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

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:02 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:50 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:23 AM, eugene said:

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

lol NDAA publicly sanctioned except it's in court review right now to determine constitutionality, because it's questionably unconstitutional.

 

who passed it initially, the elected government or the devil?

 

You've just made the point yourself dude. Officials appointed by the people passing laws that violate the constitutional rights of the populous.

If this isn't a direct relationship with corruption I don't know what could be. I mean this just shows that congress itself is corrupt. If the elected officials can't be trusted doesn't that indicate the entire system is somewhat poisoned? Time for a renovation yeah?

Anyway, as per my previous post. I bow out. But I'm labeouf in this instance, but like I bowed out not you. If you can get your head around that.

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:28 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:23 AM, eugene said:

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

Well laws are only as legitimate as the lawmakers. It's illegal to be openly gay in some countries, so the fact that something is legal says nothing about whether it serves the well-being of humanity or a given population or whoever.

 

 

I would say those laws are shity laws that serve the gov't more than anyone.

 

in proper democratic states it's exactly what it means, especially when you have constitution that guards human and civil rights. also i don't remember those lawmakers that came up with patriot act being accused of corruption or something (though i wasn't following this stuff too closely at the time), it just was something that made sense in that time and if you don't like it you can vote for people who promise to revoke it.

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:09 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:02 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:50 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:23 AM, eugene said:

those are all publicly sanctioned policies, not abuse, so i don't understand the logical connection between those and potential abuse of nsa tools.

 

lol NDAA publicly sanctioned except it's in court review right now to determine constitutionality, because it's questionably unconstitutional.

 

who passed it initially, the elected government or the devil?

 

 

You've just made the point yourself dude. Officials appointed by the people passing laws that violate the constitutional rights of the populous.

 

If this isn't a direct relationship with corruption I don't know what could be. I mean this just shows that congress itself is corrupt. If the elected officials can't be trusted doesn't that indicate the entire system is somewhat poisoned? Time for a renovation yeah?

 

Anyway, as per my previous post. I bow out. But I'm labeouf in this instance, but like I bowed out not you. If you can get your head around that.

 

they wouldn't have been able to pass it if it was blatantly violating constitution. i guess some people found it questionable and go to court over it, you wanna argue that those who filed a lawsuit are more representative of general populace than those who passed it ?

  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.

Such epic bullshit:

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/82414-how-many-watmm-trolls-are-paid-by-their-governments-to-be-here/?p=2134041

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:46 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i love the idea that describing the inherent bad side of human nature ie: people colluding in secret to gain power over others, the insatiable desire for more power, basic greed are now called 'conspiratard theories'. Its pretty hilarious how the term 'conspiracy theory' in and of itself, the act of peole working in concert is used as a manipulative and discussion stifling adhominem perjorative, very pathetic and very sad not only for the people who are peddling this intellectual dishonesty but sadder for the people who back down and act ashamed for sounding 'too paranoid' about describing accurately the reality in front of their fucking faces

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:44 AM, andihow said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:34 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i really think we would all be a lot better off if we weren't getting sucked into Eugene's attempt to distract us away from the meat of these types of stories. Can we please just stage a protest where we all put him on ignore? Of course the people who agree with him shouldn't join the protest. Its just really pathetic how without fail everyone tries to argue with him, when he's literally an immovable wall who never admits defeat or being in the wrong. Please just fucking stop

 

whether Eugene is actually being paid to do this or not ( and i suspect he's not since he has become himself a subject of mockery on the forum, and 'outed' many times in jest) the effect is the same, to distract us away from extremely important stories that any critically thinking civil rights appreciating person should be upset by. Dont play his game, because his game is a shit show. And in case anyone wonders why i don't respond to Eugene's attempts to bait me directly is because i put the cunt on ignore years ago, I only see his posts in the forms of quotations from others.

 

meh, i dont think we should be punishing people for their opinions, no matter how wrong or silly they may be. its possible that this dude is just indoctrinated by his surroundings and really believes what he is saying - either way until we have proof that he is here with malicious intent to derail threads i don't think its right to penalize him...

 

that being said why dont your start building a case against him and submit it to joyrex.

..for DEMOCRACY.

 

inb4 internet is serious business

 

its just pretty remarkable how time and time again people continuously try to engage with him as if he's a rational human being who is willing to admit being wrong or conceding when shown facts that counter his claims. I can't think of a single time he's done this, I don't see how it's a punishment to ignore someone who is clearly trying to muddy the waters and actually intellectually weaken these types of discussions, which is exactly the opposite of what he claims hes doing. I think he's just a really good troll

i quite openly put myself in a very falsifiable position where my argument will fall when provided with proper proof, namely show me abuse/unquestionable illegality of the programs that snowden and co revealed and i'll concede.

all i got so far is "lol dude, but this is obvious and has been done so many times look at all those greenwald articles, how can he be wrong ??", but when i actually ask people to point directly at those abuses in the docs that have leaked they're are unable to do so. so who's being intellectually dishonest here ?

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:24 AM, 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.

Such epic bullshit:

 

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/82414-how-many-watmm-trolls-are-paid-by-their-governments-to-be-here/?p=2134041

 

existence of capabilities that can spy on people on a mass scale doesn't mean that actual mass surveillance of americans is taking place, that was my main point in all other previous arguments on the topic.

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:47 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:24 AM, 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.

Such epic bullshit:

 

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/82414-how-many-watmm-trolls-are-paid-by-their-governments-to-be-here/?p=2134041

 

existence of capabilities that can spy on people on a mass scale doesn't mean that actual mass surveillance of americans is taking place, that was my main point in all other previous arguments on the topic.

 

If you don't acknowledge that mass surveilance is actually happening, then...well...I kinda think you're being purposefully obtuse. Google is your friend.

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:40 AM, eugene said:

i quite openly put myself in a very falsifiable position where my argument will fall when provided with proper proof, namely show me abuse/unquestionable illegality of the programs that snowden and co revealed and i'll concede.

no prob

Secret Court Faulted NSA for Collecting Domestic Data:

  Quote

 

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency violated the Constitution for three years by collecting tens of thousands of purely domestic communications without sufficient privacy protection, according to a secret national-security court ruling.

 

In the strongly worded 2011 ruling, released Wednesday by the Obama administration, the court criticized the NSA for misrepresenting its practices to the court. It noted that the illegal collection was the third instance in less than three years in which the government made a "substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program," specifically how the NSA collected Internet communications and phone data.

 

The court ruling includes estimates suggesting the NSA collected as many as 56,000 purely domestic communications a year.

and here's a separate report from a FISC document also linked here:

  Quote

Notwithstanding this and many similar prior representations, there in fact had been systemic overcollection since [redacted]. On [redacted] the government provided written notice of yet another form of substantial non-compliance discovered by NSA OGC. . . This overcollection, which had occurred continuously since the initial authorization . . . , included the acquisition of [redacted]. . . The government later advised that this continuous overcollection acquired many other types of data and that "[v]irtually every PR/TT record" generated by this program included some data that had not been authorized for collection.

and here's a stupid surveillance lol just because:

NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests

if you read just one, go with the first one.

i don't need to acknowledge anything, you(s) need to present proof of mass surveillance happening. i hope that we're clear on the fact that asking the court to wiretap or to access the collected data on someone can't really be considered as mass surveillance.

it would be nice if there was a way to simply pin a political thread with nobody in it to fuck it up and distract people away from the actual content being presented. like a thread about the Snowden leaks only with links to articles including counter arguments from government shills and intellectual cowards. Nobody would be allowed to post anything in it besides article links and a quoted synopsis.

then this way there would actually be a very informative thread for people that wouldn't get totally overshadowed by Eugene's obvious deceptive distractionary tactics

  On 2/28/2014 at 1:54 AM, A/D said:

 

No one made a play for revolution. I just feel like the people who do are short-sighted. That's a different thread though.

oh don't get me wrong, i am very much making a play for a revolution and encouraging as many people as i possibly can to do the same, im just not advocating for a violent one, which is what your post said. I think we can only survive with a revolution of consciousness, not a US government coop. Im not sure what you mean by it being short-sighted to feel like fundamental change from the bottom up is required to take us off a clearly very bad path our own government is speeding down.

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:57 AM, eugene said:

i don't need to acknowledge anything, you(s) need to present proof of mass surveillance happening. i hope that we're clear on the fact that asking the court to wiretap or to access the collected data on someone can't really be considered as mass surveillance.

The revelation of mass collection of metadata was all over the news like 6-8 months ago. The government was all like "chill bro, it's just metadata" and then there was a month worth of public discussion about metadata and whether that was intrusive or not.

So this isn't like a fringe conspiracy theory or anything at this point. It's pretty well established.

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:50 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:40 AM, eugene said:

i quite openly put myself in a very falsifiable position where my argument will fall when provided with proper proof, namely show me abuse/unquestionable illegality of the programs that snowden and co revealed and i'll concede.

 

no prob

 

Secret Court Faulted NSA for Collecting Domestic Data:

 

  Quote

 

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency violated the Constitution for three years by collecting tens of thousands of purely domestic communications without sufficient privacy protection, according to a secret national-security court ruling.

 

In the strongly worded 2011 ruling, released Wednesday by the Obama administration, the court criticized the NSA for misrepresenting its practices to the court. It noted that the illegal collection was the third instance in less than three years in which the government made a "substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program," specifically how the NSA collected Internet communications and phone data.

 

The court ruling includes estimates suggesting the NSA collected as many as 56,000 purely domestic communications a year.

 

 

and here's a separate report from a FISC document also linked here:

 

  Quote

Notwithstanding this and many similar prior representations, there in fact had been systemic overcollection since [redacted]. On [redacted] the government provided written notice of yet another form of substantial non-compliance discovered by NSA OGC. . . This overcollection, which had occurred continuously since the initial authorization . . . , included the acquisition of [redacted]. . . The government later advised that this continuous overcollection acquired many other types of data and that "[v]irtually every PR/TT record" generated by this program included some data that had not been authorized for collection.

 

 

according to the article, the nsa itself uncovered, reported and eventually corrected this problem and the government revelead this incident. so this really doesn't strike me as this kind of intentional abuse/illegality that the nsa was suspected of here (and i think you'll agree that this is not what you had in mind yourself). personally i don't even see how this is an invasion of privacy if the data wasn't actually accessed but only collected automatically, but i won't argue with u.s. judges on this.

Eugene are you crazy? The NSA openly explains their mass surveillance plans on their own fucking website.
They're currently building a data center capable of storing many exabytes of data.. Just look at this.

Straight from the belly of the beast:

http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

and

http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

lol

pwnd

  On 2/28/2014 at 3:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 2/28/2014 at 2:57 AM, eugene said:

i don't need to acknowledge anything, you(s) need to present proof of mass surveillance happening. i hope that we're clear on the fact that asking the court to wiretap or to access the collected data on someone can't really be considered as mass surveillance.

 

The revelation of mass collection of metadata was all over the news like 6-8 months ago. The government was all like "chill bro, it's just metadata" and then there was a month worth of public discussion about metadata and whether that was intrusive or not.

 

So this isn't like a fringe conspiracy theory or anything at this point. It's pretty well established.

 

what does collection of data has to do with mass surveillance ? those are clearly very different concepts.

i mean your data and everything you did on the internet is already collected on various servers among various companies and the nsa can access it after getting a warrant, and it looks like the same procedure is applied when it collects the data by itself.

Hey this sounds like fun! Look what we have to look forward to:

  Quote

 

 

Why We Collect Your Data

In the past, domestic law enforcement agencies collected data AFTER a suspect had been identified. This often resulted in lost intelligence and missed opportunities. But what if data could be collected in advance, BEFORE the target was known? What if the mere act of collecting data could result in the identification of new targets?

What if we could build a national data warehouse containing information about every person in the United States? Thanks to secret interpretations of the PATRIOT ACT, top-secret Fourth Amendment exceptions allowed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and broad cooperation at the local, state, and federal level, we can!

  Quote

 

 

• The Socio-cultural Content in Language (SCIL) Program will develop novel algorithms, techniques and technologies to uncover the social actions and characteristics of members of a group (ie; within discussion forums, online comment sections, social media, etc.) by examining the language used in relation to acceptable social and cultural norms.

  Quote

 

 

Every day, people leave a digital trail of electronic breadcrumbs as they go about their daily routine. They go to work using electronic fare cards; drive through intersections with traffic cameras; walk down the street past security cameras; surf the internet; pay for purchases with credit/debit cards; text or call their friends; and on and on.

  Quote

 

n the spirit of openness and transparency, here is a partial list of current and planned future data collection targets:

• internet searches
• websites visited
• emails sent and received
• social media activity (Facebook, Twitter, etc)
• blogging activity including posts read, written, and commented on - View our patent
• videos watched and/or uploaded online
• photos viewed and/or uploaded online
• mobile phone GPS-location data
• mobile phone apps downloaded
• phone call records - View our patent
• text messages sent and received
• Skype video calls
• online purchases and auction transactions
• credit card/ debit card transactions
• financial information
• legal documents
• travel documents
• health records
• cable television shows watched and recorded
• commuter toll records
• electronic bus and subway passes / Smartpasses
• facial recognition data from surveillance cameras
• educational records
• arrest records
• driver license information

Now shut the fuck up.

  On 2/28/2014 at 3:26 AM, fiznuthian said:

Eugene are you crazy? The NSA openly explains their mass surveillance plans on their own fucking website.

They're currently building a data center capable of storing many exabytes of data.. Just look at this.

 

 

 

Straight from the belly of the beast:

 

http://nsa.gov1.info/data/index.html

 

and

http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

 

 

lol

In all seriousness, the NSA actually is building a very, very large data center. Who knows why or what's going to go on there. The NSA is denying allegations that the data will deep that deep, but.. exabytes?

I personally have a bigger beef with Monsanto, which seems to have a great track record for sticking it's corporate dick in congressional pussy

well hey look, the GCHQ is making news again today.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo?t=dXNlcmlkPTQ3NzMwODM1LGVtYWlsaWQ9NTE1MQ==

Yahoo webcam images from millions of users intercepted by GCHQ

  Quote

 

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of "a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy".

i have a *crazy* thought, what if the NSA allowed for powerful corporations to make headway using their technology such as Monsanto, and even BP

oh wait sorry Snowden's leaks showed they are already doing this

this government is no longer seperate from the powerful corporations supposedly 'under' the government

  On 2/28/2014 at 4:09 AM, luke viia said:

 

well hey look, the GCHQ is making news again today.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo?t=dXNlcmlkPTQ3NzMwODM1LGVtYWlsaWQ9NTE1MQ==

 

Yahoo webcam images from millions of users intercepted by GCHQ

 

  Quote

 

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of "a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy".

 

i already posted this in between the Eugene is a pathological liar marathon , pretty disturbing that the government is now trying to fuck with our orgasms. If anyone here still wants to call it 'paranoid' to cover up your webcam while not in use, please say it here so i can respond with 'fuck you'

lol i see, my bad. i clearly need some training on how to intercept data.

no worries, im just very annoyed that anybody here lets someone couching denialism in quasi intellectual/reasonable language derail extremely important information time and time again. There is nothing left to deny or dismiss or down-play, especially as the leaks continue, and I think more people need to be confident in this belief and stop falling prey to fake-ass moderate 'you guys are overreacting' coward-shit, please let us be done with that, this is very serious information, you guys have to trust your own intuition a little bit more and not worry about the guy who's always in the back of the room telling you to calm down. We've reached a tipping point, and we need to keep tipping...hard

fluoride did 911