I wish there is a Twitter employee like Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning to leak those surveillance requests. Leaking documents seems to be the only way forward in the U.S.
Chelsea Manning, not Bradley
U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
121–130 of 196 posts
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If I'm following their logic correctly, you cannot justify looking at someone's Twitter DMs to stop a nuclear attack on a city
You can - with a targeted warrant. The part where it requires a sign-off from a judge is literally the moment where you justify looking at someone's Twitter DM.
(In rare (non-existing?) cases when warrant-based workflow is too slow, when you need access right fucking now, I think it would make sense to have self-issued warrants available as an option to federal officers, on the provision that self-issuing a warrant means you also lose your job by default, and have to apply in front of a court to ever be able to work in public services again; and abuse of that options are punished with jail time.)
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the US government made one request to stop a terrorist plot that they had some specific knowledge of, that would be okay in my eyes. How can we tell that they just didn't straight up lie about whether the one request was to stop a terrorist plot, and not to gather intel on political foes or ex girlfriends? With no oversight and no one allowed to advocate for the rights of the individuals under surveillance, I am…
A NSL doesn’t allow the government to ask for the contents of a DM. They would need a warrant for that, providing some checks and balances.
These statements are both false.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#124Maybe if we stopped voting with single issues in mind we could see that we have been funding terrorists with every new congressional budget bill for a long ass time, and the real way to stop terrorism is to defund our government sponsored terrorists who we know commit crimes every day, instead of worrying about terrorists we don't know about yet but need to find because our local terrorists tell us we need to. Just saying.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only difference is that someone proposed an ideal when talking about government, but not for companies. Why not use the ideal free market here as well?
Free markets are sustained by governments free of bribery and corruption. Otherwise you get monopolies and oligopolies as in the Gilded Age and arguably now.
Where is the government that has a history free of bribery and corruption?
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#126Twitter requires phone numbers. I wonder if the millions of US Americans whose stimulus checks got "lost" are somehow correlated to people that have criticized Trump on twitter.
That's some next level paranoia.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot envision any terrorist attack that poses an existential threat to the United States. Fighting terrorism is not a national security matter. Even the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world (not counting the atomic bombings of Japan, which were terroristic by definition but generally excluded from that classification as being carried out during a declared war by a with-a-return-address nation) was…
[flagged]
So your response to a well laid-out argument is "but there are people who disagree! Go find them!" followed by an attempt to discredit your parent commenter by claiming they can't possibly understand what they are talking about.
Not exactly convincing.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every aspect of the social safety net in the developed world? Political power shifts happen all the time in democratic republics as the populace gets fed up with the party/parties in power.
What social safety net? You mean like universal healthcare? Paid parental leave? Decent unemployment benefits?
8 hour work days, no child labor, Social Security, FDA. Look at anything that came out of the Great Depression and New Deal. Things would be a lot worse if governments ceded all power to corporations, which they basically did in the Gilded Age. To be clear, I also want what you wrote, healthcare, benefits, and parental leave, among others, but those only come about through strong governments.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#129Can we just ponder for a moment that we are being asked to believe that anything Twitter does or does not do could pose an existential threat to the United States? “National security” is a sham now and has been a sham every other time it has ever been used as a blanket override for human rights. Human rights to free expression are more important than any nation. This is just government spies trying to cover their ass…
> Human rights to free expression are more important than any nation.
Well put.
Re: U.S. judge blocks Twitter's bid to reveal government surveillance requests
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free markets are sustained by governments free of bribery and corruption. Otherwise you get monopolies and oligopolies as in the Gilded Age and arguably now.
Where is the government that has a history free of bribery and corruption?
None, of course, that is true of any organization of incentive-driven autonomous agents, such as humans. However, governments are not explicitly designed to make money, whereas corporations are literally explicitly designed to make as much money as possible. Money equals power to some extent, so corporations cannot be as useful as governments if you're optimizing for the wellbeing of citizenry.