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

  On 2/27/2014 at 5:35 PM, Audioblysk said:

Eugene - Israeli/WATMMite/Terrorist.

 

Also, lol @ Eugene thinking that the NSA/DEA/FBI/CIA only act with warrants issued. Really man? I mean with all the shit that the U.S. Government is knee deep in, it's incredibly far out to think that it illegally spies on its people to serve its interest? The same country that allows grandiose Pearl-Harbor-esque 'terrorist' attack(s) as justification for financial profiteering and starting one of the most fruitless and economically damaging (to the majority) military quagmires in the last century, is going to be honest about why it has agencies employing people in the hundreds of thousands to spy on nobody without tons of due process and a warrant? The patriot act makes it incredibly easy to circumvent laws and rights for reasons of national security... where the fuck have you been for the last decade or so?

what shit is us government involved in exactly ? if this is so obvious to you then it should be easy to provide proof.

the other points are way too conspiratard for me to take seriously, not to mention the idiotic notion that the same people who were in charge of usa in the 40s are the same people who control it today.

  On 2/27/2014 at 5:41 PM, chenGOD said:

The NSA has basically admitted to mass surveillance. What do you think programs like echelon do? Now of course what is important is how they act on the data they collect, which is by and large benign. However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

And yes laws are often subverted to the purpose of businesses. How do you think corporations got the legal status of people?

surveillance of foreigners, not americans, this is the major issue here.

  Quote

However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

why not ? looks like a sensible default assumption to me.

How about this citizen mentioned in the article?

 

" One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept."

 

I think you're missing the point by claiming that the governments are mostly benevolent. They're creating a tool that's already being abused. If we elect another Nixon, he would have unprecedented power over his enemies.

 

I'm curious, what's your stake in this argument? It seems like it's a priority for you to debunk spying. What's the importance of that for you personally?

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:39 PM, A/D said:

How about this citizen mentioned in the article?

 

" One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept."

 

which part of this quote points to some sort of illegality of conduct ?

 

  Quote

 

I think you're missing the point by claiming that the governments are mostly benevolent. They're creating a tool that's already being abused. If we elect another Nixon, he would have unprecedented power over his enemies.

tools can always be abused theoretically, if you wan to protest the existence of such tools then you better have enough information about their benefit, the risk of their abuse and the potential damage of their abuse. from my understanding the people who make the noise about these issues have next to zero information about either.

 

  Quote

 

I'm curious, what's your stake in this argument? It seems like it's a priority for you to debunk spying. What's the importance of that for you personally?

making the internet less stupid.

i'm on here while being paid to do a job for the government, does that count?

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:55 PM, MadameChaos said:

i'm on here while being paid to do a job for the government, does that count?

Only if you're trying to push a political agenda on a forum and destabilise it. I think.

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:26 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 5:41 PM, chenGOD said:

The NSA has basically admitted to mass surveillance. What do you think programs like echelon do? Now of course what is important is how they act on the data they collect, which is by and large benign. However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

And yes laws are often subverted to the purpose of businesses. How do you think corporations got the legal status of people?

surveillance of foreigners, not americans, this is the major issue here.

  Quote

However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

why not ? looks like a sensible default assumption to me.

 

 

By its very nature, it would be virtually impossible to determine which data packets originated in the US and which originated in foreign countries. Regardless, the nations involved in Echelon often collected data on each others' citizens at the request of said nation.

 

In terms of legality, look at section 7.3 of this: http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm#7

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:54 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:39 PM, A/D said:

How about this citizen mentioned in the article?

 

" One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept."

 

which part of this quote points to some sort of illegality of conduct ?

 

  Quote

 

I think you're missing the point by claiming that the governments are mostly benevolent. They're creating a tool that's already being abused. If we elect another Nixon, he would have unprecedented power over his enemies.

tools can always be abused theoretically, if you wan to protest the existence of such tools then you better have enough information about their benefit, the risk of their abuse and the potential damage of their abuse. from my understanding the people who make the noise about these issues have next to zero information about either.

 

  Quote

 

I'm curious, what's your stake in this argument? It seems like it's a priority for you to debunk spying. What's the importance of that for you personally?

making the internet less stupid.

 

This assumption that everyone is stupider than you is 90% of the reason you catch so much flak on here.

If you rephrased your statement to something like "promoting critical thinking", you might not get so much grief.

It points to NSA collecting info on a domestic citizen and passing it off to the SOD, and then the DEA. It actually says that, right there.

 

The potential abuses are many. The one that worries me the most is that it will be used as a political weapon by people in power-discrediting or imprisoning opponents/activists with minor crimes, affairs, etc.

 

So what are the benefits? The government has never cited a case where the NSA aided in national security. Can you?

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:45 PM, A/D said:

It points to NSA collecting info on a domestic citizen and passing it off to the SOD, and then the DEA. It actually says that, right there.

 

yes, we're already clear on the fact that nsa can do it with appropriate warrant. does it say anywhere in that quote that it was done without a warrant and therefore illegally ?

 

  Quote

 

So what are the benefits? The government has never cited a case where the NSA aided in national security. Can you?

it says so all of the time but of course it won't go into specifics. if alleged capabilities of email/phone interceptions are true then of course it can exploit those to catch criminal/terrorists/whatever, why is is so hard to imagine ?

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:22 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 6:26 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 5:41 PM, chenGOD said:

The NSA has basically admitted to mass surveillance. What do you think programs like echelon do? Now of course what is important is how they act on the data they collect, which is by and large benign. However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

And yes laws are often subverted to the purpose of businesses. How do you think corporations got the legal status of people?

surveillance of foreigners, not americans, this is the major issue here.

  Quote

However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

why not ? looks like a sensible default assumption to me.

 

 

By its very nature, it would be virtually impossible to determine which data packets originated in the US and which originated in foreign countries. Regardless, the nations involved in Echelon often collected data on each others' citizens at the request of said nation.

 

In terms of legality, look at section 7.3 of this: http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm#7

 

 

 

by it's very nature something that sophisticated will be able to determine what IP the data originates from, i think it would be actually useless if it didn't manage to do so.

 

from what i understand from that section what you describe is actually considered illegal, but i could misunderstand that jargon. what sentences makes you conclude that nations share data on each others citizens to circumvent own laws ?

Sorry I meant to say they wouldn't be able to filter out packets that flow through US networks, because even packets that originate in foreign countries often flow through US networks. So difficult to not spy on your own citizens.

 

As to information sharing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

 

And more government surveillance programs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_surveillance_projects

Specific to the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_surveillance_projects#United_States

 

And warrantless wiretaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency#Warrantless_wiretaps

i think you're lagging behind the main argument, i never questioned that such capabilities/programs exist, the issue is how they're used and whether there is abuse on a mass scale.

I'll be getting my monthly paycheck in the mail on Monday. Get ready.

  On 2/27/2014 at 9:13 PM, eugene said:

i think you're lagging behind the main argument, i never questioned that such capabilities/programs exist, the issue is how they're used and whether there is abuse on a mass scale.

Again, thanks for implying that I'm dull and lagging behind.

If you bothered to read the links I provided you can see that

a) they have been used in unconstitutional contexts (warrantless wiretaps) and

b) regardless of if the abuse is widespread or not, it's still an important issue to look at. One could argue that there has been mass abuse, it would depend of course on how you define "mass".

irl video of my reaction to this thread:

  On 2/27/2014 at 10:48 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 9:13 PM, eugene said:

i think you're lagging behind the main argument, i never questioned that such capabilities/programs exist, the issue is how they're used and whether there is abuse on a mass scale.

Again, thanks for implying that I'm dull and lagging behind.

If you bothered to read the links I provided you can see that

a) they have been used in unconstitutional contexts (warrantless wiretaps) and

b) regardless of if the abuse is widespread or not, it's still an important issue to look at. One could argue that there has been mass abuse, it would depend of course on how you define "mass".

 

look and discuss away, i'm all for it, just don't fill that discourse with snowdenesque "the government is constantly watching your every move" type remarks that have no basis in reality.

  On 2/27/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

you don't really need an explicit explanation why those alleged actions are only used according to the law if you're not a tinfoilhatter/ron paul supporter.

 

just pointing out that it makes no sense to use the term "tinfoil hatter" in 2014 un-ironically.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/ctx4000_nsa_exp.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

Edited February 27, 2014 by andihow

  On 2/27/2014 at 8:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:45 PM, A/D said:

 

It points to NSA collecting info on a domestic citizen and passing it off to the SOD, and then the DEA. It actually says that, right there.

 

yes, we're already clear on the fact that nsa can do it with appropriate warrant. does it say anywhere in that quote that it was done without a warrant and therefore illegally ?

Surely someone as smart as yourself could infer that implication from the paragraph where the prosecutor declined to go through with the case after finding out he couldn't use the NSA tip.

  On 2/27/2014 at 8:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:45 PM, A/D said:

So what are the benefits? The government has never cited a case where the NSA aided in national security. Can you?

it says so all of the time but of course it won't go into specifics. if alleged capabilities of email/phone interceptions are true then of course it can exploit those to catch criminal/terrorists/whatever, why is is so hard to imagine ?

Wait, so you're saying it's not true, but if it is true, it's good? Edited February 27, 2014 by A/D

  On 2/27/2014 at 10:50 PM, DerWaschbar said:

irl video of my reaction to this thread:

new First Look story about how the British intelligence agencies spied on teenagers webcams and collected thousands of pornographic images, essentially that the GCHQ is collecting child porn off Yahoo. pretty fucking tight

how anyone who isn't either a full on sociopath, psychopath or on the pay roll for a government agency would still try to defend these mass spying programs at this point is pretty remarkable, which makes me wonder..

Edited February 28, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 2/27/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

you don't really need an explicit explanation why those alleged actions are only used according to the law if you're not a tinfoilhatter/ron paul supporter.

jesus christ dude, you are such a fucking twat it's not even funny at this point. holy shit

 

how do you even function while having such a crippling amount of cognitive dissonance? must be pretty stressful being so educated and also such an apologist for mass criminal activity

Edited February 28, 2014 by John Ehrlichman

  On 2/28/2014 at 12:01 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

new First Look story about how the British intelligence agencies spied on teenagers webcams and collected thousands of pornographic images, essentially that the GCHQ is collecting child porn off Yahoo. pretty fucking tight

 

how anyone who isn't either a full on sociopath, psychopath or on the pay roll for a government agency would still try to defend these mass spying programs at this point is pretty remarkable, which makes me wonder..

yes, that's exactly the purpose of GCHQ - collect and masturbate on as much child porn as possible, you knew it all along but now it's official.

Edited February 28, 2014 by eugene

  On 2/28/2014 at 12:10 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 1:14 PM, eugene said:

you don't really need an explicit explanation why those alleged actions are only used according to the law if you're not a tinfoilhatter/ron paul supporter.

jesus christ dude, you are such a fucking twat it's not even funny at this point. holy shit

 

how do you even function while having such a crippling amount of cognitive dissonance? must be pretty stressful being so educated and also such an apologist for mass criminal activity

 

what fucking dissonance !? that insane idea that government is actually working to people's benefit most of the time as can be observed in every day of your existence ?

you have constructed in your mind the idea that there's something really criminal going (for which of course there's no evidence) and continue to spam it like it's some unquestionable law of nature.

send from my nexus using fappatalk

  On 2/27/2014 at 11:43 PM, A/D said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 8:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:45 PM, A/D said:

It points to NSA collecting info on a domestic citizen and passing it off to the SOD, and then the DEA. It actually says that, right there.

 

yes, we're already clear on the fact that nsa can do it with appropriate warrant. does it say anywhere in that quote that it was done without a warrant and therefore illegally ?

Surely someone as smart as yourself could infer that implication from the paragraph where the prosecutor declined to go through with the case after finding out he couldn't use the NSA tip.

  On 2/27/2014 at 8:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/27/2014 at 7:45 PM, A/D said:

So what are the benefits? The government has never cited a case where the NSA aided in national security. Can you?

it says so all of the time but of course it won't go into specifics. if alleged capabilities of email/phone interceptions are true then of course it can exploit those to catch criminal/terrorists/whatever, why is is so hard to imagine ?

Wait, so you're saying it's not true, but if it is true, it's good?

 

the reason why such tips are difficult to use is exactly what the article deals with, but as i already said the obligation to keep those methods in secret doesn't mean the info was collected illegally.

 

you're grasping at straws here basically, if there would be clear evidence for unwarranted wiretap in those cases it would become the most talked about story and would basically seal the deal because it's the main point of contention, maybe you weren't following those developments close enough.