Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

Must make you feel smug for once to know that you're in the "in" group of "normal" people, doesn't it? All rational people should simply assume that the government is lying, and if you think otherwise, you're an irrational idiot? LOL. Oh, and you also stated that the government collecting bulk data is not simply misguided in your opinion, not only unconstitutional, it's a moral crime the equivalent of child rape. And people around here think my views are strange? Yeah you're normal all right.

 

[StrikeS2k]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

Must make you feel smug for once to know that you're in the "in" group of "normal" people, doesn't it? All rational people should simply assume that the government is lying, and if you think otherwise, you're an irrational idiot? LOL.Oh, and you also stated that the government collecting bulk data is not simply misguided in your opinion, not only unconstitutional, it's a moral crime the equivalent of child rape. And people around here think my views are strange? Yeah you're normal all right.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? The REASON reasonable, rational people should assume the government is lieing when it says it needs this data is because.......well.......they've been lieing about this data for the last x number of years and only acknowledging that now because they've been caught red handed. Are you really THIS stupid?

 

[Slapdash]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

Must make you feel smug for once to know that you're in the "in" group of "normal" people, doesn't it? All rational people should simply assume that the government is lying, and if you think otherwise, you're an irrational idiot? LOL.Oh, and you also stated that the government collecting bulk data is not simply misguided in your opinion, not only unconstitutional, it's a moral crime the equivalent of child rape. And people around here think my views are strange? Yeah you're normal all right.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? The REASON reasonable, rational people should assume the government is lieing when it says it needs this data is because.......well.......they've been lieing about this data for the last x number of years and only acknowledging that now because they've been caught red handed. Are you really THIS stupid?

Prepare for Tim to project imaginary arguments onto you.

 

[timschochet]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

Must make you feel smug for once to know that you're in the "in" group of "normal" people, doesn't it? All rational people should simply assume that the government is lying, and if you think otherwise, you're an irrational idiot? LOL.Oh, and you also stated that the government collecting bulk data is not simply misguided in your opinion, not only unconstitutional, it's a moral crime the equivalent of child rape. And people around here think my views are strange? Yeah you're normal all right.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? The REASON reasonable, rational people should assume the government is lieing when it says it needs this data is because.......well.......they've been lieing about this data for the last x number of years and only acknowledging that now because they've been caught red handed. Are you really THIS stupid?

You spelled lying wrong. To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

 

[StrikeS2k]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

Must make you feel smug for once to know that you're in the "in" group of "normal" people, doesn't it? All rational people should simply assume that the government is lying, and if you think otherwise, you're an irrational idiot? LOL.

Oh, and you also stated that the government collecting bulk data is not simply misguided in your opinion, not only unconstitutional, it's a moral crime the equivalent of child rape. And people around here think my views are strange? Yeah you're normal all right.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you? The REASON reasonable, rational people should assume the government is lieing when it says it needs this data is because.......well.......they've been lieing about this data for the last x number of years and only acknowledging that now because they've been caught red handed. Are you really THIS stupid?

You spelled lying wrong.

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

Nothing I've said is extreme. Take a poll. You'll lose, and it won't even be close. Do you define an extremist as someone who would win a poll on the topic? And I have never discounted the possibility that anyone is telling the truth. I've said I won't believe them until they prove it since, you know, the've been LYING about it for years. I think you're an idiot for believing them when they've already been caught lying about it. Why would you believe someone who's been lying to you about something without proof that now they're telling the truth?

 

[timschochet]

You know, despite my disagreements, I really respect most everyone here I've discussed this with. Rich, The Commish, Tom, even Slapdash who thinks so little of me, but that's all right. Youre all very smart guys and I'm fully convinced that you're honest about this issue and really concerned about our civil liberties being abridged. I hope I haven't come off as too annoying or insulting. If I have I apologize.

But I don't feel the same about Strikes2k. I know that in this instance he appears to be on your guys side- if it were me, that would make me highly uncomfortable. I've had enough discussions with him to know that he is honest, humorless, and unable to see any depth or nuance. He is this forums version of Valjean. His absolutist comparison of this issue to child rape (which he brought up, of course, to try to taunt me in a very unoriginal way) are really quite nauseating.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You know, despite my disagreements, I really respect most everyone here I've discussed this with. Rich, The Commish, Tom, even Slapdash who thinks so little of me, but that's all right. Youre all very smart guys and I'm fully convinced that you're honest about this issue and really concerned about our civil liberties being abridged. I hope I haven't come off as too annoying or insulting. If I have I apologize.

But I don't feel the same about Strikes2k. I know that in this instance he appears to be on your guys side- if it were me, that would make me highly uncomfortable. I've had enough discussions with him to know that he is honest, humorless, and unable to see any depth or nuance. He is this forums version of Valjean. His absolutist comparison of this issue to child rape (which he brought up, of course, to try to taunt me in a very unoriginal way) are really quite nauseating.

I said it was as wrong as child rape. I'm not saying it's exactly equivalent. They're two totally different types of wrongs, but they're both absolutely wrong. You're the one who can't see nuance. This IS as wrong as child rape. People are being wronged by the use of this data in ways that should be held to be unconstitutional. It's abhorrent and you're ok with it. So I'm sorry you don't like the comparison, but it's valid.

 

[timschochet]

You know, despite my disagreements, I really respect most everyone here I've discussed this with. Rich, The Commish, Tom, even Slapdash who thinks so little of me, but that's all right. Youre all very smart guys and I'm fully convinced that you're honest about this issue and really concerned about our civil liberties being abridged. I hope I haven't come off as too annoying or insulting. If I have I apologize.

But I don't feel the same about Strikes2k. I know that in this instance he appears to be on your guys side- if it were me, that would make me highly uncomfortable. I've had enough discussions with him to know that he is honest, humorless, and unable to see any depth or nuance. He is this forums version of Valjean. His absolutist comparison of this issue to child rape (which he brought up, of course, to try to taunt me in a very unoriginal way) are really quite nauseating.

I said it was as wrong as child rape. I'm not saying it's exactly equivalent. They're two totally different types of wrongs, but they're both absolutely wrong. You're the one who can't see nuance. This IS as wrong as child rape. People are being wronged by the use of this data in ways that should be held to be unconstitutional. It's abhorrent and you're ok with it. So I'm sorry you don't like the comparison, but it's valid.

All right. I just realized that I was pretty rude to you in writing what I did. I strongly disagree with you making this comparison. But I shouldn't have been rude. I know you won't care, but I apologize.

 

[drummer]

my I I've . who thinks so little of me, I'm . I I I I

I . I me, I've to try to taunt me in a very unoriginal way) are really quite nauseating.

Does a Mod know how to end this troll yet?

 

[The Commish]

And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?

Tim,

What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.

To be clear, TIm's assertion is that the government claims it has helped STOP terrorism. We have no evidence of that other than the government saying so. What we do have evidence of is that this database has helped start an investigation, but that investigation didn't prevent the event from occurring. The only real point of defense here is one that involves some variation of "the ends justify the means" but those ends are bleak at best especially considering means being as violating as they are.

 

[RCon]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

 

[The Commish]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

How soon we forget how bent out of shape this country got when we found out that cellular companies logged the activity on their towers. That's nothing compared to this. I find it completely bizarre, given our government's history and what we know, that people continue to give them the benefit of the doubt. Is that incredibly pessimistic on my part? Perhaps. But I feel like I have a mound of evidence to support my pessimism. There has to come a point where pessimism (or optimism for that matter) becomes reality and I think we're way beyond that point.

 

[timschochet]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

 

[StrikeS2k]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

Who do you propose do the "investigation?"

 

[timschochet]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

Who do you propose do the "investigation?"

I dunno. Independent prosecutor I suppose. I can see that you're implying that any inquiry will be a whitewash, and that I'm naive to think otherwise?

 

[Bogeys]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

But if the executive branch is lying to Congress how can there be an excuse if it is a legitimate oversight issue? Do you really trust the executive to make that decision? And if you do why even bother with the oversight?

 

[timschochet]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

But if the executive branch is lying to Congress how can there be an excuse if it is a legitimate oversight issue? Do you really trust the executive to make that decision? And if you do why even bother with the oversight?

I don't think anyone reading this thread really wants me to elaborate on the issues you raise, as it would really sidetrack the discussion for no good purpose. Let's just say that, historically, there have been instances in which lying to Congress was the correct action. I listed one earlier.

 

[Bogeys]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

But if the executive branch is lying to Congress how can there be an excuse if it is a legitimate oversight issue? Do you really trust the executive to make that decision? And if you do why even bother with the oversight?

I don't think anyone reading this thread really wants me to elaborate on the issues you raise, as it would really sidetrack the discussion for no good purpose. Let's just say that, historically, there have been instances in which lying to Congress was the correct action. I listed one earlier.

And I read what you listed and it was a case that we would pretty much all agree turned out well, but not sure they couldn't have disclosed to Congress in closed session. Again, if the executive gets to make the decision on what to lie to Congress about when it comes to oversight then what is the point of oversight at all? I am not trying to derail this conversation or bust your balls here, I really don't understand the position that it is okay for the executive branch to pick and choose what to be honest to Congress about when Congress is performing legitimate oversight.

 

[timschochet]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

But if the executive branch is lying to Congress how can there be an excuse if it is a legitimate oversight issue? Do you really trust the executive to make that decision? And if you do why even bother with the oversight?

I don't think anyone reading this thread really wants me to elaborate on the issues you raise, as it would really sidetrack the discussion for no good purpose. Let's just say that, historically, there have been instances in which lying to Congress was the correct action. I listed one earlier.

And I read what you listed and it was a case that we would pretty much all agree turned out well, but not sure they couldn't have disclosed to Congress in closed session. Again, if the executive gets to make the decision on what to lie to Congress about when it comes to oversight then what is the point of oversight at all? I am not trying to derail this conversation or bust your balls here, I really don't understand the position that it is okay for the executive branch to pick and choose what to be honest to Congress about when Congress is performing legitimate oversight.

I get your point.

 

[StrikeS2k]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

Who do you propose do the "investigation?"

I dunno. Independent prosecutor I suppose. I can see that you're implying that any inquiry will be a whitewash, and that I'm naive to think otherwise?

Of course it would. Haven't you read the reports about how much of the information/subpoenas regarding this is classified? IIRC the FISA court can't even go back and reread their decisions because once they're rendered the NSA classifies them as a national security risk to be read by anyone other than the NSA.

 

[The Commish]

To answer your question, I don't think it's unreasonable for you or anyone else to question the NSA at this point or even to assume they're lying. I think it's unreasonable for you to discount completely the possibility that they're telling the truth, and to denigrate anyone who accepts that possibility (like myself) as stupid. And I think it's wholly unreasonable to assert that the collection of bulk data, which is a complicated issue that, if it ever reaches the SC, is likely to result in a 5-4 decision either way, is the moral equivalent of child rape. That position makes YOU an extremist.

It is unreasonable to assume the NSA is telling the truth. It may not be unreasonable to believe there's a (however slim) possibility that the NSA is telling the truth, but it's insane to think that's the most likely scenario here.

"Moral equivalent" is a pretty silly concept. But if I'm ranking things on the scale of "how evil are they", governments spying on their own people is pretty damn evil. We all get outraged when we hear of this exact same stuff happening in the former USSR, Russia today, and other dictatorships. No, timschochet, I'm not calling our government a dictatorship, but it does share some very striking attitudes about individual privacy with most dictatorships. It should be telling that everyone we've heard from in government on this topic has lied repeatedly. NSA officials, Obama, Senators, etc. have all blatantly lied. You know what? It's not excusable, despite what you keep repeating.

Thete are two separate issues here: whether or not the government should be able to collect bulk data with a collective warrant, and whether or not the government has lied about it. On the second issue, what I wrote earlier is that it's at least conceivable that there could be an excuse for lying, but from what we currently know right now., there isn't. Clapper at the very least should be held in contempt of Congress., and this entire program should be put on hold until a full investigation has been completed.

Who do you propose do the "investigation?"

I dunno. Independent prosecutor I suppose. I can see that you're implying that any inquiry will be a whitewash, and that I'm naive to think otherwise?

Of course it would. Haven't you read the reports about how much of the information/subpoenas regarding this is classified? IIRC the FISA court can't even go back and reread their decisions because once they're rendered the NSA classifies them as a national security risk to be read by anyone other than the NSA.

This is correct. In this world, everyone is accountable to someone else and when you block that accountability (or remove it) the system is instantly broken. After it's broken, ideology flies out the window as a valid/reasonable position to take IMO.

 

[Bogeys]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

Before I answer the question, aren't you one of those like Slapdash complaining that I am ruining the thread which would be much better without my participation? If that's the case, why do you keep inviting me back in with new questions?

 

[The Commish]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

I am 100% confident as in bet my entire life savings times a million that if he didn't know what "metadata" was he sure as hell doesn't know what SSL is much less how it works. That's not a knock on him at all and not really a problem. The problem comes from when he starts in on said topic as if he DOES know what it is, how it works and what the issue is.

 

[Slapdash]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

I am 100% confident as in bet my entire life savings times a million that if he didn't know what "metadata" was he sure as hell doesn't know what SSL is much less how it works. That's not a knock on him at all and not really a problem. The problem comes from when he starts in on said topic as if he DOES know what it is, how it works and what the issue is.

You are correct I do not know what SSL is, and I will have to learn what it is and what Strike is referring to before I can answer his question. With regard to metadata, I thought I knew what Rich was referring to, but I didn't. Mea culpa.

 

[The Commish]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

The issue's in the CA though right? That'd be a major coop for the NSA to do all on their own. If in openSSL, anything's possible. You just have to be smarter than the reviewer in that case. Was this an SSL issue or a TLS issue? I'm not always confident that the media reports the correct information.

 

[timschochet]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

 

[Slapdash]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

GFY

 

[timschochet]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

GFY

You keep asking me to do this. It's a difficult task.

 

[RCon]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

Before I answer the question, aren't you one of those like Slapdash complaining that I am ruining the thread which would be much better without my participation? If that's the case, why do you keep inviting me back in with new questions?

This is a pretty good point.

 

[RCon]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the heartbleed thread

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html

The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.

The NSA’s decision to keep the bug secret in pursuit of national security interests threatens to renew the rancorous debate over the role of the government’s top computer experts.

Heartbleed appears to be one of the biggest glitches in the Internet’s history, a flaw in the basic security of as many as two-thirds of the world’s websites. Its discovery and the creation of a fix by researchers five days ago prompted consumers to change their passwords, the Canadian government to suspend electronic tax filing and computer companies including Cisco Systems Inc. to Juniper Networks Inc. to provide patches for their systems.

....

Of course they were aware. The more interesting question is if they created it.

That question isn't remotely tin-foil hat. We already know that the NSA intentionally introduced one backdoor into SSL. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to believe they created other issues. Personally, I'd say the NSA creating this one seems unlikely, but it's not crazy to suggest it's possible.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

I am 100% confident as in bet my entire life savings times a million that if he didn't know what "metadata" was he sure as hell doesn't know what SSL is much less how it works. That's not a knock on him at all and not really a problem. The problem comes from when he starts in on said topic as if he DOES know what it is, how it works and what the issue is.

Tim doesn't need to know what SSL is to answer this question. This is a major security flaw with one of the most common technologies in use on the 'Net to ensure private communications are happening between two computers. That's all he has to know technology wise.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

Before I answer the question, aren't you one of those like Slapdash complaining that I am ruining the thread which would be much better without my participation? If that's the case, why do you keep inviting me back in with new questions?

This is a pretty good point.

Not really. Would I rather Tim not post in this thread? Of course. He just muddles it up with idiotic tangents and stances like he does pretty much every other serious discussion thread. However, he's here and not going anywhere. If he promises he's not going to post anymore in it I'll gladly not direct any posts at him. But I don't have to ignore him just because I'd prefer he not post when he's going to continue posting anyways. So Tim, are you going to answer my question or just ignore it like you did the other night with other questions I posed?

 

[timschochet]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247644/NSA_denies_it_knew_about_Heartbleed_flaw

Question for Tim. Do you believe the NSA when they say they didn't know about the heartbleed vulnerability in SSL?

After reading both articles about this, I don't know what to believe. As you know, unlike you and most other contributors to this thread, I don't begin with the assumption that the NSA is always lying through their teeth. I'm not even sure I understand what this whole thing is about. All I can garner is that there was a huge glitch in a program lots of people including the NSA were using, the glitch allowed for access of private information, the NSA denied knowing about the glitch, and some unnamed people familiar with the situation say the NSA did know about it. Is that about right? If so, it's not enough for me to draw any conclusions, sorry.

 

[timschochet]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying. The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying.The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

Tim, QUIT talking in general. We're talking about the NSA's spying on citizens, keeping that information, and misusing it. They said for YEARS that they weren't doing this stuff. Due to Snowden and other sources they were outed. They've acknowledged that they've been LIEING. Are you disputing any of this?

And, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my spelling of the word lying/lieing, sorry. I've always believed lying was a valid spelling of that word and I'll TRY to use your preferred spelling but can't guarantee it. I'll tell you this though. I bet that you make spelling/grammatical errors a HELL of a lot more than I do. If you want to start a war on calling each other out on that, ok, but we already argue about enough stuff. So be careful how you proceed on that one. I'm pretty sure no one else wants that.

 

[timschochet]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying.The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

Tim, QUIT talking in general. We're talking about the NSA's spying on citizens, keeping that information, and misusing it. They said for YEARS that they weren't doing this stuff. Due to Snowden and other sources they were outed. They've acknowledged that they've been LIEING. Are you disputing any of this?

And, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my spelling of the word lying/lieing, sorry. I've always believed lying was a valid spelling of that word and I'll TRY to use your preferred spelling but can't guarantee it. I'll tell you this though. I bet that you make spelling/grammatical errors a HELL of a lot more than I do. If you want to start a war on calling each other out on that, ok, but we already argue about enough stuff. So be careful how you proceed on that one. I'm pretty sure no one else wants that.

I am not disputing the fact that the NSA lied to Congress about collecting bulk data. Whether or not that's "spying on citizens" is a matter of interpretation. How long they kept the information, and whether or not they "misused" it are also questions we don't know the answers to. I'm also not sure they said for "YEARS" that they weren't collecting the data- I don't know how long they denied it- but they certainly did deny it to Congress before Snowden revealed it. That seems to be without question at this point. As to whether or not they acknowledged that they were lying- I don't know. They appear to have changed their story after Snowden.

But that being said, my rule about government applies, at least for me. You can take that discrepancy and go ahead and assume that everything the NSA says from this point forward is a flat out lie. I'm not going to do that. My presumption remains that, like any other government agency, they tell the truth far more than they lie. And therefore we should presume they are being truthful until caught in a lie. That's my opinion; I'm not asking anyone to share it.

 

[Slapdash]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying.The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

Tim, QUIT talking in general. We're talking about the NSA's spying on citizens, keeping that information, and misusing it. They said for YEARS that they weren't doing this stuff. Due to Snowden and other sources they were outed. They've acknowledged that they've been LIEING. Are you disputing any of this?

And, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my spelling of the word lying/lieing, sorry. I've always believed lying was a valid spelling of that word and I'll TRY to use your preferred spelling but can't guarantee it. I'll tell you this though. I bet that you make spelling/grammatical errors a HELL of a lot more than I do. If you want to start a war on calling each other out on that, ok, but we already argue about enough stuff. So be careful how you proceed on that one. I'm pretty sure no one else wants that.

I am not disputing the fact that the NSA lied to Congress about collecting bulk data. Whether or not that's "spying on citizens" is a matter of interpretation. How long they kept the information, and whether or not they "misused" it are also questions we don't know the answers to. I'm also not sure they said for "YEARS" that they weren't collecting the data- I don't know how long they denied it- but they certainly did deny it to Congress before Snowden revealed it. That seems to be without question at this point. As to whether or not they acknowledged that they were lying- I don't know. They appear to have changed their story after Snowden.

But that being said, my rule about government applies, at least for me. You can take that discrepancy and go ahead and assume that everything the NSA says from this point forward is a flat out lie. I'm not going to do that. My presumption remains that, like any other government agency, they tell the truth far more than they lie. And therefore we should presume they are being truthful until caught in a lie. That's my opinion; I'm not asking anyone to share it.

We need a head in the sand emoticon for this. Oh my.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying.The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

Tim, QUIT talking in general. We're talking about the NSA's spying on citizens, keeping that information, and misusing it. They said for YEARS that they weren't doing this stuff. Due to Snowden and other sources they were outed. They've acknowledged that they've been LIEING. Are you disputing any of this?

And, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my spelling of the word lying/lieing, sorry. I've always believed lying was a valid spelling of that word and I'll TRY to use your preferred spelling but can't guarantee it. I'll tell you this though. I bet that you make spelling/grammatical errors a HELL of a lot more than I do. If you want to start a war on calling each other out on that, ok, but we already argue about enough stuff. So be careful how you proceed on that one. I'm pretty sure no one else wants that.

I am not disputing the fact that the NSA lied to Congress about collecting bulk data. Whether or not that's "spying on citizens" is a matter of interpretation. How long they kept the information, and whether or not they "misused" it are also questions we don't know the answers to. I'm also not sure they said for "YEARS" that they weren't collecting the data- I don't know how long they denied it- but they certainly did deny it to Congress before Snowden revealed it. That seems to be without question at this point. As to whether or not they acknowledged that they were lying- I don't know. They appear to have changed their story after Snowden.

But that being said, my rule about government applies, at least for me. You can take that discrepancy and go ahead and assume that everything the NSA says from this point forward is a flat out lie. I'm not going to do that. My presumption remains that, like any other government agency, they tell the truth far more than they lie. And therefore we should presume they are being truthful until caught in a lie. That's my opinion; I'm not asking anyone to share it.

We need a head in the sand emoticon for this. Oh my.

I am more confused about his suggestion that this is simply about collecting bulk data. it's been proven that the NSA has actually listened to phone calls and read e-mails of innocent American citizens. That is not "metadata" nor is it about the collection of bulk data. I'm pretty sure that by any measure that is spying. I don't know if Tim is being purposefully ignorant or what. I personally believe that his brain works in such a manner as to only remember data that supports his views. It's the only explanation for some of his posts.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Slapdash]

I will always answer your questions, Strike. I challenge your statement that there's a question youve asked in the past that I deliberately ignored. I may have inadvertently missed something- if so, please ask again and I'll answer. Just don't blame me if my responses lead to further discussion with me which you profess not to want. You're the one instigated the conversation not me.

Let me read the article one more time and I will answer you.

The question is a simply yes/no question. I'm fine if you want to add on AFTER answering the question but the question REQUIRES a simple yes/no answer.

As far as what I asked the other night, I simply asked why you would believe, without proof, an entity that had been proven to be lieing about the same issue for years?

Pet peeve of mine: please stop misspelling lying.The NSA is part of the federal government. The federal government has, since it's inception, lied to the public on lots of occasions. But the vast majority of the time they are truthful. I assume the truth will be told until I learn otherwise in most instances.

Tim, QUIT talking in general. We're talking about the NSA's spying on citizens, keeping that information, and misusing it. They said for YEARS that they weren't doing this stuff. Due to Snowden and other sources they were outed. They've acknowledged that they've been LIEING. Are you disputing any of this?

And, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my spelling of the word lying/lieing, sorry. I've always believed lying was a valid spelling of that word and I'll TRY to use your preferred spelling but can't guarantee it. I'll tell you this though. I bet that you make spelling/grammatical errors a HELL of a lot more than I do. If you want to start a war on calling each other out on that, ok, but we already argue about enough stuff. So be careful how you proceed on that one. I'm pretty sure no one else wants that.

I am not disputing the fact that the NSA lied to Congress about collecting bulk data. Whether or not that's "spying on citizens" is a matter of interpretation. How long they kept the information, and whether or not they "misused" it are also questions we don't know the answers to. I'm also not sure they said for "YEARS" that they weren't collecting the data- I don't know how long they denied it- but they certainly did deny it to Congress before Snowden revealed it. That seems to be without question at this point. As to whether or not they acknowledged that they were lying- I don't know. They appear to have changed their story after Snowden.

But that being said, my rule about government applies, at least for me. You can take that discrepancy and go ahead and assume that everything the NSA says from this point forward is a flat out lie. I'm not going to do that. My presumption remains that, like any other government agency, they tell the truth far more than they lie. And therefore we should presume they are being truthful until caught in a lie. That's my opinion; I'm not asking anyone to share it.

We need a head in the sand emoticon for this. Oh my.

I am more confused about his suggestion that this is simply about collecting bulk data. it's been proven that the NSA has actually listened to phone calls and read e-mails of innocent American citizens. That is not "metadata" nor is it about the collection of bulk data. I'm pretty sure that by any measure that is spying. I don't know if Tim is being purposefully ignorant or what. I personally believe that his brain works in such a manner as to only remember data that supports his views. It's the only explanation for some of his posts.

It's been proven time and time again that he either isn't really reading what's come out or is just pretending its all rumors. Either way, he isn't worth engaging on this or most other topics.

It's just his shtick; he tries to fit everything into a preconceived narrative that he repeats ad-infinitum. Does this in thread after thread. It doesn't matter what you say to him.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing things. They've done it, and they acknowledge having done it, even in the letter you reference. But what's new?

 

[timschochet]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing things. They've done it, and they acknowledge having done it, even in the letter you reference. But what's new?

Where? Show me the quote please. I couldn't find it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing things. They've done it, and they acknowledge having done it, even in the letter you reference. But what's new?

Where? Show me the quote please. I couldn't find it.

Show me the link to the letter/article where you looked for it first.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing things. They've done it, and they acknowledge having done it, even in the letter you reference. But what's new?

Where? Show me the quote please. I couldn't find it.

Show me the link to the letter/article where you looked for it first.

I can't on my iPhone. There was an article posted earlier which asserted that Clapper lied. In that article there was a link to a PDF flue which contains Clapper's letter to Wyden. That's what I read. I don't see any admission of spying or reading in that letter but you're welcome to look for yourself.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know that's been proven. It's been reported, but the NSA hasn't acknowledged it, to the best of my understanding. Per that letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. He never admitted to reading individual emails without a warrant nor spying on citizens. Unless I'm missing something.

Yes, you're missing things. They've done it, and they acknowledge having done it, even in the letter you reference. But what's new?

Where? Show me the quote please. I couldn't find it.

Show me the link to the letter/article where you looked for it first.

I can't on my iPhone. There was an article posted earlier which asserted that Clapper lied. In that article there was a link to a PDF flue which contains Clapper's letter to Wyden. That's what I read. I don't see any admission of spying or reading in that letter but you're welcome to look for yourself.

I've read the quote and I've read analysis from "very smart people" who believe it's an admission that the NSA has read American's e-mails and listened to their phone calls without a warrant. Quite honestly, I'm not sure how you can read the quote any other way. But, given your thought processes, I'm sure your brain found a way. So, if you've read the entire letter you've read the quote. There's no need for me to post it again. Or you haven't read it. If you post exactly what you read we can determine that. But, as usual, you don't want to do any work. You want to make others redo the same work over and over again for your benefit, and then 1 month later we'll be rinse and repeat.