231–240 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure and that applies (at least) to the EU (and friends), US, UK, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, India, etc.
Yeah but a lot of those are not democracies, nor do much business at intel level with the US.
Why would it matter if they "do intel business" with the US, EU, UK, etc. ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, don’t have Twitter account and/or app installed and you should be good?
Also, no Signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nine times out of ten, the person saying this will turn around and complain about all the "political hacks" running things, referring to political appointees with no experience or background in the area of government they are tasked to run. The term "unelected bureaucrats" applies to people like...I dunno, the director of the NIH and field office managers. Heck, even a police captain is an "unelected bureaucrat". She…
The director of the NIH is a prime example of a position the people should have direct control over. As is the police captain. Are you claiming otherwise? Have we really forgotten about 2020 so soon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article [0] lists several cases of warrantless searches, one of which was in Florida. Apparently that 100 mile radius isn't just from the Canadian border or the Mexican border, it's also 100 miles from any coast, which means that 2/3 of the population lives within that radius. As far as "reasonable suspicion" goes, I'm increasingly unwilling to support the right of law enforcement to independently, without overs…
Where is the "warrantless search"? > [CBP officers] demanded proof of citizenship from the passengers > CBP officers boarded a bus in Bangor, Maine None of those are searches, they are temporary detentions with strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry. To wit: > most people have no idea that they can refuse to be searched at a roadblock or bus boarding Ignorance of the law != warrantless searches. Arm your…
I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one.
I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time. Most Americans don't, that's why we still don't have a proper national ID. I consider that to be a warrantless search regardless of what the law currently says.
> Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
I find that most people who pretend to speak for "the Founding Fathers" are extremely ignorant of the actual motivations of these people who lived 200 years ago. I won't pretend to speak for them, but I will note that I strongly suspect that the smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today.
Regardless, what they wanted is immaterial—they set up this country for us, and presumably expected us to lead it after their deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the US has a 4th Amendment-free zone within 100 miles of all national borders in the name of national security, I expect the same justification and level of oversight here. https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
Poor school kiddos. :( Anyway, if you prefer text, click the transcript. I recommend listening though, if you have time!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a better pro-tip- don't do criminal things.
where's the fun in that??? Live a little, be a little bit evil. Like 5% evil
Obviously there will be people who choose to be mostly evil regardless of what everyone else is doing, but society trying not to be evil in general is still the best case scenario.
This, to me, is the more disturbing part of the article: > In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said in a statement. "Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests. What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? IMO such gag orders sh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah he's awesome. /s In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states…
Well it's pretty unlikely such a law would stand up in any court even small claim's court
... Also, as sibling commenters pointed out, anti-BDS gag laws are everywhere in this country, and have yet to be struck down.
I noted that Apple says the governments in question are allies of the United States. I wonder if this is a case of American intelligence outsourcing the surveillance of American citizens to foreign intelligence. If that is indeed the case, I’d expect a quid pro quo.
> I wonder if this is a case of American intelligence outsourcing the surveillance of American citizens to foreign intelligence. If that is indeed the case, I’d expect a quid pro quo. Yet it is the US government who revealed it: "In a letter to the Department of Justice, Senator Ron Wyden said foreign officials were demanding the data from Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) Google and Apple (AAPL.O). Although details were sparse,…
I noted that Apple says the governments in question are allies of the United States. I wonder if this is a case of American intelligence outsourcing the surveillance of American citizens to foreign intelligence. If that is indeed the case, I’d expect a quid pro quo.