DOJ to drop bomb on EFF vs. AT&T Options

[Spectatrix]

WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE

WOOHOO!

[chook]

AWESOME!

[JRockTTU]

that is possibly the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

for one, there's a very good chance the NSA isn't there to stop terrorism -- homeland security is the one doing the taps through the FISA court for that.

two, i'm just talking about the FBI there. not Homeland Security or the NSA.

three, oh wow, 3000 isn't much. but we also don't know WHY they are being tapped or what they're suspected of, if anything. for all we know, the only people being tapped by the NSA are people that the government sees as "enemies", and i don't mean the blowie-shit-up kind. I'm talking "deepthroat" kind, or members of the ACLU or the EFF.

four, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

seriously, thats some dumb fucking logic right there. we have a court system, it grants approval to almost everything. there's no reason for them NOT to use that. yes, domestic spying has been going on a long time, and there's a LEGAL way for them to do it. If they're having to circumvent those means, there's something else going on that we should probably look into.






btw, "States Secrets Privelege" is technically only common law, hopefully the judge in this case (characterized as a "free thinker" by some article i read earlier today and don't have offhand) will actually refuse the request by the DOJ to dismiss the case... which has never been done before, but is nonetheless his privelege.

I think it's funny when someone who brags about breaking the law all of the time gives the government so much shit about doing something that is in a legal gray area.

[impala454]

WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

[Testm0nkey]

trumped up charges steming from pseudo legal actions taken by the police and courts = political prisoners. sometimes id like to burry myself in a underground bunker with every resource i can find and figure out what really is going on
america

[Psykopath]

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

3000 people were killed on 9/11

BUT 3000 PEOPLE, OH GOLLY THAT'S JUST SMALL POTATOES IT'S A-OK

/sarcasm

HI INTERNETZ

[pebkac]

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

Ok, so what's the threshold to make that wrong? Would it have to be 30,000? How about 30 million?

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 person or if it's everyone. It's still not right.

[impala454]

Ok, so what's the threshold to make that wrong? Would it have to be 30,000? How about 30 million?

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 person or if it's everyone. It's still not right.

so doing it without permission and then getting some super-lenient court to approve of it later makes you guys feel that much better about it?

[impala454]

sometimes id like to burry myself in a underground bunker with every resource i can find and figure out what really is going on
america

yes! what was that movie?

[Spectatrix]

so doing it without permission and then getting some super-lenient court to approve of it later makes you guys feel that much better about it?

1) If the court doesn't grant them a warrant, they can't use the evidence in court. That means that even if they're going to get a retroactive warrant, they have to make sure that they have sufficient evidence to justify a wiretap.

2) Just because the FISA court doesn't reject many warrant requests doesn't necessarily mean its lenient. How do statistics for that court compare to other courts? Are federal officers just more careful about gathering evidence for the FISA court?

3) It does make me feel better, because judicial oversight is one of the important checks & balances on the federal government that makes sure that none of the branches get too big for their britches.

[impala454]

1) If the court doesn't grant them a warrant, they can't use the evidence in court. That means that even if they're going to get a retroactive warrant, they have to make sure that they have sufficient evidence to justify a wiretap.

3) It does make me feel better, because judicial oversight is one of the important checks & balances on the federal government that makes sure that none of the branches get too big for their britches.

i realize this but the point is, you guys are upset about the wiretappings. at the time that they go get these retroactive warrants, the calls have already been listened to. nothing changes that. I understand there's no evidence admissible in court, but that's not what you guys are complaining about. You're complaining that the people were tapped in the first place, which doesn't change whether they get a retroactive warrant or not.

[zetec]

i realize this but the point is, you guys are upset about the wiretappings. at the time that they go get these retroactive warrants, the calls have already been listened to. nothing changes that. I understand there's no evidence admissible in court, but that's not what you guys are complaining about. You're complaining that the people were tapped in the first place, which doesn't change whether they get a retroactive warrant or not.

no, we're upset about the ILLEGAL wiretappings. There's already a secret court for them to go to to make this legal, there's absolutely no reason they should need to circumvent it unless they're having to cover other shady activities.

And jessica, aside from piracy online, which i'm somewhat more of an endorser of than straight out braggart about, what do i brag about doing illegal? Name me something.

Impala, quit trying to use the same fear-mongering tactics already employed by the current administration and try and propose a logical argument. "WE GOTTA SPY ON YOU BECAUSE THERE BOUT TO LAUNCH TEH BOMBZ!" is no kind of rational argument, just an attempt to instill fear and pass it off as an argument. Furthermore, as already stated, the 3000 were only, ONLY for the FBI, not Homeland Security and CERTAINLY not for the NSA. It's Homeland Security's job to monitor for terrorism. The NSA's actual job is more or less unknown, aside from domestic spying. As I've already stated, for all we know they are spying on political enemies, not suspected terrorists. If they were spying on terrorists, there's be little to no good reason not to announce the fact, as has already been done with HS. It gives them good public opinion, lets the terrorists know we're after them, and creates a general all-around fuzzy feeling in your loins. A secret German Stazi-esque secret police organization, however... well fuck, watch the history channel sometime and see how well those typically turn out.

[JRockTTU]

And jessica, aside from piracy online, which i'm somewhat more of an endorser of than straight out braggart about, what do i brag about doing illegal? Name me something.

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

[zetec]

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

sorry, thought it was her.


and i've posted numerous times that i've been clean for almost 10 months now.


numerous times. not my fault you don't read the board.

[FORSAKENR320]

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

and you are a fag. but we accept you anyway