Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 53

Thread: Patriot Act Part 2 -- PRISM

  1. #1
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default Patriot Act Part 2 -- PRISM

    link

    Secret laws are always lots of fun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  2. #2
    Philosopher Hidden sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    A college library
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Started by Bush, continued and probably expanded under Obama. Warrantless wiretapping was nothing on this, and I'm honestly thinking it's time to go full Turkish on our government if we can call this sort of thing the norm.

  3. #3
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hidden sage View Post
    Started by Bush, continued and probably expanded under Obama. Warrantless wiretapping was nothing on this, and I'm honestly thinking it's time to go full Turkish on our government if we can call this sort of thing the norm.
    They raided the AP office, a clear bullying tactic by the current administration. It's like our mods are running the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  4. #4
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    I have nothing to hide in my phone calls do any of you?
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  5. #5
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    I have nothing to hide in my phone calls do any of you?
    Seriously?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  6. #6

    Flossie Schmumpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    I apparently exist
    Posts
    11,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    I have nothing to hide in my phone calls do any of you?
    Good grief, that is not the point. If you are not a witch, you have nothing to fear from being burned at the stake, because we will test you by trying to drown you first and if you drown you have proven you are not a witch.
    Note:Any posts made by this poster should always be construed in the most innocent angelic way possible. The poster is not responsible for where your depraved minds go, if you have a depraved mind.

    Our Lady of Croppers ~Semper DOS~ ~Viva Toons~ || This area intentionally left blank. || The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity ~ Harlan Ellison

  7. #7
    Philosopher El Che's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Smalltimore
    Posts
    4,161

    Default

    Nothing in politics happens by accident, the timing of this incident is actually pretty interesting. First this leak to a UK news agency occurred one day before the United States was on its way to China to 'talk tough' on the cyber espionage from that country against the United States. Secondly a leak like this will send ripples through the defense industry on reforming its own security. Any witch hunts will be for the person who broke his vow of secrecy that was given to him/her so they could have access to this information in the first place.

    I guess we can look forward to more 'truth' in the future as nations wage war on the cyber front. We are still in the infancy of this new age or fighting.

  8. #8
    Philosopher Jacana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Solving Agatha Christie's problems.
    Posts
    11,514

    Default

    Something designed by the Government to destroy privacy?

    I've heard this joke before.

  9. #9
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Seriously?
    No.

    My God you guys think I'm entirely crazy... Lol, oh well.
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  10. #10
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    We're just concerned, that's all
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    I have nothing to hide in my phone calls do any of you?
    I like to go into explicit detail about the naughty things I'm going to do to my female friend I'm chatting with. I would really rather keep the specifics of those messages between her and I. Nothing I say is illegal since it is consensual, but I still don't want the government reading it.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    No.

    My God you guys think I'm entirely crazy... Lol, oh well.
    What would ever give the forum that idea?
    Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach
    Stop tooting on flutes and go read a book.

  13. #13
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    I got a kick out of this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/tech/s...rebar_facebook

    What's crazy is that no party of our government has a leg to stand on when it comes to being outraged by this (if outrage is even necessary...I'm not entirely convinced it is). All three branches knew and approved of this.

  14. #14
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    I got a kick out of this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/tech/s...rebar_facebook

    What's crazy is that no party of our government has a leg to stand on when it comes to being outraged by this (if outrage is even necessary...I'm not entirely convinced it is). All three branches knew and approved of this.
    The judiciary did?
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    The judiciary did?
    I know you are brainwashed to believe the judiciary branch is saintly, holy, and farts rainbows, but come on now, Luissssss!



    Just for one moment question what you have been taught. Hell, I'm not even asking you to step outside the box, just acknowledge that there is a box and you are inside of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  16. #16
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    just acknowledge that there is a box and you are inside of it.
    He can't. He's still a virgin.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    He can't. He's still a virgin.
    And so he shall remain until he pulls his head out of his ***.

    I have proof: "I have nothing to hide in my phone calls do any of you?"

    Clearly not disturb by the governments actions against US citizens, just confident in his ability to fly under the radar.

    THE HANGMAN

    By Maurice Ogden

    Into our town the hangman came,
    smelling of gold and blood and flame.
    He paced our bricks with a different air,
    and built his frame on the courthouse square.

    The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
    only as wide as the door was wide
    with a frame as tall, or a little more,
    than the capping sill of the courthouse door.

    And we wondered whenever we had the time,
    Who the criminal? What the crime?
    The hangman judged with the yellow twist
    of knotted hemp in his busy fist.

    And innocent though we were with dread,
    we passed those eyes of buckshot lead.
    Till one cried, “Hangman, who is he,
    for whom you raised the gallows-tree?”

    Then a twinkle grew in his buckshot eye
    and he gave a riddle instead of reply.
    “He who serves me best,” said he
    “Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree.”

    And he stepped down and laid his hand
    on a man who came from another land.
    And we breathed again, for anothers grief
    at the hangmans hand, was our relief.

    And the gallows frame on the courthouse lawn
    by tomorrow’s sun would be struck and gone.
    So we gave him way and no one spoke
    out of respect for his hangmans cloak.

    The next day’s sun looked mildly down
    on roof and street in our quiet town;
    and stark and black in the morning air
    the gallows-tree on the courthouse square.

    And the hangman stood at his usual stand
    with the yellow hemp in his busy hand.
    With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike,
    and his air so knowing and business-like.

    And we cried, “Hangman, have you not done,
    yesterday with the alien one?”
    Then we fell silent and stood amazed.
    “Oh, not for him was the gallows raised.”

    He laughed a laugh as he looked at us,
    “Do you think I’ve gone to all this fuss,
    To hang one man? That’s the thing I do.
    To stretch the rope when the rope is new.”

    Above our silence a voice cried “Shame!”
    and into our midst the hangman came;
    to that mans place, “Do you hold,” said he,
    “With him that was meat for the gallows-tree?”

    He laid his hand on that one’s arm
    and we shrank back in quick alarm.
    We gave him way, and no one spoke,
    out of fear of the hangmans cloak.

    That night we saw with dread surprise
    the hangmans scaffold had grown in size.
    Fed by the blood beneath the chute,
    the gallows-tree had taken root.

    Now as wide, or a little more
    than the steps that led to the courthouse door.
    As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
    half way up on the courthouse wall.

    The third he took, we had all heard tell,
    was a usurer…, an infidel.
    And “What” said the hangman, “Have you to do
    with the gallows-bound…, and he a Jew?”

    And we cried out, “Is this one he
    who has served you well and faithfully?”
    The hangman smiled, “It’s a clever scheme
    to try the strength of the gallows beam.”

    The fourth man’s dark accusing song
    had scratched our comfort hard and long.
    “And what concern,” he gave us back,
    “Have you … for the doomed and black?”

    The fifth, the sixth, and we cried again,
    “Hangman, hangman, is this the man?”
    “It’s a trick”, said he, “that we hangman know
    for easing the trap when the trap springs slow.”

    And so we ceased and asked now more
    as the hangman tallied his bloody score.
    And sun by sun, and night by night
    the gallows grew to monstrous height.

    The wings of the scaffold opened wide
    until they covered the square from side to side.
    And the monster cross beam looking down,
    cast its shadow across the town.

    Then through the town the hangman came
    and called through the empy streets…my name.
    I looked at the gallows soaring tall
    and thought … there’s no one left at all

    for hanging … and so he called to me
    to help take down the gallows-tree.
    And I went out with right good hope
    to the hangmans tree and the hangmans rope.

    He smiled at me as I came down
    to the courthouse square…through the silent town.
    Supple and stretched in his busy hand,
    was the yellow twist of hempen strand.

    He whistled his tune as he tried the trap
    and it sprang down with a ready snap.
    Then with a smile of awful command,
    He laid his hand upon my hand.

    “You tricked me Hangman.” I shouted then,
    “That your scaffold was built for other men,
    and I’m no henchman of yours.” I cried.
    “You lied to me Hangman, foully lied.”

    Then a twinkle grew in his buckshot eye,
    “Lied to you…tricked you?” He said “Not I…
    for I answered straight and told you true.
    The scaffold was raised for none but you.”

    “For who has served more faithfully?
    With your coward’s hope.” said He,
    “And where are the others that might have stood
    side by your side, in the common good?”

    “Dead!” I answered, and amiably
    “Murdered,” the Hangman corrected me.
    “First the alien … then the Jew.
    I did no more than you let me do.”

    Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
    none before stood so alone as I.
    The Hangman then strapped me…with no voice there
    to cry “Stay!” … for me in the empty square.

    THE BOTTOM LINE: “…I did no more than you let me do.”
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  18. #18
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    I prefer this.

  19. #19
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    The judiciary did?
    Yes. All three branches were in the know and okay'd it. Repubs and dems alike.

  20. #20
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    Well, specifically the intelligence committee and the president knew. I'm not sure there's evidence that the judiciary knew about this one...
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  21. #21
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    It was approved (and continues to be approved on a regular basis) by Congress and judges had to be involved or there would be no reason for Verizon to comply.

    Technically speaking, I don't think the collection of this data violates the Constitution. However, what the government choses to do with it very well could.
    Last edited by jdurand; 06-08-2013 at 10:56 PM.

  22. #22
    Villager
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    In your inbox, reading your email.
    Posts
    228

    Default

    PRISM deals with the collection of foreign communications. Do foreigners on foreign soil have rights under the US Constitution? No, they don't.

    But please, if you're an American, be happy that Top Secret NOFORN information is now all over the planet. Information that harms the American Intelligence Community's ability to do its job.

  23. #23
    Philosopher Hidden sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    A college library
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    It was approved (and continues to be approved on a regular basis) by Congress and judges had to be involved or there would be no reason for Verizon to comply.

    Technically speaking, I don't think the collection of this data violates the Constitution. However, what the government choses to do with it very well could.
    Nevermind strict Constitutionalism. What possible use of this data collection COULD qualify as ethical, and what theoretical government would we trust to ONLY use it in any such theoretical fashion?

  24. #24
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hidden sage View Post
    Nevermind strict Constitutionalism. What possible use of this data collection COULD qualify as ethical, and what theoretical government would we trust to ONLY use it in any such theoretical fashion?
    Oh, I'm not suggesting our government won't use the information however it wants. I'm just saying that, if the government were to hold to the restrictions placed on collecting this data (yes, I'm smiling at that too), they would only be able to use it for specific investigations, which a specific court judgment.

    The rationale is that the government is supposed to be collecting this information so that it is readily available when they need to investigate someone rather than them having to wait for it to be delivery to them by Verizon. They're not supposed to be looking at it without a court ruling for a specific cause.

  25. #25
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Kirk View Post
    PRISM deals with the collection of foreign communications. Do foreigners on foreign soil have rights under the US Constitution? No, they don't.

    But please, if you're an American, be happy that Top Secret NOFORN information is now all over the planet. Information that harms the American Intelligence Community's ability to do its job.
    There was an article on the BBC about this. Can't seem to find it right now. Anyway, basically what it said was that the British and American governments were working together. Now the British don't have the same issues with the American constitution as their US counterparts do and vice versa.

    So basically the British were collecting info about communications within the US and the Americans collecting info about communications within the UK. And then handing it over to each other. Nicely side steps any legal issues.

    Fun huh?

  26. #26

    Default

    How much further does the government wish to overreach their power? What if they are just getting warmed up?
    Excuse me for disagreeing that your degeneracy is sacred.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Fun huh?
    It's so brilliantly simple that it makes me smile, and so horribly insidious that it makes me frown.
    I am always curious every few years when everyone gets all up in arms about privacy and such-- don't they remember that we've all had these thoughts and feelings and arguments before, and then tucked them away when we had better things to do? I have a default expectation, especially in the computer age, that "privacy" is a comfortable idea (like the first day of Spring, or Holiday dinner) that is completely separate from its definition in reality. I remember obsessing as a young teen that someone in the government was reading my AIM chats, and that they were going to know that I didn't agree with what was happening in Pakistan (at the time) and I was going to get some kind of official letter sent to my parents. As I got older, I realized that if someone had been reading my moody teenage aim chats, they must have had the worst most boring job on the planet, and so it was pretty implausible. While I don't agree with much of the patriot act, this phone thing seems a little blown out of proportion. Maybe it's a red herring-- is there another oil spill?

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenny View Post
    It's so brilliantly simple that it makes me smile, and so horribly insidious that it makes me frown.
    I am always curious every few years when everyone gets all up in arms about privacy and such-- don't they remember that we've all had these thoughts and feelings and arguments before, and then tucked them away when we had better things to do? I have a default expectation, especially in the computer age, that "privacy" is a comfortable idea (like the first day of Spring, or Holiday dinner) that is completely separate from its definition in reality. I remember obsessing as a young teen that someone in the government was reading my AIM chats, and that they were going to know that I didn't agree with what was happening in Pakistan (at the time) and I was going to get some kind of official letter sent to my parents. As I got older, I realized that if someone had been reading my moody teenage aim chats, they must have had the worst most boring job on the planet, and so it was pretty implausible. While I don't agree with much of the patriot act, this phone thing seems a little blown out of proportion. Maybe it's a red herring-- is there another oil spill?
    How much do you get paid for these posts?
    Excuse me for disagreeing that your degeneracy is sacred.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erbal View Post
    How much do you get paid for these posts?
    I could be getting paid? Please direct me to the nearest patron.

  30. #30
    Philosopher Hidden sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    A college library
    Posts
    4,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Oh, I'm not suggesting our government won't use the information however it wants. I'm just saying that, if the government were to hold to the restrictions placed on collecting this data (yes, I'm smiling at that too), they would only be able to use it for specific investigations, which a specific court judgment.

    The rationale is that the government is supposed to be collecting this information so that it is readily available when they need to investigate someone rather than them having to wait for it to be delivery to them by Verizon. They're not supposed to be looking at it without a court ruling for a specific cause.
    The people that would believe that rationale (thankfully, nobody but Luisss around here could plausibly be labeled as) scare the bajeezus out of me sometimes.

  31. #31
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    I know you are brainwashed to believe the judiciary branch is saintly, holy, and farts rainbows, but come on now, Luissssss!



    Just for one moment question what you have been taught. Hell, I'm not even asking you to step outside the box, just acknowledge that there is a box and you are inside of it.
    What on earth does Clarence Thomas working for Monsanto in the past have to do with whether or not the judiciary branch was involved in this particular privacy issue?

    I asked if the judiciary knew because I can find no point in the process of this issue that would point to some need for judiciary action or approval, whether it be at a local or federal level. Please, share your knowledge with me on this particular subject.

    Also, I've never claimed the judiciary is holy. Do I think they are better than the other branches? Yes, but that's not saying much.
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  32. #32
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    I asked if the judiciary knew because I can find no point in the process of this issue that would point to some need for judiciary action or approval, whether it be at a local or federal level. Please, share your knowledge with me on this particular subject.
    You need to spend a little more time skimming through articles about it then. It was a special court order that allowed the government to do this in the first place.

  33. #33
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    You need to spend a little more time skimming through articles about it then. It was a special court order that allowed the government to do this in the first place.
    Thank you, JD. Which article is this?

    Also, was it the Supreme Court or a regular district court? I ask because one could be considered representative of the judiciary while the other really isn't, much like a CIA agent wouldn't representative of the whole executive - the president would.
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  34. #34
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    Thank you, JD. Which article is this?

    Also, was it the Supreme Court or a regular district court? I ask because one could be considered representative of the judiciary while the other really isn't, much like a CIA agent wouldn't representative of the whole executive - the president would.
    It's mentioned in just about every article on the subject I've read. While I don't know the specific court or judge, I suspect it likely wasn't the Supreme Court.

    There would be no reason for Verizon to comply without a court order making them do so. In fact, it would benefit their reputation and the trust they have from their customers not to have complied with the FBI. However, with a court order (issued by the Judicial branch of our government) they really have no choice.

    At any rate, it's clear that all three branch had involvement in this.

    EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...eillance_Court
    Last edited by jdurand; 06-09-2013 at 04:49 PM.

  35. #35

    Default

    “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”
    -Barrack Hussein Obama 2013


    If we the people don't trust our 3 branches of government to follow the rules on their own accord, they are going to have problems or are we the people going to have problems?

    If that wasn't a threat from the POTUS, I just want to know since when has a lack of public trust been a real problem for our government and in what way has it been a real problem for them?
    Excuse me for disagreeing that your degeneracy is sacred.

  36. #36
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erbal View Post
    “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”
    -Barrack Hussein Obama 2013


    If we the people don't trust our 3 branches of government to follow the rules on their own accord, they are going to have problems or are we the people going to have problems?

    If that wasn't a threat from the POTUS, I just want to know since when has a lack of public trust been a real problem for our government and in what way has it been a real problem for them?
    Is it really against your constitution if they got necessary gag orders and the judiciary signed off on it though? I am honestly asking.

    Mind you, it is still scary and very wrong, but illegal? I don't know.

  37. #37
    Philosopher Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    13,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Is it really against your constitution if they got necessary gag orders and the judiciary signed off on it though? I am honestly asking.

    Mind you, it is still scary and very wrong, but illegal? I don't know.
    Until [unless] the supreme court rules on it, we "don't know". FISC/FISA both have a history of rubber-stamping, so them signing off on something doesn't mean it will be upheld as legal.
    Last edited by Jono; 06-09-2013 at 10:14 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    OMG, Wodey found a woman who agrees with him. He must be right, cos all women are always right all the time.

  38. #38
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Is it really against your constitution if they got necessary gag orders and the judiciary signed off on it though? I am honestly asking.

    Mind you, it is still scary and very wrong, but illegal? I don't know.
    I don't think it'll be found to be unconstitutional that the government is "collecting" data. If it is found (read: can be proven) that they have done more than just collect it without a warrant or specific court order, then I think it would very easily be consider unconstitutional.

  39. #39

    Default

    Well, Apparently the guy who leaked the information to the public has now since came foward.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...s-forward?lite
    Retired as of 10/13/14 after 7 and a half years of playing. Good luck to those who continue to play.
    us2; Round 6 - Adjudicator (Getter) (BACON) (Lost)
    us3; Round 2 - stevo (Getter) (QoD) (Lost)
    us3; Round 3 - stemem (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us3; Round 4 - BliZZarD (Getter) (Delicious) (lost)
    us3; Round 5 - Ice Lillies (Getter) (DoS) (Semper DoS)
    us3; Round 7 - Revolt (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us8; Round 1 - Heavenly Wrath (Getter) (TNT) (won)
    com3; Round ? - General Mills (Getter) (ReD DoS/TWD) (Lost)

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    I don't think it'll be found to be unconstitutional that the government is "collecting" data. If it is found (read: can be proven) that they have done more than just collect it without a warrant or specific court order, then I think it would very easily be consider unconstitutional.
    With the Patriot Act, and outright corruption if need be, can't they get a secret court order for anything they want?
    Excuse me for disagreeing that your degeneracy is sacred.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •