How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:41 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:28 AM, luke viia said:

the mass surveillance exists, it has been abused repeatedly and collection methods were deemed unconstitutional in a secret US court overseeing the program as recently as 2011, and that's them facts.

i don't understand, are you trying again to post a blurb of unsubstantiated info to make your point and try to achieve some closure ? it clearly hasn't worked with me in the past so why try again ?

 

the existence of illegal mass surveillance was not proved in any way so far. same goes for continuous abuse (besides that dude that spied on his ex). but yes, the court did find one instance (not a limitless multitude that you're to conjure out of nothingness) of unconstitutional conduct which nsa itself reported and corrected afterward, which was a technological problem and not intentional abuse or illegal conduct according to that article.

 

i was addressing the whole thread fwiw, but nah, you're flat out wrong. it wasn't the nsa that brought it to light, it was the fisa court, which ruled the nsa has been caught misrepresenting their collection a number of times. it's friday night and i'm not about to spend it entertaining your dumbass complaints, so i'll let other interested people read the articles i have and draw some conclusions. thanks for being a living exercise in tediousness though, every damn time.

"While the N.S.A. fixed problems with how it handled those purely domestic messages to the court’s satisfaction, the 2011 ruling revealed further issues.

“The court is troubled that the government’s revelations regarding N.S.A.’s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program,” Judge Bates wrote."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/2011-ruling-found-an-nsa-program-unconstitutional.html?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nsa-surveillance-may-be-legal--but-its-unconstitutional/2013/06/21/b9ddec20-d44d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

edit: fixed a broken link

Watmm has not been making me feel well lately

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:48 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

yes just like slavery, the internment of the japanese, the espionage act of WW1 and the dropping of the atomic bomb on hiroshima, all were legal at the time and pretty fucking bad ass. When torture is 'legally' sanctioned by juked Bush lawyers, it's a clever idea to use that barometer of legality to define something as being legal, John Yoo and Jay Bybee have taught Eugene well. Both lawyers who used complex and intellectual language to justify horrendous human behavior

Wasn't that complex was just calling something by another name so that you could pretend that that helped you to dodge laws and conventions and all that stuff, well as long as you never had to face a real international war crimes trial in front of an unbiased panel some time in the future. Then you'd be fact.

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Watmm has not been making me feel well lately

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

reality as it actually exists has not been making me feel well lately

fixed ;)

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:54 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:48 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

yes just like slavery, the internment of the japanese, the espionage act of WW1 and the dropping of the atomic bomb on hiroshima, all were legal at the time and pretty fucking bad ass. When torture is 'legally' sanctioned by juked Bush lawyers, it's a clever idea to use that barometer of legality to define something as being legal, John Yoo and Jay Bybee have taught Eugene well. Both lawyers who used complex and intellectual language to justify horrendous human behavior

 

 

Wasn't that complex was just calling something by another name so that you could pretend that that helped you to dodge laws and conventions and all that stuff, well as long as you never had to face a real international war crimes trial in front of an unbiased panel some time in the future. Then you'd be fact.

 

i was being sarcastic, but low and behold the memos still worked, nobody went to jail for 'following orders' and committing acts of torture potentially thousands of times

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 12:47 AM, eugene said:

@chengod

 

why is it so hard to follow my line of argument and read what i write through ?

precedents that you mentioned can't act as a proof to what's happening now, the "proofs" (aka this lame excuse for journalism that gg and guardian publish) that most people bring up to prove alleged illegal mass surveillance prove nothing but nsa's capabilities (and even that's questionable), not illegal action, when put under scrutiny.

Precedent is the basis of much law making. Especially in international contexts. I suppose you will only be satisfied post-hoc. Once again you try to win an argument in semantics, not on logic.

Given the history of previous abuse of these mass surveillance programs, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to assume that current programs are also susceptible to such abuse. While much of the hysteria over the current programs is certainly manipulated by certain elements if the press, there is no harm in calling for more transparency in governance.

 

what does law has to do with any of this ? the previous instances of abuses you mentioned were very clearly against the law so i don't see how something like that can create a norm that will eventually fall within the law.

i'm from sociology man, so i don't do any post hocs. we do try to predict but using structural analysis, discourse analysis, all kinds of theories and their mechanisms etc.

i can sign under every word of your other half of the post.

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:48 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

yes just like slavery, the internment of the japanese, the espionage act of WW1 and the dropping of the atomic bomb on hiroshima, all were legal at the time and pretty fucking bad ass. When torture is 'legally' sanctioned by juked Bush lawyers, it's a clever idea to use that barometer of legality to define something as being legal, John Yoo and Jay Bybee have taught Eugene well. Both lawyers who used complex and intellectual language to justify horrendous human behavior

Yes they magically worked, as if the establishment wasn't interested in truth and justice and this whole US government thing was a scam. No way man. ;-p

Clinton 2016 - Mope and begging for change.

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:55 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Watmm has not been making me feel well lately

 

 

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:57 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

reality as it actually exists has not been making me feel well lately

fixed ;)

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:59 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 12:47 AM, eugene said:

@chengod

 

why is it so hard to follow my line of argument and read what i write through ?

precedents that you mentioned can't act as a proof to what's happening now, the "proofs" (aka this lame excuse for journalism that gg and guardian publish) that most people bring up to prove alleged illegal mass surveillance prove nothing but nsa's capabilities (and even that's questionable), not illegal action, when put under scrutiny.

Precedent is the basis of much law making. Especially in international contexts. I suppose you will only be satisfied post-hoc. Once again you try to win an argument in semantics, not on logic.

Given the history of previous abuse of these mass surveillance programs, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to assume that current programs are also susceptible to such abuse. While much of the hysteria over the current programs is certainly manipulated by certain elements if the press, there is no harm in calling for more transparency in governance.

 

i can sign under every word of your other half of the post.

 

Wow, you know sign language, cool.

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:03 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:55 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Watmm has not been making me feel well lately

 

 

 

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:57 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

reality as it actually exists has not been making me feel well lately

fixed ;)

 

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:51 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:41 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:28 AM, luke viia said:

the mass surveillance exists, it has been abused repeatedly and collection methods were deemed unconstitutional in a secret US court overseeing the program as recently as 2011, and that's them facts.

i don't understand, are you trying again to post a blurb of unsubstantiated info to make your point and try to achieve some closure ? it clearly hasn't worked with me in the past so why try again ?

 

the existence of illegal mass surveillance was not proved in any way so far. same goes for continuous abuse (besides that dude that spied on his ex). but yes, the court did find one instance (not a limitless multitude that you're to conjure out of nothingness) of unconstitutional conduct which nsa itself reported and corrected afterward, which was a technological problem and not intentional abuse or illegal conduct according to that article.

 

 

i was addressing the whole thread fwiw, but nah, you're flat out wrong. it wasn't the nsa that brought it to light, it was the fisa court, which ruled the nsa has been caught misrepresenting their collection a number of times.

 

 

from the article:

  Quote

"Robert Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said Wednesday that the illegal collection stemmed from a technological problem the NSA itself uncovered, and that it wasn't an intentional effort to collect American communications."

 

  Quote

 

"The NSA discovered the issue in 2011 and reported it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that oversees NSA collection. The court ruled the NSA's Internet spy program was "in some respects, deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds."

 

are you slipping into plain lying now or you're just tired ?

of course the nsa brought it to the court (who else could even know?); the court then brought it to the administration, and released the ruling. ie "brought it to light."

"The Justice Department had told Judge Bates that N.S.A. officials had discovered that the program had also been gathering domestic messages for three years. Judge Bates found that the agency had violated the Constitution and declared the problems part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court."

it's inexcusable, as is my participation in this shit storm of a thread

you're losing track of your own argument. the whole issue here is whether nsa doing nasty stuff and hiding it or not, the article clearly show that it didn't do any of that. obviously it'll use the proper channels for it and not leak its findings straight to the press, but nevertheless it's the main source of that info. fisa court could have appointed their own auditors for all we know.

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:59 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 12:47 AM, eugene said:

@chengod

 

why is it so hard to follow my line of argument and read what i write through ?

precedents that you mentioned can't act as a proof to what's happening now, the "proofs" (aka this lame excuse for journalism that gg and guardian publish) that most people bring up to prove alleged illegal mass surveillance prove nothing but nsa's capabilities (and even that's questionable), not illegal action, when put under scrutiny.

Precedent is the basis of much law making. Especially in international contexts. I suppose you will only be satisfied post-hoc. Once again you try to win an argument in semantics, not on logic.

Given the history of previous abuse of these mass surveillance programs, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to assume that current programs are also susceptible to such abuse. While much of the hysteria over the current programs is certainly manipulated by certain elements if the press, there is no harm in calling for more transparency in governance.

 

what does law has to do with any of this ? the previous instances of abuses you mentioned were very clearly against the law so i don't see how something like that can create a norm that will eventually fall within the law.

i'm from sociology man, so i don't do any post hocs. we do try to predict but using structural analysis, discourse analysis, all kinds of theories and their mechanisms etc.

 

i can sign under every word of your other half of the post.

 

Sociologists do plenty of post-hoc analysis. What the fuck do you think ANOVA is all about?

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:25 AM, eugene said:

you're losing track of your own argument. the whole issue here is whether nsa doing nasty stuff and hiding it or not, the article clearly show that it didn't do any of that. obviously it'll use the proper channels for it and not leak its findings straight to the press, but nevertheless it's the main source of that info.

if that's the whole issue i've clearly shown they are doing what i would deem "nasty stuff" (illegal domestic data collection for years before reporting it to the proper channel); i don't care about the claimed intentions from secret surveillance agencies officials, their actions are what matters, and they are reported to have been "part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court."

  Quote

 

fisa court could have appointed their own auditors for all we know.

“This opinion illustrates that the way the court is structured now it cannot serve as an effective check on the N.S.A. because it’s wholly dependent on the representations that the N.S.A. makes to it,” Mr. Rumold said. “It has no ability to investigate. And it’s clear that the N.S.A. representations have not been entirely candid to the court.” (same link as before)

as fun as this is i'm gonna go drink beer

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:25 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:59 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:44 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 12:47 AM, eugene said:

@chengod

 

why is it so hard to follow my line of argument and read what i write through ?

precedents that you mentioned can't act as a proof to what's happening now, the "proofs" (aka this lame excuse for journalism that gg and guardian publish) that most people bring up to prove alleged illegal mass surveillance prove nothing but nsa's capabilities (and even that's questionable), not illegal action, when put under scrutiny.

Precedent is the basis of much law making. Especially in international contexts. I suppose you will only be satisfied post-hoc. Once again you try to win an argument in semantics, not on logic.

Given the history of previous abuse of these mass surveillance programs, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to assume that current programs are also susceptible to such abuse. While much of the hysteria over the current programs is certainly manipulated by certain elements if the press, there is no harm in calling for more transparency in governance.

 

what does law has to do with any of this ? the previous instances of abuses you mentioned were very clearly against the law so i don't see how something like that can create a norm that will eventually fall within the law.

i'm from sociology man, so i don't do any post hocs. we do try to predict but using structural analysis, discourse analysis, all kinds of theories and their mechanisms etc.

 

i can sign under every word of your other half of the post.

 

 

Sociologists do plenty of post-hoc analysis. What the fuck do you think ANOVA is all about?

 

anova is about many things and used in many contexts, are you calling every analysis of collected data as post-hoc ? that's technically what i do all the time but i don't think it's actually called post hoc. the idea is to test hypotheses which are derived from different theories that are used to predict stuff later on.

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:29 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:25 AM, eugene said:

you're losing track of your own argument. the whole issue here is whether nsa doing nasty stuff and hiding it or not, the article clearly show that it didn't do any of that. obviously it'll use the proper channels for it and not leak its findings straight to the press, but nevertheless it's the main source of that info.

 

1. if that's the whole issue i've clearly shown they are doing what i would deem "nasty stuff" (illegal domestic data collection for years before reporting it to the proper channel); i don't care about the claimed intentions from secret surveillance agencies officials, their actions are what matters, and they are reported to have been "part of a pattern of misrepresentation by agency officials in submissions to the secret court."

 

  Quote

 

fisa court could have appointed their own auditors for all we know.

 

2. “This opinion illustrates that the way the court is structured now it cannot serve as an effective check on the N.S.A. because it’s wholly dependent on the representations that the N.S.A. makes to it,” Mr. Rumold said. “It has no ability to investigate. And it’s clear that the N.S.A. representations have not been entirely candid to the court.” (same link as before)

 

1. what actions ? it looks very much like they weren't even aware of the problem until they caught and reported it. you're reducing the whole story to the word "illegal" without addressing all other facts.

2. ok, though i was just giving a hypothetical example in a specific context, not really stating anything concrete about fisa abilities. the main point was that nsa did the work itself.

  On 3/1/2014 at 3:32 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

eugene isn't nasty subjective? i think the argument here is whether or not one thinks this is nasty, it's more about taste.

nasty means illegal/unconstitutional.

Yes anova is about many things, I exaggerated in my rushed post on the bus. But to say that sociologists don't do post-hoc is blatantly untrue.

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

Quote of the day. This is nut a jab at eugene specifically, but at the entire thread. Myself included.

Happy weekend everyone! :D

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

I am sorry, if you don't agree with Eugene's official truth then you are stupid and a conspiritard. He is the truth and shines the light of reason on WATMM, peace be upon him.

*cue photoshop gag*

  On 3/1/2014 at 8:29 AM, LimpyLoo said:

*cue photoshop gag*

  On 3/1/2014 at 8:15 AM, azatoth said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

 

I am sorry, if you don't agree with Eugene's official truth then you are stupid and a conspiritard. He is the truth and shines the light of reason on WATMM, peace be upon him.

I disagree. And you're not honest by saying you're sorry, because you're not.

;P