121–130 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thank you Snowden. Fuck you NSA. I'm going to turn that into a sticker and stick it on my laptop.
please make more then 1, i'll buy from you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden's document leaks, and by extension the journalists with whom he entrusted them to, were not restricted in scope to only disclosing illegal domestic collection activities. In fact, the majority of disclosures were foreign in nature, and of those, quite a few ran counter not only to American foreign policy and security interests, but Western interests in general. The articles exposing intelligence activities in…
oh, i didn't know your uncle Bob's spying on me (a "westerner") was in my interest. thank you so much for the enlightment! in other news, Indonesia's oppressive regime has been propped up by the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto
That said, I fail to see how such history should have any bearing on whether or not Indonesia is a valid signals intelligence target today. If anything, it provides compelling justification to continue such programs.
In my opinion, countries that have terrible human rights records generally lose their right to complain about privacy when spied on by countries with significantly better records.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments can use force on those they track. Corporations can't yet (they're working on that).
At the same time, the government has little reason to hassle people who aren't fringe minorities. Private companies have strong incentives to use data collection against the masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the words of 4th amendment jurisprudence, we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in items we voluntarily disclose to third parties. I would hope that thinking on this evolves, to the point that we have a reasonable expectation that information we've voluntarily disclosed to a third party stays between us and that third party. Because that is exactly my personal expectation, notwithstanding my other ex…
That is a matter of law, not thinking. We have specific laws in cases where you can expect that information you disclose to others should be kept secret. Attorney-client privilege, HIPAA, etc. That alone should tip you off that types of communication without such restrictions are not protected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just does what it's told. Actually, bureaucracies, especially defense and intelligence bureaucracies, have a culture and an agenda of their own. They wield enough power (both in absolute and complexity terms) to be able to push the political executive far beyond what said executive would have wanted. Do you think Barack Obama ever dreamed of authorizing drone strikes (i.e. assassination of civilians) around the…
I don't understand the question. The history of drones predates Barack Obama becoming a state senator of Illinois though. https://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-histor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Thank you Snowden. Fuck you NSA. While that's amusing, it's an imperfect summary of the problem. DOJ had the Patriot Act in a drawer before 9/11. The Patriot Act wasn't read in full by any member of the Senate before it was voted on. And Section 215 was grossly reinterpreted, by both Bush and Obama administrations, according to that section's author, Jim Sensenbrenner. It's said NSA doesn't have a moral compass, it'…
> It just does what it's told. Actually, bureaucracies, especially defense and intelligence bureaucracies, have a culture and an agenda of their own. They wield enough power (both in absolute and complexity terms) to be able to push the political executive far beyond what said executive would have wanted. Do you think Barack Obama ever dreamed of authorizing drone strikes (i.e. assassination of civilians) around the…
I think this quote applies here: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - Mussolini
Here's the actual decision: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf Concurrence by Judge Sack: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/clap... Here's what struck me as the most interesting comment from Sack - "Considering the issue of advocacy in the context of deliberations involving alleged state secrets, and, more broadly, the ʺleakʺ by Edward Snowden that led to this litigation, calls…
It's times like this that really make me miss Groklaw.