than the clear threats at home.

you're referring to me, aren't you?

Pretty telling that you think so

Well, I don't think I'm a useful idiot- just assuming that YOU think I am.

And once again, Tim derails a discussion by making it about him. GFY

Really? I think you take my response here a little too seriously. Carry on.

 

[tom22406]

No real surprise here

Supreme Court passes on NSA surveillance case

Supreme Court declines an early look at a challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of American's phone records -- but that doesn't mean it won't hear the case down the road.

by Don Reisinger
Last year, a federal district court judge ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of phone record metadata on all US citizens likely violates a constitutional ban on unreasonable searches. The case's plaintiffs, led by attorney and activist Larry Klayman, requested that the Supreme Court hear the case immediately and make a final ruling.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case early, essentially tossing it back to lower courts.


The case, Klayman vs. Obama, followed revelations from documents leaked last year by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that revealed the intelligence agency's bulk collection of phone metadata, a program it legally justified under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

In a 60-page ruling on the matter in December, US District Court Judge Richard Leon said the "bulk collection and querying of phone record metadata" could have violated the Fourth Amendment and "certainly does violate a reasonable expectation of privacy." Despite the issues taken with the collection, Judge Leon said that the US government should be allowed to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals.

President Obama has since proposed legislation to reform the program, which would see phone companies hold onto the records of their customers and force government agencies to obtain a court order to access records.

The Supreme Court's move on Monday requires that Klayman and his fellow plaintiffs work their way through the appeals process before making a move for the Supreme Court. At that time, the Supreme Court will again decide whether it'll hear the case or not.

CNET has contacted Klayman for comment on the Supreme Court's decision. We will update this story when we have more information.

http://www.cnet.com/news/us-supreme-court-wont-look-at-nsa-bulk-phone-collection-practices/

 

[timschochet]

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

 

[tom22406]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

 

[RCon]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

Everyone else is wrong and timschochet is right.

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

You have zero legal basis for this, yet you continue to believe it...

 

[timschochet]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

Everyone else is wrong and timschochet is right.

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

You have zero legal basis for this, yet you continue to believe it...

I've posted legal arguments here in the past.

 

[timschochet]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

 

[RCon]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

Everyone else is wrong and timschochet is right.

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

You have zero legal basis for this, yet you continue to believe it...

I've posted legal arguments here in the past.

No, you've posted opinion pieces that all say the same thing. Namely, "terrorism!!!"

If you want to debate legal arguments..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1. Even you have to admit that the NSA's current practice is absolutely, unequivocally illegal. Even if you believe in the magical "collective warrant", the NSA doesn't currently have one.

2. The text of the fourth amendment states that the NSA cannot obtain a warrant without probable cause. Unless you want to argue that the NSA has probably cause against every US citizen by virtue of them being US citizens, this is a non-starter.

 

[timschochet]

Tied up right now but I will reply to you later Rich.

 

[tom22406]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

 

[Slapdash]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we don't believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

Wait a minute, you're suggesting Tim is arguing against a strawman? That only happens in every thread ever.

 

[The Commish]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

Everyone else is wrong and timschochet is right.

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

You have zero legal basis for this, yet you continue to believe it...

I've posted legal arguments here in the past.

I've seen opinions of legal types, but I have seen no actual legal rulings that you've posted. They're two different things.

 

[tom22406]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we don't believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

Wait a minute, you're suggesting Tim is arguing against a strawman? That only happens in every thread ever.

Yeah I guess I am and I don't really read too much of his work here so I'm not as familiar with his postings as you are.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we don't believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

Wait a minute, you're suggesting Tim is arguing against a strawman? That only happens in every thread ever.

Yeah I guess I am and I don't really read too much of his work here so I'm not as familiar with his postings as you are.

Lucky you.

 

[timschochet]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

First off, it IS discussed here somewhat. When people reference 1984, (Hi,Slapdash!) they are clearly making an analogy to a dictatorship.

But in point of fact, I was not, in this instance, creating a straw man or arguing against people here. I want this issue in the open, discussed by the Supreme Court because I am fearful of the paranoia crowd. That crowd exists. It does not exist in this forum so much, because most people here are far more reasonable than that. But it does exist outside of this forum. I brought it up, not to argue against it, but to explain why I want the Supreme Court to discuss this issue.

 

[timschochet]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

Everyone else is wrong and timschochet is right.

I'm not surprised by this because Larry Klayman is involved. He sued Bill Clinton dozens of times, and never won a single case. He's sued Obama, **** Cheney, Elena Kagen, Mark Zuckerberg among others. The scam is to publicize the lawsuit and then try to get contributions from people who dislike whoever he's suing. Anytime you hear this guy's name, figure it's a sham lawsuit.

That being said, I'm disappointed. I continue to believe that the bulk collection of phone calls and or emails with collective warrants is permissible under the United States Constitution. I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this once and for all. Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

You have zero legal basis for this, yet you continue to believe it...

I've posted legal arguments here in the past.

No, you've posted opinion pieces that all say the same thing. Namely, "terrorism!!!"

If you want to debate legal arguments..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1. Even you have to admit that the NSA's current practice is absolutely, unequivocally illegal. Even if you believe in the magical "collective warrant", the NSA doesn't currently have one.

2. The text of the fourth amendment states that the NSA cannot obtain a warrant without probable cause. Unless you want to argue that the NSA has probably cause against every US citizen by virtue of them being US citizens, this is a non-starter.

1. If the NSA is collecting data without FISA warrants or some other kind of collective warrant, then what they are doing can have no justification IMO- IF that is actually what is happening. I agree with you.

2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

 

[Slapdash]

Their refusal to do so gives ammunition to the conspiracy theorists.

Not sure I follow you here.Exactly what is the conspiracy theory being discussed here?

I didn't say here, though sometimes its alluded to. Klayman is connected to the black helicopter types. They always believe the government is about to impose a dictatorship.

I don't seem to recall any dictatorship being discussed here and if not why bring it into the discussion since you have seen it elsewhere?Are you assuming that just because we believe what the NSA is doing is illegal and is wrong that somehow we all fall into your black helicopter crowd?

First off, it IS discussed here somewhat. When people reference 1984, (Hi,Slapdash!) they are clearly making an analogy to a dictatorship.

But in point of fact, I was not, in this instance, creating a straw man or arguing against people here. I want this issue in the open, discussed by the Supreme Court because I am fearful of the paranoia crowd. That crowd exists. It does not exist in this forum so much, because most people here are far more reasonable than that. But it does exist outside of this forum. I brought it up, not to argue against it, but to explain why I want the Supreme Court to discuss this issue.

Or, you know, we could be clearly alluding to how the citizenry is under constant surveillance from their electronics similar to that novel.

Which has been pointed out to you again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

 

[timschochet]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

 

[The Commish]

1. If the NSA is collecting data without FISA warrants or some other kind of collective warrant, then what they are doing can have no justification IMO- IF that is actually what is happening. I agree with you.


2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

When did this ruling come down? I ask because if it was after all the Snowden information came out, it comes across as a judge passing the buck while his head is planted firmly up his own rear end.

 

[Slapdash]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

The only thing more predictable than your use of straw-men is your affinity for false dichotomies.

 

[RCon]

2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

No offense, but this opinion is pathetic. I've unbolded your comments and bolded some portions for myself.

1. We're talking about a lot more than bulk metadata, and you know it.

2. That people voluntarily surrender personal information to non-government entities is irrelevant. The fact that I invite friends into my home does not give the government the right to enter my home without legal justification, nor does the fact that I invite friends into my home constitute legal justification for the government to enter.

3. We now know that there is evidence that the government has used this data for many purposes other than fighting terror.

4. "Those violations were self-reported and stopped" is a load of horse#### and you know it.

 

[timschochet]

1. If the NSA is collecting data without FISA warrants or some other kind of collective warrant, then what they are doing can have no justification IMO- IF that is actually what is happening. I agree with you.


2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

When did this ruling come down? I ask because if it was after all the Snowden information came out, it comes across as a judge passing the buck while his head is planted firmly up his own rear end.

December 26, 2013.

And somehow, I knew that might be your opinion, shared by many people here.

 

[The Commish]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or you're pointing out that at least one of the ingredients in the novel 1984 exists in the real world. You don't have to go full on dictatorship knowing what we know today. What we know is bad enough in and of itself.

 

[RCon]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or, you know, he's making a pop-culture reference to how our government is monitoring everything we do, the same as the government did in the book.

 

[The Commish]

1. If the NSA is collecting data without FISA warrants or some other kind of collective warrant, then what they are doing can have no justification IMO- IF that is actually what is happening. I agree with you.


2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

When did this ruling come down? I ask because if it was after all the Snowden information came out, it comes across as a judge passing the buck while his head is planted firmly up his own rear end.

December 26, 2013.

And somehow, I knew that might be your opinion, shared by many people here.

There are a lot of smart people around here

 

[timschochet]

2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

No offense, but this opinion is pathetic. I've unbolded your comments and bolded some portions for myself.

1. We're talking about a lot more than bulk metadata, and you know it.

2. That people voluntarily surrender personal information to non-government entities is irrelevant. The fact that I invite friends into my home does not give the government the right to enter my home without legal justification, nor does the fact that I invite friends into my home constitute legal justification for the government to enter.

3. We now know that there is evidence that the government has used this data for many purposes other than fighting terror.

4. "Those violations were self-reported and stopped" is a load of horse#### and you know it.

1. Maybe. But bulk metadata is what I'm interested in for the purposes of this specific argument.

2. I don't buy into your analogy. We're simply going to disagree on whether or not the government has the right to obtain this sort of information with a collective warrant. I believe it does.

3. The "evidence" so far is fragmentary. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but the judge is also correct that in practical terms it really doesn't exist. (Internet stories and people raising concerns are not evidence.) I have stated in this thread that there is enough fragmentary evidence out there of bad or problematic stuff going on that I would like it investigated, and in fact I would like the NSA to stop what it's doing until it is fully investigated. But none of that has any bearing on the question of whether or not it is constitutional to collect this data.

4. I don't know whether it is or it isn't. I honestly wish this judge hadn't concerned himself with either point #3 or #4. Neither is relevant to the issue of constitutionality. If anyone is caught breaking the law, prosecute them.

 

[timschochet]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or, you know, he's making a pop-culture reference to how our government is monitoring everything we do, the same as the government did in the book.

Even if I accepted this sham distinction, it's not the same as in the book anyhow. Whatever you think the NSA is doing, they are doing it secretly. Big Brother wanted everyone to know they were being monitored, which was the whole point. That's why when you make this comparison, you can't make it without the implication that there is little difference between our government and Big Brother.

 

[timschochet]

Some day I will be vindicated. People will look back and read this thread and say, "Damn, Tim bravely used reason and logic to fight off everybody who disagreed with him! Like Gary Cooper in High Noon, he stood alone. And he was right all along!"

 

[Slapdash]

2. We've been over this time and again. The best argument that I have read is Judge William Pauley's legal decision, which I have posted before. Here are the key parts:

The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute. Whether the Fourth Amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of reasonableness.

Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection. There is no evidence that the government has used any of bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks. While there have been unintentional violations of guidelines, those appear to stem from human error and the incredibly complex computer programs that support this vital tool. And once detected, those violations were self-reported and stopped. The bulk telephony metadata collection program is subject to executive and congressional oversight, as well as continual monitoring by a dedicated group of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

No offense, but this opinion is pathetic. I've unbolded your comments and bolded some portions for myself.

1. We're talking about a lot more than bulk metadata, and you know it.

2. That people voluntarily surrender personal information to non-government entities is irrelevant. The fact that I invite friends into my home does not give the government the right to enter my home without legal justification, nor does the fact that I invite friends into my home constitute legal justification for the government to enter.

3. We now know that there is evidence that the government has used this data for many purposes other than fighting terror.

4. "Those violations were self-reported and stopped" is a load of horse#### and you know it.

1. Maybe. But bulk metadata is what I'm interested in for the purposes of this specific argument.

2. I don't buy into your analogy. We're simply going to disagree on whether or not the government has the right to obtain this sort of information with a collective warrant. I believe it does.

3. The "evidence" so far is fragmentary. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but the judge is also correct that in practical terms it really doesn't exist. (Internet stories and people raising concerns are not evidence.) I have stated in this thread that there is enough fragmentary evidence out there of bad or problematic stuff going on that I would like it investigated, and in fact I would like the NSA to stop what it's doing until it is fully investigated. But none of that has any bearing on the question of whether or not it is constitutional to collect this data.

4. I don't know whether it is or it isn't. I honestly wish this judge hadn't concerned himself with either point #3 or #4. Neither is relevant to the issue of constitutionality. If anyone is caught breaking the law, prosecute them.

Maybe?

 

[RCon]

You can point it out to me a billion times if you want. To me, it's a distinction without a difference. Electronic surveillance in 1984 was the key ingredient of the totalitarian world that Winston Smith lived in. When you make an analogy between that and what the NSA is doing, you are either implying dictatorship (or future dictatorship) or else you are being foolish. I don't think you're a foolish person, Slapdash.

Or, you know, he's making a pop-culture reference to how our government is monitoring everything we do, the same as the government did in the book.

Even if I accepted this sham distinction, it's not the same as in the book anyhow. Whatever you think the NSA is doing, they are doing it secretly. Big Brother wanted everyone to know they were being monitored, which was the whole point. That's why when you make this comparison, you can't make it without the implication that there is little difference between our government and Big Brother.

Fair enough. In that case, I agree with you that what our government is doing is far worse than what Big Brother was doing.

 

[RCon]

Some day I will be vindicated. People will look back and read this thread and say, "Damn, Tim bravely used reason and logic to fight off everybody who disagreed with him! Like Gary Cooper in High Noon, he stood alone. And he was right all along!"

Link?