The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-10-2013, 02:51 AM   #76
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,567
Default

Let me guess all the liberals hate prism. They think its a huge overreach. But they refuse to hold obama accountable because the evil republicans are too blame for the Patriot Act.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 06:10 AM   #77
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,395

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Let me guess all the liberals hate prism. They think its a huge overreach. But they refuse to hold obama accountable because the evil republicans are too blame for the Patriot Act.
The alternative would be to admit that BO doesn't have a clue what's going on behind his back in his administration.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 06:29 AM   #78
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
The alternative would be to admit that BO doesn't have a clue what's going on behind his back in his administration.
No the alternative is just to say he's more of the same.

Again, cut has a nasty habit of attributing the words worse or worst to someone he also says is more of the same.

And define "hold accountable"? If there wasn't going to be an investigation into Iraq, if Nixon was pardoned, how on gods green earth do you expect to "hold Obama accountable?"
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 10:45 AM   #79
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No the alternative is just to say he's more of the same.

Again, cut has a nasty habit of attributing the words worse or worst to someone he also says is more of the same.

And define "hold accountable"? If there wasn't going to be an investigation into Iraq, if Nixon was pardoned, how on gods green earth do you expect to "hold Obama accountable?"
I don't give a crap about holding Obama accountable. He's not going anywhere. I just want it stopped. And the whole idea of surveilling the nation without any kind of public process or even notice needs to be aired out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 10:53 AM   #80
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I don't give a crap about holding Obama accountable. He's not going anywhere. I just want it stopped. And the whole idea of surveilling the nation without any kind of public process or even notice needs to be aired out.
And how do you think it is going to happen? Who is going to champion that cause, when there is not only a near certainty of failure, but there's not even any money to be made off it?

Never underestimate people's ability to sell out everyone else for more money or power. Look no further than Obama...at best, he has no power to control these things. At worst, he approves of and expands upon them with full knowledge of the implications. And that's if you believed he was any different in the first place.

In another thread, baja asked if the people would allow this to happen. They already have, and will continue to do so.

Last edited by houghtam; 06-10-2013 at 10:56 AM..
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 12:04 PM   #81
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,343
Default

Quote:
I am sympathetic to those who believe that the general existence of a program of analyzing global metadata should have been made public. But I doubt meaningful democratic debate about the program would have been possible unless details were given, so that people actually understood what they were debating about. Details like who is targeted, and why, and on the basis of what evidence; details like what abuses might take place, and how they are corrected. Details about the involvement of private sector companies. Retrospective assessments of whether particular acts of surveillance were justified. But once the N.S.A. reveals the details of the policy, its effectiveness diminishes as targets learn how to evade it. I wish there were a solution to this problem but I donít see it.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...al-or-imagined
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 02:04 PM   #82
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,343
Default Boner Knew of the outrage!

Boehner: Up to Obama to explain NSA order
By Rachel Weiner, Published: June 6, 2013 at 12:24 pmE-mail the writer
18Comments More
President Obama should explain to the American people why the National Security Agency is apparently collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Verizon customers, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday morning. But the Republican lawmaker did not criticize the phone surveillance itself, which was first reported on by The Guardian.

ďItís important for the president to outline to the American people why the tools that he has available to him are criticalĒ in preventing a terrorist attack, Boehner told reporters at a news briefing on Capitol Hill.Asked whether lawmakers should answer for an order that fell under the Patriot Act they passed, Boehner disagreed. ďThe tools were given to the administration, and itís the administrationís responsibility to explain how these tools are used,Ē he said. ĒIíll leave it to them to explain.Ē

Congressís responsibility, he said, was to provide oversight, and he is ďfully confidentĒ that both the House and Senate intelligence committees are doing so.

Boehner declined to discuss what he or other House members knew about the surveillance order. ďI donít discuss classified data here in front of all of you,Ē he said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said earlier Thursday that the entire Senate has been briefed on the program, and that it is nothing new.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ain-nsa-order/
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 02:52 PM   #83
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And how do you think it is going to happen? Who is going to champion that cause, when there is not only a near certainty of failure, but there's not even any money to be made off it?

Never underestimate people's ability to sell out everyone else for more money or power. Look no further than Obama...at best, he has no power to control these things. At worst, he approves of and expands upon them with full knowledge of the implications. And that's if you believed he was any different in the first place.

In another thread, baja asked if the people would allow this to happen. They already have, and will continue to do so.
This is a good and yet troubling line of reasoning. I think the Supreme Court will have to be put on record one way or another. They are the last best hope on this (although they've been anything but reliable on civil liberties when it comes to actual civilians lately)

But Whether the Public has the interest to hold Congress' feet to the fire is a separate question. It's such a blend of ignorance and passive-aggressive apathy at this point that I have no idea if we're capable of driving real change anymore. Maybe it's just a case of needing the right leader to come along and get the people behind it, as has happened throughout our history.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 03:24 PM   #84
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,702

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Demonstrably not true. Hence the reason the NSA needs a standing FISA warrant to collect those records.
No warrant is needed -- by any agency at any level of government -- to collect phone records. They are considered a matter of public record and only require a subpena to gather.

Quote:
True or false. If a company sniffed and read emails that had simply transferred over its network between third parties, they would be committing a crime.

This is what your government is doing.
No, the government is taking at rest data. That's the whole point of engaging with these companies. They are not sniffing traffic (at least not with this program -- they are with ECHELON since the 60s).

And of course, all this is made perfectly "legal" by the PATRIOT Act and other similar absurdities that "we've" allowed out of fear.

Quote:
Here you're conflating technical security measures with lawfulness.
The point wasn't made clear. The point is that when you sign up for a service on the internet, in most cases you give explicit authorization to the company providing that service to do whatever they please with "your" data: emails, posts, voip, etc.

There is absolutely no such thing as privacy on the internet.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 03:42 PM   #85
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No warrant is needed -- by any agency at any level of government -- to collect phone records. They are considered a matter of public record and only require a subpena to gather.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-court-order

Definitely not a matter of public record by any stretch of the imagination. And as documented above the government obtained a FISA court order, which means they can't possibly regard them as 'public record' either.

There may be some argument over whether the phone company is free to release those records on their own accord. But there's zero argument that they are 'public record' and can be forcibly obtained from a Telco without a warrant. I guarantee you Verizon wouldn't have released those records without the warrant.

Quote:
No, the government is taking at rest data. That's the whole point of engaging with these companies. They are not sniffing traffic (at least not with this program -- they are with ECHELON since the 60s).
Details are still coming out. But from reading what the leaker has had to say, if his account is accurate, your statement is categorically wrong.

Quote:
And of course, all this is made perfectly "legal" by the PATRIOT Act and other similar absurdities that "we've" allowed out of fear.
No piece of legislation or interpretation thereof can undo the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court needs to make this clear.

Quote:
The point wasn't made clear. The point is that when you sign up for a service on the internet, in most cases you give explicit authorization to the company providing that service to do whatever they please with "your" data: emails, posts, voip, etc.

There is absolutely no such thing as privacy on the internet.
No, they can't do anything they want. They are legally bound to honor their user agreement. As far as I know none of the major players reserve themselves the right to distribute your personal correspondence at will.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 03:42 PM   #86
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,061

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7BmdovYztH8




Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 03:57 PM   #87
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,702

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-court-order

Definitely not a matter of public record by any stretch of the imagination. And as documented above the government obtained a FISA court order, which means they can't possibly regard them as 'public record' either.
The court order in question is a SUBPENA.

Quote:
There may be some argument over whether the phone company is free to release those records on their own accord. But there's zero argument that they are 'public record' and can be forcibly obtained from a Telco without a warrant. I guarantee you Verizon wouldn't have released those records without the warrant.
Bull****. Verizon will sell that data to anyone willing to pay:

http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

Almost all phone companies have similar policies. By agreeing to their service, you are agreeing to letting them sell your phone records.

Quote:
Details are still coming out. But from reading what the leaker has had to say, if his account is accurate, your statement is categorically wrong.
I've seen no details that indicate. Again, the entire purpose of this program is that they can't get what they want with ECHELON/wire snooping.

Quote:
No piece of legislation or interpretation thereof can undo the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court needs to make this clear.
I agree. Until they do that, it's the law of the land and what "everyone" has agreed to let them do.

Quote:
No, they can't do anything they want. They are legally bound to honor their user agreement. As far as I know none of the major players reserve themselves the right to distribute your personal correspondence at will.
Yep, and guess what their user agreement says?

Again, here's a nice example: http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

And again, google, etc. distributes your personal email correspondence at will as well -- because you agree to let them do that when you sign up.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 04:13 PM   #88
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The court order in question is a SUBPENA.
A Subpena? Sounds dirty.

If it was, if it was on the government's behalf as part of a secret program, there's little functional difference.


Quote:
Bull****. Verizon will sell that data to anyone willing to pay:

http://www22.verizon.com/about/privacy/cpniwireless/

Almost all phone companies have similar policies. By agreeing to their service, you are agreeing to letting them sell your phone records.
Yeah, that document doesn't say that. Might want to read it again.

Quote:
I've seen no details that indicate. Again, the entire purpose of this program is that they can't get what they want with ECHELON/wire snooping.
Dude, the guy talks about current emails, credit card info, even passwords. There's no argument that any of that would be ordinarily (ever) legal to obtain.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 09:34 AM   #89
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,343
Default

Interesting reader email posted by Sullivan today:

Quote:
After reading Marc Ambinderís summary, I am hoping people arenít making the same mistake about PRISM that I once made about Gmail. When Gmail first came out, I was working in the California legislature, and a co-worker and I thought it was a terrible idea for Google to, in effect, ďreadĒ everyoneís mail and provide ads targeted to them. Our boss introduced a bill to prohibit Google from doing this.

I was assigned to defend the bill at a tech conference, and letís say I had some misconceptions firmly and uniformly corrected.

No one at Google reads (or could read) anyoneís email. That would be (a) impossible, given the volume of email, and (b) a pretty stupid thing for a company to try to do. Google has pretty sophisticated algorithms that can scan millions of texts for words and phrases that advertisers believe would be relevant to a particular commercial purpose. Ads matching those terms are posted next to the email, and no human (except the recipient) has ever seen anything.

Iím not sure if any actual humans ever see any Facebook postings, but my guess is that the first pass of PRISM works like Gmail. Someone has developed algorithms for potentially dangerous words and phrases, and the millions or billions of Facebook posts are scanned for those. The algorithmís bar would have to be fairly high, since the number of posts would be astronomical, I would imagine.

Posts that make it over the bar (still not having been viewed by any human being) would then be collected into some output that IS more closely examined, and this may be the stage where humans might be involved. Again, I donít have any special knowledge here, but I honestly canít imagine how this could work any other way. The only things that are ever actually seen by human eyes are those that have some markers of potential serious threats.

I can see how some people might still find little comfort in that, and Iím sure there would have to be many false positives in a system like this. But I think itís far more consistent with your intuition about why this isnít such a horrible invasion of privacy Ė an intuition that it seems a lot of us share.

That difference between technological review of data and human eyes viewing (and possibly abusing) communication is an important distinction. If PRISM is more like Gmail than like J. Edgar Hooverís private FBI files, then this has less to do with privacy than some people might fear. I, for one, got over my concerns about Gmail, and happily got one of its first accounts, which I use to this day.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...m-exactly-ctd/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 09:44 AM   #90
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
]Posts that make it over the bar (still not having been viewed by any human being) would then be collected into some output that IS more closely examined, and this may be the stage where humans might be involved. Again, I donít have any special knowledge here, but I honestly canít imagine how this could work any other way. The only things that are ever actually seen by human eyes are those that have some markers of potential serious threats.
Yes, it's comforting to know that the same Government that specifically searched for and exploited political groups based on keywords can also keyword search pretty much every bit of correspondence stored anywhere.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 10:36 AM   #91
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

This is kind of an uncovered angle, but it's pretty huge if you think about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...459_story.html

This really endangers one of the few true economic advantages we've got going for us at this point. And we're endangering it by not only revealing our own sketchy policies towards privacy, but by basically advertising that we respect international users' privacy even less.

There's a real selling point for Germans to use Google's or Facebook's services.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 04:20 AM   #92
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,567
Default

The story isn't the prism program. Is any surprised they are doing that? The story is democrats before this acted like they would be against such things, while at the same time we sort of knew repubs like Cheney and Runsfield, Bush jr etc would be for whatever catches terrorists.

The story is that dems are full of it and no different. That they only acted like something of this nature was bad or wrong to get elected. Now dems find out they aren't different. They have proven themselves big wall street ends justify the means politicians. Like I said many times before the only issue that matters are taxes and social programs/change. because when it comes to being about wall street and security both parties pretty close.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 04:23 AM   #93
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,567
Default

I agree this is a horrible thing for America. To have this info leaked out is so damaging who knows what it costs us. Dem or Repub, like our govt or not, we all can agree they need to be sneaky. We just didn't realize it was with us so much. I was a little shocked at the scope but as far as listening on other countries not surprised at all. They get no Constitutional protection. But if the result right now is terrorists afraid to use phone, afriad to use interenet, maybe it works some that way. Seriously maybe actually mailing a letter is safer. Thats one thing not touched on. What about regular mail, is it being opened? xrayed somehow and read? Can't believe that hasn't been thrown about.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:33 AM   #94
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,343
Default

NSA director: Surveillance foiled 50 terror plots

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...plots/2434193/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 09:14 AM   #95
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
NSA director: Surveillance foiled 50 terror plots

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...plots/2434193/
Great, the guys who just got done telling us the program didn't exist are now telling us how uber important it is.

And if this is one of the only heralded examples they could use, that's pretty sad sack.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/1...-feinstein-nsa

Essentially the best they could say about Prism 'helping' in this case is that it allowed them to monitor the guy without going through all the trouble of obtaining a warrant. I guess Civil Libertarians should be relieved? I mean how else is a bureaucracy supposed to function if we expect them to jump through all these hoops like obtaining warrants before looking through everyone's ****.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 09:54 AM   #96
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 52,923

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Interesting reader email posted by Sullivan today:


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...m-exactly-ctd/
What Sullivan is naively, or purposely ignoring here is two major points. One is that the algorithm can be changed at any moment in time to collect other bits of data, including other content. The category of interest can easily be changed from "terrorist" to "subversive" or maybe "malcontent" or "environmentalist" or any other heading you can come up with. Then, you simply change the menu of terms under the search parameters. Two, he is buying into the conditioning. It's another incremental intrusion on our freedom and privacy. "Gee, we're doing a good thing here because we're only targeting terrorists. What could be wrong with that?"

He should reread the Niemoller dictum, "First they came for the..."
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 09:59 AM   #97
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
What Sullivan is naively, or purposely ignoring here is...
His readers are pounding him on this issue. To his credit, as he always does, he is publishing the dissent and answering it.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 10:08 AM   #98
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,405
Default

You're both right, Rho and Beavis. Although if you know anything about the legal process, you know that rubber stamp warrants are nothing new, and have been used at every level of the judiciary at one time or another for one reason or another. How long do you think it would have taken to get a search warrant in Boston of the police knocked on someone's door and been met with a suspicious individual?

Neither is the idea of government surveillance anything new, as has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum and just about everywhere else. You are all making circular arguments with one another, but all I hear is complaining with a partisan slant.

At least when I asked this the first time, Beavis had an answer...albeit a very passive one. The question is this:

Despite all your complaining, what are you planning on doing/what have you done to ADDRESS the problem, whatever you may think the problem is? Are you only planning on speaking with your vote? Whom do you plan on supporting? Have you written or called your members of congress? Do you volunteer? Have you attempted to educate other people?

Otherwise, stop the arguing, and stop the b****ing. For all the outrage, I have yet to see anyone provide a viable alternative (viable...REALISTIC). And for the amount of time people spend on here, I'd be surprised at how much letter writing or phone calling is getting done.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 11:39 AM   #99
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 52,923

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
His readers are pounding him on this issue. To his credit, as he always does, he is publishing the dissent and answering it.
I'm afraid technology is outstripping our ability to manage it. It's like the Wall Street collapse. The majority of those in the derivatives market didn't even understand how it worked. They just followed a formula. The math was way over their heads. Congressmen look at the algorithms Google is using the way a chimpanzee looks at a crescent wrench. This area is ripe for abuse.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 05:24 PM   #100
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,567
Default

This thread would have been a lot different if it happened while bush is in office.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 AM.


Denver Broncos