b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1985958 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

US citizens are protected.
This is for us foreign types.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:26, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
This is all coming out during Bradley Mannings Trial.

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:27, Reply)
Er, no
The US has always spied on its citizens, that's what the "Department of Homeland Security" does. They have plenty of home-grown terrrists to use as an excuse, e.g. Timothy McVeigh.
Default proceedure seems to be to secretly hoover up everything in case it might be useful. GCHQ does the same over here.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:29, Reply)
Legally they need a warrant or some such paperwork to query the information on a US citizen.
Ditto in the UK.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:31, Reply)
Did you not read the story?
They don't need specific warrants because the execuitve order covers every sinlge call made using the Verizon network. It also prevents Verizon from even admitting that such an order exists.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:34, Reply)
From the original WP article, it happens, they don't care but it's still illegal.

Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade, Md., key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by The Post instruct new analysts to make quarterly reports of any accidental collection of U.S. content, but add that “it’s nothing to worry about.”


www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_2.html
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:39, Reply)
Windy Pig writes articles?

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:51, Reply)
Did you get confused between the words "executive" and "court"
m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:43, Reply)
I don't really care.

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:50, Reply)
...but that's what they want you to do.

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:53, Reply)
According to the article
the whole purpose of the secret court passing a secret law for secret access to everyone's data is to bypass all that legal stuff as it's too much hassle for them.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:36, Reply)
If a court passes a law then it's legal.
Not that courts do that anyway, but if a court interprets a law and then issues a warrant or court order, then that's legal, doesn't matter if it's secret or not. Or do you think child rape convictions aren't legal because the victims names are secret?
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:38, Reply)
The legality of it isn't the issue, the secrecy of it is.
In the context of politicians telling lies, quelle surprise, obviously.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:43, Reply)
OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE!

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:33, Reply)


(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:48, Reply)
I really fucking hate those 'internet' cartoons.
Just in case you were wondering.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:52, Reply)

art
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:53, Reply)
Duly noted

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:53, Reply)
Monty really fucking hates 'most things'.
Just in case you were wondering.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 10:59, Reply)
I really fucjing hate you, that's for sure.
You Birkenstock fucking granola wanker.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:05, Reply)
It really would be much, much quicker
to make a note of things that Monty doesn't "really fucking hate"

For reference, it's Jimi Hendrix pre-1971 and decent cognac.

And Bowie, obvs.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:02, Reply)
And lies about drugs.

(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:04, Reply)
I have to say, I find the post '71 Hendrix recordings to be underwhelming at best.
Even the stuff immediately post September 18th 1970 isn't much cop.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:07, Reply)
It's almost as if I was being facetious.
Almost.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:13, Reply)
Or a massive div.
One or t'other.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:15, Reply)
I'll grant you I didn't know his date of death
I did however know he was dead by 1971. That was kind of the point of the post.
(, Fri 7 Jun 2013, 11:20, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1