IWasBored
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2002
- Messages
- 36,783
Is that cat woman or bat(wo)man? It makes a difference in whether she is to be considered batshit or catshit crazy.
why are you disappointed in him because he's black?
"The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.
^that isn't anything to do with Obama, that's GCHQ in Britain...
I have to say that with actions like these (also including his revelations about hacking attempts in Chinese computers) Snowden is becoming less a 'whistleblower' but more an ordinary 'traitor' endangering the security of a country. It's one thing to reveal that your own country is spying on its own citizens, but something else to reveal the actions to other countries. To me, this doesn't serve any 'higher motive' anymore (like informing your own countrymen about what's happening to them), but more an intention to damage countries (and their international relationships) just because you have the information.
I´m not, I knew who financed his campaign. But a lot of his African American voters must be disappointed; many expected an African American to be a better President than Bush.
I´m not, I knew who financed his campaign. But a lot of his African American voters must be disappointed; many expected an African American to be a better President than Bush.
Anybody else sense that Snowden has delusions of grandeur?
Irvine511 is ready to give up a modicum of privacy because he lives in Washington.
BVS says we shouldn´t complain because we invited this ourselves by opening email accounts.
Deep thinks its tolerable because the world ain´t perfect.
Pearl says people who expose a government spying on its own citizens, cause more problems. If it had stayed top secret, no problem.
Irvine511 is ready to give up a modicum of privacy because he lives in Washington.
BVS says we shouldn´t complain because we invited this ourselves by opening email accounts.
Deep thinks its tolerable because the world ain´t perfect.
Pearl says people who expose a government spying on its own citizens, cause more problems. If it had stayed top secret, no problem.
Let's be careful using the term "tapped", there's no evidence of you or I being "tapped" yet. I'll be honest I haven't seen the bit about foreign nationals emails being watched, this is all foreign nationals?Here's the problem as I see it.
My understanding is that the Patriot Act focused solely on suspects. The NSA's recent actions are clearly much more far-reaching than that. When everyone's cell records are being tapped -- when foreign nationals' emails etc are being watched -- when companies are being pressured by the government to give up their information -- when private organizations are forced to disclose information on their donors for the use of other organizations -- we have a problem.
That's missing my point. My point was why is it that you have no problem giving your information to MSN they turn around and sell and then they turn around and sell it to someone else, but for some reason the government who had a part in creating my data is suddenly scary. All I said is that it just seems odd.Further, likening Constitutionally-protected liberties designed to protect us from government overreach to marketing choices that we make when we opt-in to email programs is a complete straw man. When we sign up Gmail, Facebook, etc., we opt in to their marketing. If we don't want to be tracked, we don't need to use those services. The government, by contrast, has given us no choice in the matter, and has further encroached on our Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. These are serious actions. We justify it now in the name of security, but what happens when/if those methods are used for nefarious ends?
L My point was why is it that you have no problem giving your information to MSN they turn around and sell and then they turn around and sell it to someone else, but for some reason the government who had a part in creating my data is suddenly scary. All I said is that it just seems odd.
Why is it odd? Is it not simply a matter of consent or lack thereof?
And you said Obama's race had something to do with this and terrorists didn't use technology... oh and a BUNCH of other nonsense.
Do I have the game right?