291–300 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Line gets fuzzy when ISPs, in most part, are government-backed monopolies (I'm "lucky" because both Verion and Comcast covers my area)
He is against them being government backed monopolies. According to him, and I agree, we should be able to switch ISP's at will. If we do not want an ISP selling our data we should have the freedom to move to one that doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down...Trump apparently shares Obama's... That proposition treats the decades since the wall came down as static, without any action or directional policy shifts in Russia, U.S. or the world. You later acknowledge, without truly accounting for, dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and direct attacks…
> Your guy is. I'm not defending Trump. His campaign strategy was to say somewhat ludicrous things and then when challenged, double down on them, thus amplifying the PR impact. To be quite clear, for every person who socially shared an article slamming one of Trump's ridiculous statements, perhaps 90% of their friends agreed, but the message also reached the 10% who approved of Trump's approach, or saw in it evidence…
Sure, you're defending him, by normalizing it through false moral equivalence. You can't say Trump has done anything wrong without invoking HRC, GWB, or someone else. That also happens to be a well-known Russian propaganda technique.
>So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric
Again, it has already gone beyond rhetoric, which I've noted exhaustively, including the RNC platform change. And, ignoring what he says is not wise in any case, as it sets the stage for policy. Further, contrary to what you state, he has not done "a 180 on so many other campaign promises".
>This is not the point of my comment... It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump
These two statements contradict, and the latter points back to your previous post that attempted to conflate Trump's position on Russia with Obama's. In fact, they couldn't be more different. Start with the biggest: sanctions.
>do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
More propaganda in lock-stop with Russian fear-mongering. As if the choices are a.) defer to and appease Russia or b.) nuclear holocaust. And again, in your view, Russia never has responsibility in any of it. Invade countries, attack democratic processes, etc. And, the onus is on the U.S. to simply try to find some "trade equilibrium".
You should consider being more open about what you really believe. If you think you're in the right, then there's really no need to dissemble and hide. You just lose credibility. Just make your case in the open and people can process it on the merits. As it is, you repeatedly contradict yourself and morph positions, and much of what you write is demonstrably false.
So, feel free to continue solo with your walls of words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the agency submitting requests are denied often, the judge would look at future requests from that agency more closely and deny at an even higher rate. You don't go to the judge with garbage for probable cause. More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions. https://www.quora.com…
> More directly, looking at the approval rate for FISA requests without also looking at the high approval rate for search warrants is going to cause you to reach nonsensical conclusions So you are arguing that search warrants are always rubber stamped? Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public , there is great pressure on the judge and law enforcement to act pro…
No, you're arguing that FISA warrants are rubber-stamped, but if you believe that, you must also believe that search warrants are rubber-stamped, which is the "nonsensical conclusion" I alluded to earlier.
> Seemingly, in a public environment where search warrants and the justification for them is public....
Search warrants and the justification for them are not guaranteed to be public and can be sealed like FISA warrants, and both can and have been unsealed following legal challenge. Therein lies part of your error. The second part of your error is that FISA warrants can only be used to search the records of non-citizen foreigners, who do not have fourth amendment rights, and people who have already been proven to be agents of a foreign power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right. Trump stopped calling for this after he was briefed on the metadata program and told "hey we have the best registry you could ever want, no need to call for one, it's already built and at your disposal". Did you forget that this metadata collection ended? Did you forget that when it was collected, the only way to query it was to find anonymized IDs of contacts to issue court orders to deanonymize? I explaine…
> Did you forget that this metadata collection ended? I do not believe this to be the case. We have been reassured multiple times that our agencies are not eavesdropping, etc., yet revelations have continued to emerge that these reassurances have been lies. > Whatever you call it, this happens everywhere, The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world. It (and the first and second amendments) are even unique in t…
Did you forget that we have had no evidence that our agencies are eavesdropping despite having access to an indiscriminate drop of data from Snowden?
> The fourth amendment is fairly unique in the world.
As is every single other American law. You have given no justification for why in-house counsel should treat the Fourth Amendment differently from any other Bill of Rights issue. If in-house counsel believes a program's legality can be justified, the program will proceed -- this happens regardless if counsel is retained by a government agency or a private entity.
> And why do you defend them!
I am not defending the authors of the Patriot Act. I am correcting your obscene misconceptions of what programs were actually in place. The programs you thought were in place would be clearly unconstitutional like the sections of the Patriot Act that were struck down in 2007, but the programs that were actually running were not even close to what you have somehow come to imagine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I just read them again. There is clearly a great effort being made to embellish the evidence so that it seems like state actor caliber work. You very clearly didn't read them before this when you said there was no evidence other than that Russia might want to meddle in the election, and from your post, it seems unlikely you read them "again" just now. The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respecti…
> The hacks used implants that were only ever used by the respective groups, which had only targeted organizations that the Russian government was pursuing and were known to be RIS groups So you're arguing that if you were state sponsored intelligence agency and you were using a crude technique that could be easily detected, that you'd only target organizations that your state had obvious strategic interest in? Your…
It is clear from the rest of your comments that your perception of the world is divorced from reality, that no matter how many reports from the FBI and private security firms confirm the Russian link with none saying otherwise, you believe you know better. There was nothing horrifying about HRC.
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…
> It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans? If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administra…
No, because at any time Obama could have terminated the process and asked for legislation to dismantle the means.
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…
It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Repeat after me: It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeat after me: It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen.
> It does not where he was born. His mother is a US Citizen, and that makes him a US citizen. There is a dispute whether citizenship-by-maternityy is "natural born" under the Constitution (there's an argument that that "natural born" is equivalent to the birthright guarantee of the 14th Amendment, and no decisive case law.)
Would there be any dispute if my wife gave birth while we were on vacation in France?
I suspect that those who really hold to that definition are primarily concerned about the amount of melanin in his skin.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't look too promising so far.
It's too soon to say. If he does end up serving a constituency, it'll arguably be one that's been long underserved. But personally, rueful cynicism is about the best that I can manage.