U.S. bugged EU offices.

I am posting this again. [QUOTE="BranKetra"]There are actually users in this thread caring more about Snowden leaking information than the government doing certain reprehensible acts. BranKetra

some don't think those acts reprehensible.

and it is unknown what damage snowden could cause, it is plausible that he holds several Innocent lives in his hands.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] If you're going to smash half the pantry trying to save one jar then yeah I'll just mop up the one. Ace6301

who's smashing the pantry?

i believe the metaphor has moved beyond my comprehension.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

who's smashing the pantry?

frannkzappa

i believe the metaphor has moved beyond my comprehension.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I am posting this again. [QUOTE="BranKetra"]There are actually users in this thread caring more about Snowden leaking information than the government doing certain reprehensible acts. frannkzappa

some don't think those acts reprehensible.

and it is unknown what damage snowden could cause, it is plausible that he holds several Innocent lives in his hands.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] The janitor.Ace6301

i believe the metaphor has moved beyond my comprehension.

maybe

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]BranKetra

some don't think those acts reprehensible.

and it is unknown what damage snowden could cause, it is plausible that he holds several Innocent lives in his hands.

it is also unknown what benefits this may have for the American people... but no one cares about that.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i believe the metaphor has moved beyond my comprehension.

frannkzappa

maybe

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Maybe the J should have been capitalized?Ace6301

maybe

i liked that thread. to bad it was locked.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

maybe

frannkzappa

i liked that thread. to bad it was locked.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Again we could assume he's capable of pulling a planet destroying death ray out of his ass but I'd rather stick to what we know and so far he's really only forced the US government to admit it's actions which I have no problem with. Illegal no, not as of about 2009. Unconstitutional...weeeeell that's a bit harder to say for sure. Ace6301

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i've already pointed out that he plausibly has info that endangers the lives of innocents.

BranKetra

except he is already guilty of several crimes. he deserves further investigation.

Further investigation? 

You were just saying he should be killed before he does any more damage which is much different.

Further investigation?

You were just saying he should be killed before he does any more damage which is much different.

BranKetra

i do not think a state sponsored assassination is the right way to go. he should be captured, interrogated and if need be executed. no need to jump the gun.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Further investigation?

You were just saying he should be killed before he does any more damage which is much different.

frannkzappa

i do not think a state sponsored assassination is the right way to go. he should be captured, interrogated and if need be executed. no need to jump the gun.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Further investigation?

You were just saying he should be killed before he does any more damage which is much different.

BranKetra

i do not think a state sponsored assassination is the right way to go. he should be captured, interrogated and if need be executed. no need to jump the gun.

also i have never said he should be assassinated.

Funny story, I actually am trusted with classified information, not government but still. Were the information I know in anyway negative to innocents I would tell.Ace6301

I don't know what kind of "classified" information you are dealing with if it isn't government related. I am aware that corporations have trade secrets and make employees sign non-disclosure agreements not to release corporate secrets that their competitors could take advantage of. However, you're not going to be charged with treason or espionage for leaking Coca Cola's recipe to Pepsi. You may be punished if you work at a medical facility for giving out medical information without authorization but it won't get you a potential life sentence like Bradley Manning is facing for what he gave to Wikileaks.

There's way more important things than having Al-Qaeda not know things. I really don't find going behind the backs of hundreds of millions of your own country men and millions of other innocents in the world is worth keeping some morons on the other side of the world in the dark.Ace6301

Even though General Alexander is a powerful four star general, he still has plenty of superiors in the DOD and beyond. It isn't his place to decide "this might be illegal so I'm going to tell the whole world about it starting with a foreign news organization." He would have to present his case to the Supreme Court, who will then decide whether or not the Fourth Amendment was broken. If it isn't his place to do that as the director of the NSA, then what makes you think a 30-year old systems administrator was in the right to do that?

GEN Alexander is 61 years old. If he went public without authorization, betting that the Supreme Court would be on his side and he was wrong it is very possible he would die in Leavenworth or at a minimum get out much older and with no pension. We can cheer him on all we want to as he becomes the highest ranking person to go to Leavenworth in history. That is why the right thing to do, if he felt the program was wrong, was to reveal it to lawmakers in a secure setting and let them go from there in deciding the constitutionality of it.

You're also trying to put words in my mouth now. I haven't said the public has a right to know classified things. I said they have a right to be mad about the government going behind their back and they sure as hell do. I said the government shouldn't be lying to it's own citizens and then spying on them and said countries allies. They absolutely should not be doing either. Government officials should also not be given special immunity to the law.Ace6301

I don't have to put words in your mouth. You are the one who suggested that General Alexander get charged with perjury because he didn't reveal a Top Secret program in an unsecure facility by answering yes to the monitoring questions. I already explained to you how saying anything that even resembles "that's classified" would have been taken as a yes.  That is the rule with classified information, deny it outright because if you try to beat around the bush so you don't "technically" lie you are letting the cat out of the bag.

How do we even know the congressman who asked him that question was even read on to PRISM? If he isn't then by law he cannot be told about it, under oath or not. In all reality, unless that congressman had an agenda to try and stir the pot, if he was read on to PRISM he would have known not to ask him that question outside of a secure facility anyway. It would be a big abuse of power to force somebody to reveal classified information to you that you know you aren't read on to just by putting them under oath and then asking away.

 "Before you said the American public would put 2 and 2 together if he said it was classified. Why is that a bad thing? Why should their being kept in the dark be seen as more important than the laws of the country?"Ace6301

You ask why is it a bad thing for the American public to know? Because if the American public knows then so does al Qaeda. You may not see the value of the program but any decent intel analyst knows how valuable it is for our targets not to know our methods to collect intel on them. I know people like to say the NSA program was useless because Boston still happened but by saying that you might as well call a bullet proof vest useless because you was shot 20 times and one bullet hit you.

>what you consider barbarism shouldn't factor in to state decisions. In the United States, opinions do matter and can be tangibly registered as votes, so like it or not it influences state decisions. >also i have never said he should be assassinated. Okay You just consider execution a viable option. That is not much better in my opinion.BranKetra

well in that case sit back and watch "the great republican system" work:roll:

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]>what you consider barbarism shouldn't factor in to state decisions. In the United States, opinions do matter and can be tangibly registered as votes, so like it or not it influences state decisions. >also i have never said he should be assassinated. Okay You just consider execution a viable option. That is not much better in my opinion.frannkzappa

well in that case sit back and watch "the great republican system" work:roll:

With people like frannkzappa on the internet, Obama doesn't have to buy Facebook likes and Twitter followers anymoreMrPraline

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I am posting this again. [QUOTE="BranKetra"]There are actually users in this thread caring more about Snowden leaking information than the government doing certain reprehensible acts. frannkzappa

some don't think those acts reprehensible.

and it is unknown what damage snowden could cause, it is plausible that he holds several Innocent lives in his hands.

And what about the innocent lives the US foreign policy has ended with their own reprehensible acts?.. Food for thought..

With people like frannkzappa on the internet, Obama doesn't have to buy Facebook likes and Twitter followers anymoreMrPraline

I do not support Obama in any real respect...

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]sSubZerOo

some don't think those acts reprehensible.

and it is unknown what damage snowden could cause, it is plausible that he holds several Innocent lives in his hands.

And what about the innocent lives the US foreign policy has ended with their own reprehensible acts?.. Food for thought..

foreign policy is an entirely different matter.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]With people like frannkzappa on the internet, Obama doesn't have to buy Facebook likes and Twitter followers anymorethebest31406

would you care to discuss points?

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

m0zart

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

chrisrooR

Yeah my first impression for sure. I was just doing a Google search about the state of wiretapping laws. I had wondered how they applied to folks who used radios to get cellphone and wireless calls (or even unsecured networks). Apparently if the data can be retrieved without special effort over the airwaves and without breaking encryption or distortion schemes, then it's not considered a wiretapping violation.

However, this link popped up as well... and it shocked me. I have some skepticism of the source (after seeing some of the stories and links on that page, it seems to be run by some conspiracy nuts), but the story itself seems pretty solid... and was also reported by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

m0zart

Yeah my first impression for sure. I was just doing a Google search about the state of wiretapping laws. I had wondered how they applied to folks who used radios to get cellphone and wireless calls (or even unsecured networks). Apparently if the data can be retrieved without special effort over the airwaves and without breaking encryption or distortion schemes, then it's not considered a wiretapping violation.

However, this link popped up as well... and it shocked me. I have some skepticism of the source (after seeing some of the stories and links on that page, it seems to be run by some conspiracy nuts), but the story itself seems pretty solid... and was also reported by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

m0zart

Yeah my first impression for sure. I was just doing a Google search about the state of wiretapping laws. I had wondered how they applied to folks who used radios to get cellphone and wireless calls (or even unsecured networks). Apparently if the data can be retrieved without special effort over the airwaves and without breaking encryption or distortion schemes, then it's not considered a wiretapping violation.

However, this link popped up as well... and it shocked me. I have some skepticism of the source (after seeing some of the stories and links on that page, it seems to be run by some conspiracy nuts), but the story itself seems pretty solid... and was also reported by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

Just thought I'd quitely throw this into the mix of this thread:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/doj-quietly-gives-companies-immunity-from-wiretapping-law-in-exchange-for-private-internet-surveillance/

m0zart

Yeah my first impression for sure. I was just doing a Google search about the state of wiretapping laws. I had wondered how they applied to folks who used radios to get cellphone and wireless calls (or even unsecured networks). Apparently if the data can be retrieved without special effort over the airwaves and without breaking encryption or distortion schemes, then it's not considered a wiretapping violation.

However, this link popped up as well... and it shocked me. I have some skepticism of the source (after seeing some of the stories and links on that page, it seems to be run by some conspiracy nuts), but the story itself seems pretty solid... and was also reported by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

 "The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent." 

Agreeing to terms of use is probably lawful consent. The article also claims CISPA overrides all current federal and state laws, so if it becomes law then all the in-country surveillance being talked about by the mainstream will become legal. Also related, Windows 8 getting an update which incorporates Bing and its data collection into Windows search and the Xbox One with its DRM software and invasive Kinect technology (facial recognition, sees in the dark even in low power mode, can monitor your heartbeat) are not coincidentally getting made around the same time. Microsoft is also getting accused of incorporating a digital key in every Windows since 95 for the NSA. It is supposedly the driver ADVAPI.DLL. The amount of surveillance that is public knowledge may only be the metaphorical tip of the iceberg which is a grand surveillance program we are only partially aware of. Obama promised transparency. He might have meant each citizen's life would be transparent for the government.

This part of the report is worth focusing on:

"The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent."

Agreeing to terms of use is probably lawful consent. The article also claims CISPA overrides all current federal and state laws, so if it becomes law then all the in-country surveillance being talked about by the mainstream will become legal. Also related, Windows 8 getting an update which incorporates Bing and its data collection into Windows search and the Xbox One with its DRM software and invasive Kinect technology (facial recognition, sees in the dark even in low power mode, can monitor your heartbeat) are not coincidentally getting made around the same time. Microsoft is also getting accused of incorporating a digital key in every Windows since 95 for the NSA. It is supposedly the driver ADVAPI.DLL. The amount of surveillance that is public knowledge may only be the metaphorical tip of the iceberg which is a grand surveillance program we are only partially aware of. Obama promised transparency. He might have meant each citizen's life would be transparent for the government.

BranKetra

I don't think EULA agreements can constitute lawful consent to be monitored against wiretapping laws. The problem is that in cases of wiretapping, that kind of consent actually has to be made by vocal agreement before the wiretapping can take place on an individual basis, not a blank check scheme like the one that would come along with a EULA. I remember many years ago when dealing with a private lawsuit, each time the lawyer that represented me contacted the party in question, he had to gain both of our consents right there on the call while each other were present to hear the request, otherwise he had to end the call. It wasn't good enough that he already had my consent in writing. If the call had been restricted to a State that only requires only one non-representiative participatant of the conversation to consent, and it is usually not required to be done in the hearing of the other. Once it crosses State lines, it becomes another thing altogether.

Those aspects granting open channels liek that are often already part of many EULAs and written agreements, yet the administration still saw the need to specifically exhonorate companies which were cooperating with them in this particular manner. That tells me it isn't quite so simply as gaining advance consent for unlimited eavesdropping.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

This part of the report is worth focusing on:

"The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent."

Agreeing to terms of use is probably lawful consent. The article also claims CISPA overrides all current federal and state laws, so if it becomes law then all the in-country surveillance being talked about by the mainstream will become legal. Also related, Windows 8 getting an update which incorporates Bing and its data collection into Windows search and the Xbox One with its DRM software and invasive Kinect technology (facial recognition, sees in the dark even in low power mode, can monitor your heartbeat) are not coincidentally getting made around the same time. Microsoft is also getting accused of incorporating a digital key in every Windows since 95 for the NSA. It is supposedly the driver ADVAPI.DLL. The amount of surveillance that is public knowledge may only be the metaphorical tip of the iceberg which is a grand surveillance program we are only partially aware of. Obama promised transparency. He might have meant each citizen's life would be transparent for the government.

m0zart

I don't think EULA agreements can constitute lawful consent to be monitored against wiretapping laws. The problem is that in cases of wiretapping, that kind of consent actually has to be made by vocal agreement before the wiretapping can take place on an individual basis, not a blank check scheme like the one that would come along with a EULA. I remember many years ago when dealing with a private lawsuit, each time the lawyer that represented me contacted the party in question, he had to gain both of our consents right there on the call while each other were present to hear the request, otherwise he had to end the call. It wasn't good enough that he already had my consent in writing. If the call had been restricted to a State that only requires only one non-representiative participatant of the conversation to consent, and it is usually not required to be done in the hearing of the other. Once it crosses State lines, it becomes another thing altogether.

Those aspects granting open channels liek that are often already part of many EULAs and written agreements, yet the administration still saw the need to specifically exhonorate companies which were cooperating with them in this particular manner. That tells me it isn't quite so simply as gaining advance consent for unlimited eavesdropping.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Wow. What the fvck. BranKetra

Yeah my first impression for sure. I was just doing a Google search about the state of wiretapping laws. I had wondered how they applied to folks who used radios to get cellphone and wireless calls (or even unsecured networks). Apparently if the data can be retrieved without special effort over the airwaves and without breaking encryption or distortion schemes, then it's not considered a wiretapping violation.

However, this link popped up as well... and it shocked me. I have some skepticism of the source (after seeing some of the stories and links on that page, it seems to be run by some conspiracy nuts), but the story itself seems pretty solid... and was also reported by CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

"The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent."

Agreeing to terms of use is probably lawful consent. The article also claims CISPA overrides all current federal and state laws, so if it becomes law then all the in-country surveillance being talked about by the mainstream will become legal. Also related, Windows 8 getting an update which incorporates Bing and its data collection into Windows search and the Xbox One with its DRM software and invasive Kinect technology (facial recognition, sees in the dark even in low power mode, can monitor your heartbeat) are not coincidentally getting made around the same time. Microsoft is also getting accused of incorporating a digital key in every Windows since 95 for the NSA. It is supposedly the driver ADVAPI.DLL. The amount of surveillance that is public knowledge may only be the metaphorical tip of the iceberg which is a grand surveillance program we are only partially aware of. Obama promised transparency. He might have meant each citizen's life would be transparent for the government.

Nicaragua and Venezuala just offered Snowden asylum.ad1x2

this saddens me greatly. they should have done the right thing and returned this man to the USA.

wait the blaze is still around?Abbeten

lol, apparently so

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Nicaragua and Venezuala just offered Snowden asylum.frannkzappa

this saddens me greatly. they should have done the right thing and returned this man to the USA.

You mean they should have done what the US wanted.  There would be nothing "right" about throwing a man to a lions' den.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]Nicaragua and Venezuala just offered Snowden asylum.thebest31406

this saddens me greatly. they should have done the right thing and returned this man to the USA.

You mean they should have done what the US wanted. There would be nothing "right" about throwing a man to a lions' den.

when a man breaks laws and holds Innocent lives hostage. yes, there is.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

this saddens me greatly. they should have done the right thing and returned this man to the USA.

frannkzappa

You mean they should have done what the US wanted. There would be nothing "right" about throwing a man to a lions' den.

when a man breaks laws and holds Innocent lives hostage. yes, there is.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]

You mean they should have done what the US wanted. There would be nothing "right" about throwing a man to a lions' den.

thebest31406

when a man breaks laws and holds Innocent lives hostage. yes, there is.

he admitted he had access to the locations of safe houses, the locations of federal agents and their families as well as their missions.

it is not safe to leave this man in a position where malicious parties can get a hold of that information.
At the very least this man needs to be brought to a secure place and investigated further.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

when a man breaks laws and holds Innocent lives hostage. yes, there is.

frannkzappa

he admitted he had access to the locations of safe houses, the locations of federal agents and their families as well as their missions.

it is not safe to leave this man in a position where malicious parties can get a hold of that information.
At the very least this man needs to be brought to a secure place and investigated further.

wait the blaze is still around?Abbeten

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Well if he had hostages then yes, he should be brought to justice. But I wasn't aware he had any hostages.thebest31406

he admitted he had access to the locations of safe houses, the locations of federal agents and their families as well as their missions.

it is not safe to leave this man in a position where malicious parties can get a hold of that information.
At the very least this man needs to be brought to a secure place and investigated further.

i imagine a prison.

i do not know the full extent of what he has done and neither does the government, however he has broken US federal law and deserves a trial for that. during this trial it should be ascertained what other laws he broke and what information he stole.

he should not be allowed freedom of movement while he has illegal and sensitive information which could be used to black mail the us government and federal agents. if in a worst case scenario a malicious group gets a hold of safe house locations and the addresses of federal agents families, innocents could die.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]wait the blaze is still around?PC_gamer4life

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

he admitted he had access to the locations of safe houses, the locations of federal agents and their families as well as their missions.

 

 

it is not safe to leave this man in a position where malicious parties can get a hold of that information.
At the very least this man needs to be brought to a secure place and investigated further.

frannkzappa

i imagine a prison.

i do not know the full extent of what he has done and neither does the government, however he has broken US federal law and deserves a trial for that. during this trial it should be ascertained what other laws he broke and what information he stole.

he should not be allowed freedom of movement while he has illegal and sensitive information which could be used to black mail the us government and federal agents. if in a worst case scenario a malicious group gets a hold of safe house locations and the addresses of federal agents families, innocents could die.