General Discussion

Monkie

(1,301 posts)

53. i would not bother engaging with them if they will not even discuss the facts of the documents

Reply to dkf (Reply #24)

Fri Jun 21, 2013, 08:18 PM

Jun 2013

and the lies of those in charge, how it is done is completely meaningless and a distraction

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The NSA searches its mass database of phone records without real judicial oversight. [View all] dkf Jun 2013 OP

If this would be the rule then police would not be able to ask any questions of Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #1

You wish regular warrants were approved on this basis? Guidelines for the police to interpret? dkf Jun 2013 #3

I never said I would like for warrants to be issued everytime a query is made, but if you get this Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #4

It's search and seizure. That's how the 4th amendment works. dkf Jun 2013 #5

I am surprised you would really want this to happen, frivolous in the least. BTW, the Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #7

Why would the Internet go away? dkf Jun 2013 #8

You ask a lot of questions which should be simple but no more queries, no news, if Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #10

Well I have no idea why you think the Internet would be shut down. Weird. dkf Jun 2013 #17

Weird you don't undertstand. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #19

I'm baffled at why the internet would go away, too. dawg Jun 2013 #18

Would it be proper to say you are not in position to make the decision of what would suffice. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #23

No. dawg Jun 2013 #25

You do understand I'm not talking about a google search, right? dawg Jun 2013 #26

Why would you assume that? Phone company metadata does not include any of that. randome Jun 2013 #34

Well I'm not assuming it entirely. That's why I said "probably". dawg Jun 2013 #36

Now I gotta say, this is an interesting new talking point nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #20

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling everyone else's posts to be 'talking points'. randome Jun 2013 #29

What in the world does ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #30

Anyone can be "queried" solely on the basis of secret computer profiles that aren't subject to leveymg Jun 2013 #2

'Grocery items'? Where do you get that from? randome Jun 2013 #6

They are collecting directly off of the fiber optic cables. That's pure raw data. dkf Jun 2013 #9

How do you know? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #11

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #13

How is it done? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #16

AP dkf Jun 2013 #24

i would not bother engaging with them if they will not even discuss the facts of the documents Monkie Jun 2013 #53

Just what I thought, just throw some words out and let the story continue. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #56

They copy the data from the fiber optic cables. dkf Jun 2013 #57

I do understand more than you know but you continue your talking point. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #58

You'd think Snowden would have mentioned this if it was true. randome Jun 2013 #12

WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #14

You know the article ProSense Jun 2013 #22

I'm not defending Bush. Am I supposed to be blaming him for the fact it still goes on? dkf Jun 2013 #54

Link? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #55

This is what the EFF lawsuit is about...they have ATT records. dkf Jun 2013 #15

Bush era stuff. I agree, let the EFF lawsuit proceed. randome Jun 2013 #27

Snowden wasn't director of the NSA. dawg Jun 2013 #21

I don't think he had access to anything because he wasn't able to show any evidence. randome Jun 2013 #28

There is enough information out there now to be concerned about ... dawg Jun 2013 #31

He could easily have hurt the case he wanted to make. randome Jun 2013 #46

I think it's interesting how everyone else here but you cites multiple sources leveymg Jun 2013 #32

The link about Snowden's fake resume. randome Jun 2013 #33

That mischaracterizes things. I left my comment over at the other thread. leveymg Jun 2013 #37

It's looking like he also lied about working for the NSA before going to the CIA. randome Jun 2013 #42

According to the NSA, Snowden was the one ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #35

Note to Snowden debunkers: Alexander is not saying the documents are fake. leveymg Jun 2013 #38

No one is saying the warrant is a fake. randome Jun 2013 #41

Never said he was. eom leveymg Jun 2013 #52

I meant he didn't have access to private information. randome Jun 2013 #40

He knew because of the documents he found. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #43

I'm not disputing the validity of the Verizon warrant. randome Jun 2013 #44

I don't need to trust him to ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #47

I hear you. randome Jun 2013 #48

Not really - ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #49

They started their cases back in the Bush Era. randome Jun 2013 #51

and the aclu. allin99 Jun 2013 #45

Yes, them, too. n/t ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #50

K&R KoKo Jun 2013 #39