41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 06:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You prove how stupid you are by your non-answers and evasions.


No, no, ci. That's not the proof. The proof is him thinking that his non-answers and evasions have any effect on our thinking.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 07:20 pm
You have guys have totally ruined this thread, it used to be interesting, a give and take of certain opinions with information being provided by various posters such as walter and jbd. Now it is post after post of ci and spendis.. accusing Frank of being stupid because he holds a difference of opinion than they do.

I tried to go back and get the right initials for her name, but its too many pages.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 07:24 pm
@revelette2,
You're doing the same thing: challenge what I say, not who I attack because they don't talk about the subject of this thread.

You know the questions I've posed to Frank concerning my interpretation of the Constitution and amendments. Why don't you answer them if you can.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 07:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You haven't said anything to challenge other than posting the amendment on a thread.

Some judges have ruled against the vast spying and some of them rule for it, Frank has said the issue is complex to decide unless you have degree or some kind of background to study all the surrounding laws and issues. Or words to that effect. You just simply say they are wrong and then accuse Frank of being stupid because he doesn't agree with you. There is not much to challenge.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 07:41 pm
@spendius,
When has Frank wanted ya'll to change your thinking? In what post? He hasn't. He just simply says that because you have an opinion, having that opinion doesn't change any laws.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 08:38 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
Frank has said the issue is complex to decide unless you have degree or some kind of background to study all the surrounding laws and issues.


Once more the constitution is as clear as can be on the subject however the question of whether the courts will this time enforce the constitution is surely in question but not because the constitutional issues are complex.

There was no real constitutional issues complex or otherwise that people had a right to peacefully protest the country involvement in World War One even those the courts turn their backs and did allowed citizens to be sentence to twenty years in prison for doing so.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 08:44 pm
@revelette2,
You're doing it again; you're not challenging what I said about the Constitution on privacy.

anonymously99stwin
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 11:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You're doing it again; you're not challenging what I said about the Constitution on privacy.


What's to challenge?
0 Replies
 
anonymously99stwin
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 11:06 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The proof is him thinking that his non-answers and evasions have any effect on our thinking.


I disagree.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 11:23 pm
@anonymously99stwin,
YOu wouldn't know; you're always too confused. Laughing Laughing
anonymously99stwin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 11:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Funny funny, I sarcastically speaking.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 04:46 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
accusing Frank of being stupid because he holds a difference of opinion than they do.


What can I do about people who can't read properly?

Apisa is stupid because he thinks A2K is a New Jersey park bench. Or a meet in Lola's NYC apartment which I saw pictures of.

I think Eddie is a dummy for becoming overwhelmed by his conditioning on the sanctity of the Constitution. And I have said so. Had I had his wizardry with computers I would have milked it dry.

I have never had any other expectation than that electronic communications were being monitored. There were "secure" phones when I was a kid.

The information provided by Walt and the other person you mentioned, who I assume to be JPB, is second-hand posturing gleaned from PR stunts.

The direction we are moving in is at least of some interest. Not much mind you. "Ours not to reason why".

Starve the beast.

There is no tax on unprepared food. Why?

Jesus was a dummy too. That's the sodding point. His mission was a complete failure when he was executed. Eddie and Brad might become cultural heroes in times to come. Who knows?

My "opinion" is that surveillance is necessary because we are ungovernable without it. And I don't expect competence from organisations such as the NSA. Nor do I expect them to have any other consideration than watching their own backs. The idea that they are patriotic and bending every sinew to save our lives is laughable.

Apisa does not address this thread, or any other I have seen, with the slightest respect. That's why he's stupid.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 06:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Again, evasion.

Repeating your stupidity is on the par!


Have no idea of what "on the par" means. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 06:39 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

When has Frank wanted ya'll to change your thinking? In what post? He hasn't. He just simply says that because you have an opinion, having that opinion doesn't change any laws.


Thank you, Revelette. And you are correct.

It seems these guys consider asking them to keep an open mind is an insult.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 09:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
It seems these guys consider asking them to keep an open mind is an insult.
I don't know whom exactly you mean with "these guys".
But I suggest, you don't outlaw yourself from keeping an open mind.
spendius
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 09:28 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
He just simply says that because you have an opinion, having that opinion doesn't change any laws.


Of course not, but if you persuade enough people to accept the opinion it certainly can, and does, change laws. In fact it is the source of most changes in the law that are not driven by necessity.

And these sorts of debate are how opinions are changed.

You, and Apisa, are rubbishing A2K with that sort of vacuous statement and it is hard to see what you are here for if you believe such balderdash.

How would the female sex come from education in genteel accomplishments, such as needlework and playing the harp, to Secretary of State, if an opinion had not set the ball rolling?

Your, and Apisa's silly criticism applied the the Suffragettes. And a lot else which you take for granted.

I think you both need to get some reading done before feeling qualified to gob-off on an international debate forum about serious matters.

It is obvious from the content of both your posts that neither of you have put yourself to the botheration of such a discipline.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 09:59 am
@BillRM,
The following is why it is all complex, we have admittedly made it so with the Patriot Act, nonetheless...The following is obviously from a person who disagrees with the government's position so it is slanted in that direction. Should make you all happy.

Quote:
Court Reveals 'Secret Interpretation' Of The Patriot Act, Allowing NSA To Collect All Phone Call Data

from the the-secret-interpretation-of-why-the-4th-amendment-is-dead dept


The FISA Court (FISC) today released a heavily redacted version of its July ruling approving the renewal of the bulk metadata collection on all phone calls from US phone providers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This is part of the "secret interpretation" as to how the FISC interprets the Patriot Act's "business records" or "tangible things" section to mean that the government can order a telco to turn over pretty much all records -- even as the very author of the law says it was written specifically to not allow this interpretation.

Much of the ruling is pretty much what you'd expect, given the way defenders of this program have been insisting that this is all very legal. It argues that Smith v. Maryland show that there are no privacy protections in data given to your telco. It goes on at length defending the third party doctrine, arguing that because some third party holds your data, you have no expectation of privacy. As many have argued, this is a ridiculous and antiquated view of the third party doctrine, not at all consistent with modern technology, but the FISC repeats it without question. While some have pointed out that even if single points of metadata might not be privacy violating, collecting all of them creates a new problem, the court rejects that entirely.

From there, there's a big discussion of whether or not "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation." This is a big part of where the concern lies. How can the government defend the claim that all records are "relevant to an authorized investigation." Here, the court compares the order to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which lets the government get access to records as well. And then the word games begin. Basically, it argues that because one law requires "specific and articulable facts" and that the information must be "material," while the other (the PATRIOT Act) does not, then the government doesn't need specific and articulable facts. Rather it just needs "a statement of facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to the investigation."

For non-content records production requests, such as the type sought here, Section 2703(c) provides a variety of mechanisms, including acquisition through a court order under Section 2703(d). Under this section, which is comparable to Section 215, the government must offer to the court "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." 2703(d) (emphasis added). Section 215, the comparable provision for foreign intelligence purposes, requires neither "specific and articulable facts" nor does it require that the information be "material." Rather, it merely requires a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records sought are relevant to the investigation. 50 U.S.C. That these two provisions apply to the production of the same type of records from the same type of providers is an indication that Congress intended this Court to apply a different, and in specific respects lower, standard to the government's Application under Section 215 than a court reviewing a request under Section 2703(d). Indeed, the Act version of FISA's business records provision required "specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. §1862(b)(2)(B) as it read on October 25, 2001. In enacting Section 215, Congress removed the requirements for "specific and articulable facts" and that the records pertain to "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Accordingly, now the government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215. To find otherwise would be to impose a higher burden -- one that Congress knew how to include in Section 215, but chose to dispense with.
Also, it argues that since Section 215 allows recipients of the order to challenge them and no telco ever has that this lends it to believe there are no problems with the law.
Second, Section 2703(d) permits the service provider to file a motion with a court to "quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause undue burden on such provider." Congress recognized that, even with the higher statutory standard for a production order under Section 2703(d), some requests authorized by a court would be "voluminous" and provided a means by which the provider could seek relief using a motion. Under Section 215, however, Congress provided a specific and complex statutory scheme for judicial review of an Order from this Court to ensure that providers could challenge both the legality of the required production and the nondisclosure provisions of that Order. 50 U.S.C. §1861(f). This adversarial process includes the selection of a judge from a pool of FISC judges to review the challenge to determine if it is frivolous and to rule on the merits, provides standards that the judge is to apply during such review, and provides for appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court. This procedure, as opposed to the motion process available under Section 2703(d) to challenge a production as unduly voluminous or burdensome, contemplates a substantial and engaging adversarial process to test the legality of this Court' Orders under Section 215. This enhanced process appears designed to ensure that there are additional safeguards in light of the lower threshold that the government is required to meet for production under Section 215 as opposed to Section 2703(d). To date, no holder of records who has received an Order to produce bulk telephony metadata has challenged the legality of such an Order. Indeed, no recipient of any Section 215 Order has challenged the legality of such an Order, despite the explicit statutory mechanism for doing so.
Basically, the court says "why of course there's an adversarial process" to protect users' privacy. It just depends on Verizon or AT&T taking up the fight on behalf of their users, and they haven't done so, so let's just assume everyone's okay with this. That's kind of crazy when you think about it. Admittedly, the public should be up in arms that Verizon and AT&T appear to have no interest in challenging these broad collections of data, but that hardly makes them constitutional.

From there we move onto the interpretation of how this massive data collection could possibly be seen as "relevant." First, it notes (as mentioned above) that the government doesn't need to prove that the data is actually relevant. Just that it has reasonable grounds to believe that they are relevant.
As an initial matter and as a point of clarification, the government's burden under Section 215 is not to prove that the records sought are, in fact, relevant to an authorized investigation. The explicit terms of the statute require "a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant.
Then it basically says that because the NSA can sniff out terrorists within a giant database, that makes the entire database relevant. Really.
This Court has previously examined the issue of relevance for bulk collections. See; [REDACTED] While those matters involved different collections from the one at issue here, the relevance standard was similar.... ("[R]elevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism...."). In both cases, there were facts demonstrating that information concerning known and unknown affiliates of international terrorist organizations was contained within the non-content metadata the government sought to obtain. As this Court noted in 2010, the "finding of relevance most crucially depended on the conclusion that bulk collection is necessary for NSA to employ tools that are likely to generate useful investigative leads to help identify and track terrorist operatives." [REDACTED] Indeed, in [REDACTED] this Court noted that bulk collections such as these are "necessary to identify the much smaller number of [international terrorist] communications.' [REDACTED] As a result, it is this showing of necessity that led the Court to find that "the entire mass of collected metadata is relevant to investigating [international terrorist groups] and affiliated persons." [REDACTED]
It then applies those previous, redacted-named rulings, to this case, repeating the DOJ's own filing saying "all of the metadata collected is thus relevant, because the success of this investigative tool depends on bulk collections."

That's ridiculous and tautological. You could argue that the "success" of a program designed to stop crimes "depends on" putting cameras inside everyone's home, but that doesn't make it any less a violation of privacy. It also hardly makes the collection of all such data "relevant."

The FISC continues to tap dance on the grave of the 4th Amendment:
The government depends on this bulk collection because if production of the information were to wait until the specific identifier connected to an international terrorist group were determined, most of the historical connections (the entire purpose of this authorization) would be lost. The analysis of past connections is only possible "if the Government has collected and archived a broad set of metadata that contains within it the subset of communications that can later be identified as terrorist-related." Because the subset of terrorist communications is ultimately contained within the whole of the metadata produced, but can only be found after the production is aggregated and then queried using identifiers determined to be associated with identified international terrorist organizations, the whole production is relevant to the ongoing investigation out of necessity.
Once again, that makes no sense. First off, just because you can put together all this aggregate data and use it to find criminals and terrorists doesn't automatically make it legal. Once again, I'm sure that having cameras in everyone's homes would allow similar capturing of illegal behavior. But that doesn't make it legal. Second, the argument that without this metadata collection the information would be "lost" is clearly untrue. As was just revealed a few weeks ago, AT&T has employees embedded with the DEA who are willing, ready and able to do deep dive searches on decades worth of phone records (even beyond AT&T). The data isn't lost. They're available via AT&T employees who are working right alongside government employees.

Incredibly, the FISC then claims that the mere claim that terrorists use the phone system is enough to show that all phone records are relevant.
The government must demonstrate "facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation." The fact that international terrorist operatives are using telephone communications, and that it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection of a telephone company's metadata to determine those connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives as part of authorized investigations, is sufficient to meet the low statutory hurdle set out in Section 215 to obtain a production of records.
Except, almost nothing there makes sense. It's not true that it is necessary to obtain bulk collection of the metadata to find those connections. And just because terrorists live in houses, we don't say that it's okay for law enforcement to search every house. Take this same argument and apply it to anything else and the 4th Amendment goes away entirely.

In short, this shows the serious problems with these efforts being non-adversarial. The FISC more or less buys the government's argument at every single turn, even though there are multiple arguments for why the government's position is either not true or, at the very least, misleading.


source

I actually can understand the government's argument. They need to try and prevent terrorist from carrying out attacks, one way of doing it is by tracking their data communications. If they do not know of any specific person or persons, then they would need to weed through a lot of data to be able to pick out the ones which might or might not be a lead. The data is only then opened up and looked at. So in effect the government is not actually reading everyone's emails and listening in on everyone's phone calls. Now which way the SC will eventually fall on this, I have no idea.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 10:04 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
There was no real constitutional issues complex or otherwise that people had a right to peacefully protest the country involvement in World War One even those the courts turn their backs and did allowed citizens to be sentence to twenty years in prison for doing so.


And not only 20 years Bill. The treatment they received in prison, from people who were comfortably placed in the US, having evaded conscription by getting a job in an exempt occupation, so incensed Mr Frank Harris that he spent a great deal of his time campaigning against it. At some risk to himself.

You can read an account of it, if you don't mind facing descriptions of torture, in his autobiography, My Life and Loves. It is a wonderful book for many reasons. Every young man should read that book. And repeat the exercise in his 30s and again in his 50s. If he gets to 70 he has enough from that to consider giving it another go. By which time he can say that he has "read" it. And not before.

It's the same with movies. The really great ones can be enjoyed many times.

It's a bit like learning how to undress a lady. Practice makes perfect and a clumsy beginning can be transforned into an expertise if one is open to learning from experience. When no learning is taking place the clumsy beginning soon changes into the lady accepting that she has to undress herself. Which defeats the whole object of the exercise from a Christian point of view.

When that happens, as it sadly so often does, a piteous whining of mealy-mouthed platitudes about other people being misogynists, or literary arty-farties as the case maybe, is very soon set going and continues for as long as the refusal to learn from experience does.

Both being giveaway signs of a complete wanker. Or a hypnotised lady. I tempt people to produce those signifiers in order to orient myself on this site. I don't go on any others.

Literature is the toughest school it is possible to go to. And Mark Twain hadn't really bothered. So also undressing a lady to her satisfaction after a long series of such events. Undressing a lot of different ones, as Casanova and Don Juan did, doesn't require much beyond a third class graduation from high school.

Try Evelyn Waugh's autobiographical writings to see how tough real literary men are.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 10:08 am
@revelette2,
I'm really curious what percentage of the proponents of this program have an annual federal tax liability. I'll try to research support by age and/or income, but I suspect that the majority of the people supporting the position that the NSA must do anything and everything it can to "keep us safe" don't have a federal tax liability.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 10:15 am
@JPB,
I don't get what you saying exactly, but my husband and I pay taxes every year. Pardon me, but whats that got to do with anything? I don't like some things the government does, but I got to pay taxes just the same.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 309
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/20/2019 at 02:30:50