Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 300 posts

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#191

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #101
ComradeTaco wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is amusing. He'll say something absolutely obscene, then his surrogates will say that he meant something different and slightly less obscene. Then supporters will go to great lengths to translate his words into an extremely favorable reading that actually isn't obscene at all. We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says.

>We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says. Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.

It would be if he wasn't a demented narcissist. His inability to ignore even the smallest trifle that casts him in negative light shows the extent of his mental illness.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#192

Post by colanderman »

grandalf wrote: post #43

While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…

Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement.

That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#193

Post by Bartweiss »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #90
Bartweiss wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because he's "good" on this issue doesn't change that... You have to deny them victories, even on issues that you support I understand this argument when it's something like a good stance on education, with bad stances on abortion and the environment. There are lots of people on the left who would share that education stance, and they should be championed instead. But that's really, really not the case on surv…

It means primary Feinstein from the left. Even if you lose you will have scared her. It means you don't surrender the issue. It means that you use this as an opportunity to hit Paul on the issues he's bad on. You thank him for making sense for once and the point out how he's opposed to the voting rights act. I'm not saying that we should be soft on democrats. I'm saying that they are the only party that doesn't activ…

> I'm saying that they are the only party that doesn't actively portray you as a villain to their base.

On surveillance? They do. High-profile Democrats consistently talk about privacy advocates and encryption developers/users as threats to the security of the country. This is my point - surveillance is perhaps the most nastily bipartisan issue going.

More broadly: I absolutely support primary challenges from the outside. But I see no particular reason to pretend that Feinstein is any more open to change stance on this issue than your conservative of choice; if anything she's more unapologetically pro-surveillance than Republican moderates like McCain.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#194

Post by Bartweiss »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #83
Bartweiss wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should have become pretty clear that this wasn't partisan when an outgoing Obama helped ramp up surveillance in full knowledge of who was next. Seeing people treat this as a D/R fight when Udall and Feinstein are viciously opposed to one another is bizarre to me.

Jesus Christ. Who do you think you can influence? Do you honestly believe that you can sway enough republicans to get anything important done? People who don't see the republicans for what they are is pretty bizarre to me. We have a two party system. Which one do you think you could have an impact on?

On surveillance? I genuinely don't know. Across Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein, and the rest, there's really no evidence that the Democrats are any more open-minded than the Republicans.

From a federal government perspective, the intelligence community is a tool; it's not a terminal goal (where I think one party is obviously more reasonable than the other), it's an intermediate step to achieving terminal goals. Neither party seems interested in restricting their power (even to restrict the power of their opponents) or to give a damn about the incidental harms caused by surveillance tools.

This is why I get so irritated by the argument that mechanical approaches to privacy are techno-solutionism. The same people pursuing strong encryption lead the political fight, but they're viciously opposed by both parties. On surveillance, anything resembling the political establishment in either party has proved utterly immovable.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#195

Post by 55555 »

colanderman wrote: post #192
grandalf wrote: post #43

While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…

Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement. That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.

Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in order to satisfy the electorate. But with those disclaimers, as someone who has done a lot of document editing in Photoshop for the past 15 years, I found this video beyond convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWmWO18GTc8

Regarding Trump's claim that Trump Tower(?) was tapped, I find it very suspicious that Obama's reaction was a lawyered non-denial-denial relayed by an intermediary. Whenever people are accused of crimes and they do anything other than simply deny it, you should be somewhat suspicious. When they use weasel words or clever phrasing, be suspicious. I predicted Theranos' issues something like 8 months in advance due to this; Elizabeth Holmes never simply said "these reports are wrong because our technology works" (because she knew she would be open to lawsuits after the fact if she said as much). Just my 2 cents; ofcourse nobody knows for sure at this point.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#196

Post by ak4g »

grandalf wrote: post #95
ak4g wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pragmatism is a principle.

> Pragmatism is a principle. Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.

Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding.

And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#197

Post by irishcoffee »

grandalf wrote: post #155
squallviii wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another perspective on Snowden's claims https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/exclusive/first-ciphe... He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. This is why you don't see raw intelligence from his leaks. From my own experiences working at the agency, GP is correct in that very few people can task FISA data.

> He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself. My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on. Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other…

> My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on.

This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#198

Post by 3131s »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #173
3131s wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comments in this thread are repetitive and totally devoid of content. The one above is a non sequitur that is unnecessarily aggressive. I think it is you not paying attention if you haven't noticed yet that Democrats and Republicans are nearly the same and equally blunderous and corrupted. They both support war, surveillance, mass incarceration, mass deportation, drug prohibition, and more. Barack Obama was a te…

I'm not saying republicans are corrupt. Democrats are corrupt. I can work with corrupt. Republicans are crazy and dangerous. Keep fiddling while Rome burns. Hopefully no one will be aggressive to you...but then you never really had to worry about that did you?

Why do you make that assumption about me?

I get your gripe with the GOP. We all do. But your posts don't have much depth or add anything new to the discussion.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#199

Post by 3131s »

dredmorbius wrote: post #174
sctb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to have the occasional political discussion on Hacker News, we're going to have to please refrain from calling names like "apocalyptic cult".

When that's what senior GOP officials are calling the party themselves, and have been for years, well before the recent election cycle, and how it's referred to in mainstream media, you might care to reconsider your position. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-apocalypti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2011/09/republ... ht…

A single former GOP staffer is what 4 out of 5 of those articles are referencing. The last one doesn't even contain the words "apocalyptic cult".

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#200

Post by unclebucknasty »

55555 wrote: post #195
colanderman wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement. That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.

Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in ord…

You watched a video that is over an hour long and you generally seem to have put a lot of thought into the veracity of Obama's birth certificate for someone who claims to "not particularly care" about it.

Then you move on to discuss your feeling that Obama wiretapped Trump, based only on the fact that Trump said it and you find the "style" of Obama's denial unconvincing. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that Trump himself offered zero evidence of this claim and is even trying to walk it back.

The short is that you seem to believe whatever fits your personal narrative. Worse, you try to convince others to blindly believe divisive, destructive, nonsensical conspiracy theories without a scintilla of proof.

Saying "we don't know for sure" is dissembling nonsense that can be stated of any claim. It's a transparent device for sowing disinformation without challenge. One could just as easily say, "I think you're a rapist. Of course, I don't know for sure."

Unchecked disinformation wreaks havoc on democracy. This nonsense is literally destroying our country.

Post reply on HN