Quote:
You could probably present a convincing argument that it was a mercy killing.
/glare
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Amerika, I disappointed
Amerika, I disappointedFollow
/glare
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
...even if the forum page itself required some kind of password to access, might still be visible to anyone who's watching the hops along the way. Probably not usable in a court situation, but also not necessarily illegal to collect.
Smasharoo wrote:
Probably not usable in a court situation
Posts made to a message board with the intent of strangers to read them?
Posts made to a message board with the intent of strangers to read them?
No. Posts made to a page where only those with a password to access the page can read them (ie: private). And not obtained by someone who has legitimate access to that page, but by snooping network packets for post information.
That would "probably not be usable in a court situation". I get that you like to selectively read and misquote things, but that was a bit of a stretch even for you.
Quote:
Usable for what is a separate issue, but if you laid out your elaborate plans to bomb a Padres game (attempting to kill the dozens in a attendance), that would certainly be probably cause to arrest you.
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself. It could absolutely be used quietly to put me under some other form of legal surveillance though, which would be used to actually obtain information sufficient to file charges.
Um... And in the event of an imminent threat, there's nothing to prevent them from physically stopping me, and counting on the fact that I'm attempting to bring bomb materials into a sports venue as evidence and pull the ol "we got an anonymous tip" bit to explain how they knew where/when to find me.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself.
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself.
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't they call it parallel construction these days?
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Smasharoo wrote:
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself.
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Wow. Why didn't I think of that?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself.
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Wow. Why didn't I think of that?
Because stuff like that doesn't happen in gbaji-land.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
I get that you like to selectively read and misquote things, but that was a bit of a stretch even for you.
gbaji, the whole quote wrote:
But, for example, posting text to a forum like this one, in the absence of any security models in place, even if the forum page itself required some kind of password to access, might still be visible to anyone who's watching the hops along the way.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that you like to selectively read and misquote things, but that was a bit of a stretch even for you.
gbaji, the whole quote wrote:
But, for example, posting text to a forum like this one, in the absence of any security models in place, even if the forum page itself required some kind of password to access, might still be visible to anyone who's watching the hops along the way.
"Security models in place" means encrypted connection as opposed to unencrypted. I was specifically referring to plain text over the wan. A site that does not use https does not require encrypted content. Which means that everything you type crosses the wan in plaintext and can be seen (plainly even) with any sort of snooping method applied at any point along the way. So even if you have to enter a password to enter areas of the site (which may or may not be secure itself), everything you post is still clearly visible by anyone else bothering to look.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
If it was obtained via the network snooping methodology I outlined earlier, it could not by itself.
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Don't be an idiot, you fabricate an 'anonymous tip' after you have the information, then get the warrant. How do you think law enforcement works, exactly?
Wow. Why didn't I think of that?
Because stuff like that doesn't happen in gbaji-land.
That was sarcasm btw.
gbaji wrote:
...and pull the ol "we got an anonymous tip" bit to explain how they knew where/when to find me.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
"Security models in place" means
Edited, May 7th 2015 10:05am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
"Security models in place" means
Edited, May 7th 2015 10:05am by lolgaxe
It is ok. We are only convicting bad people. How do we know they are bad? They are convicts. Sheesh. Keep up hippy.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Keep making criminals. Yup
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Wow, it was found that the phone tapping was illegal.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf
It's almost as if there was a guy who blew the whistle in this. He was probably anti privacy though, and wanted governments to be more opaque.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf
It's almost as if there was a guy who blew the whistle in this. He was probably anti privacy though, and wanted governments to be more opaque.
Just as Planned.
If only if there were any other way to bring that to attention without releasing a bunch of unrelated classified information without actually reading it.
Did you know that the organization was secretly recording women changing in the locker room? Here, world, look at these pictures That I put on the Internet. I'm just trying to bring attention to the problem!
Did you know that the organization was secretly recording women changing in the locker room? Here, world, look at these pictures That I put on the Internet. I'm just trying to bring attention to the problem!
Timelordwho wrote:
Wow, it was found that the phone tapping was illegal.
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf
Phone taping has been illegal for about as long as phones have existed. If you meant to say "broad collection of metadata was found to be unconstitutional", you'd be wrong, since the decision you just linked specifically declined to address the constitutionality of such collection. What it also didn't do was grant the plaintiffs injunction against the currently operating program. What it did do, however, was find that the law in question didn't explicitly authorize that broad a collection scheme, and thus reversed an earlier district court dismissal of the suit, sending it back to the district court for further action.
Saying "yeah, you do have a case" isn't the same as declaring something to be illegal. Close though.
Quote:
It's almost as if there was a guy who blew the whistle in this. He was probably anti privacy though, and wanted governments to be more opaque.
Yeah, again, I think whoever wrote that decision (it's unclear if the judge was stating his own opinion, or repeating something in a brief) was incorrect. While Snowden's release was a big public thing, the fact is that this program has been well understood to be operating since long before Snowden. I seem to recall us having arguments about collection of phone metadata on this very forum back when Bush was still president. Saying "the public never knew this until Snowden revealed it" is pretty blatantly incorrect. The law in question was passed back in 2006, and everyone knew what the law meant and how it would be used to collect that metadata.
I suppose if they meant "people in the public ignorant of this topic until it became a big enough news story to get tossed right in front of their couch potato eyes", then yeah, I guess he had something to do with it.
Edited, May 7th 2015 4:38pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yes. If only the whistleblowers did the responsible thing and used proper channels. Like this one.
Oh, the established proper channels do not work, were completely ignored and resulted in destroying the life of the whistleblower? You should be so lucky that the guy actually disclosed it the way he did. If some low level contractor can get that info, so can other intelligence agencies.
There is a quote there somewhere about now allowing peaceful revolution, and there is a quote there about Kafka; you homework is to find them and understand what they mean.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
gbaji wrote:
Yeah, again, I think whoever wrote that decision (it's unclear if the judge was stating his own opinion, or repeating something in a brief) was incorrect. While Snowden's release was a big public thing, the fact is that this program has been well understood to be operating since long before Snowden. I seem to recall us having arguments about collection of phone metadata on this very form back when Bush was still president. Saying "the public never knew this until Snowden revealed it" is pretty blatantly incorrect. The law in question was passed back in 2006, and everyone knew what the law meant and how it would be used to collect that metadata.
I suppose if they meant "people in the public ignorant of this topic until it became a big enough news story to get tossed right in front of their couch potato eyes", then yeah, I guess he had something to do with it.
No. Those who voiced the possibility of it being used that fashion were called tinfoil hats, and promptly dismissed as conspiracy theorists, because "only teh foreign pplz is being spied, pwomise". The rest of reasonable voices were drowned in a sea of retards.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Funny thing is, according to what I'm hearing on the news, if the NSA needs that power, they can have it with approval of congress. Furthermore, the information maintained isn't the content, but the phone numbers, dates and times. The argument is that unless they get approval from Congress, they have to individually request the information, not hold everything just in case. Point being, you will still be monitored in any decision.
angrymnk wrote:
No. Those who voiced the possibility of it being used that fashion were called tinfoil hats, and promptly dismissed as conspiracy theorists, because "only teh foreign pplz is being spied, pwomise".
No, those who conflated the collection of metadata in the US with the other foreign NSA program that actually did examine content for keywords and attempted to argue that this represented warrantless wiretaps of all US people's phone conversations were told that A, they were wearing tinfoil hats, and B, that only foreign people's conversations were being "tapped", and C, that collection of metadata was not a violation of the 4th or 5th amendments.
Quote:
The rest of reasonable voices were drowned in a sea of retards.
Yes. Those of us who correctly separated those two very different programs and assessed each one on its own merits without resorting to crazy conspiratorial rhetoric were drowned out by a sea of nutters saying "warrantless wiretaps!" over and over.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Almalieque wrote:
The argument is that unless they get approval from Congress, they have to individually request the information, not hold everything just in case.
Correct. Unless Congress amends the law to explicitly authorize that, in which case it's all peachy barring an actual ruling of unconstitutionality at some future point in time. Which may or may not happen.
Whether the plaintiffs in this particular case win their suit has no bearing at all on that constitutional question though. Only whether the NSA was actually authorized to do what they were doing and whether what they did harmed the plaintiffs.
Edited, May 7th 2015 5:15pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
No. Those who voiced the possibility of it being used that fashion were called tinfoil hats, and promptly dismissed as conspiracy theorists, because "only teh foreign pplz is being spied, pwomise".
No, those who conflated the collection of metadata in the US with the other foreign NSA program that actually did examine content for keywords and attempted to argue that this represented warrantless wiretaps of all US people's phone conversations were told that A, they were wearing tinfoil hats, and B, that only foreign people's conversations were being "tapped", and C, that collection of metadata was not a violation of the 4th or 5th amendments.
Quote:
The rest of reasonable voices were drowned in a sea of retards.
Yes. Those of us who correctly separated those two very different programs and assessed each one on its own merits without resorting to crazy conspiratorial rhetoric were drowned out by a sea of nutters saying "warrantless wiretaps!" over and over.
I stand corrected. Clearly backing up the entire interwebz does not count as wiretaps, or warrantless. Who knew?
Edited, May 7th 2015 8:08pm by angrymnk
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
angrymnk wrote:
I stand corrected. Clearly backing up the entire interwebz does not count as wiretaps, or warrantless. Who knew?
If they're collecting otherwise publicly accessible information, then no, it does not count as a wiretap. At least not in the "need a warrant" sense. Just as you don't need a warrant to read this forum. Or to read the public sections of someone's facebook page. Or to read someone's twitter feed. Or to read an online news site. Was there actually confusion about this?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I stand corrected. Clearly backing up the entire interwebz does not count as wiretaps, or warrantless. Who knew?
If they're collecting otherwise publicly accessible information, then no, it does not count as a wiretap. At least not in the "need a warrant" sense. Just as you don't need a warrant to read this forum. Or to read the public sections of someone's facebook page. Or to read someone's twitter feed. Or to read an online news site. Was there actually confusion about this?
I did not realize emails and browsing history was up for grabs to anyone. Good to know you feel that way.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
Recent Visitors: 82
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (82)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Amerika, I disappointed
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC