General Discussion

GiaGiovanni

(1,247 posts)

120. It might help to look up various legal interpretations of the 4th amendment

Sun Jul 28, 2013, 04:37 PM

Jul 2013

The 4th amendment seems to be the sticking point here. Is there an interpretation by recognized legal scholars (and not political cronies) that supports what NSA is doing?

I think that would be a good place to start.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

309 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald? [View all] GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 OP

You have just posted one reason, you know well there is a warrant, so if GG is saying there is not a Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #1

A blanket warrent that covers everybody is not a warrant truebluegreen Jul 2013 #3

A warrant is a warrant, does not have to meet your requirements. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #15

. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #32

Things seized, would you think things is phone call records, BTW, the warrants are issued to the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #43

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people msanthrope Jul 2013 #78

Sure. For the past 200 years warrants have been thrown out.... Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #80

My point is that your argument is a bit thin when you try to claim that a search warrant for a msanthrope Jul 2013 #82

What are you saying, do you think warrants are only issued to search your home? No wonder so Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #144

Of course not. What I'm saying is that conflating different scenarios msanthrope Jul 2013 #146

What scenarios are being conflated? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #244

If a "warrant" covers everyone, truebluegreen Jul 2013 #59

Try thinking about this, it is not a warrant issued to the individual, it is issued to the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #61

OK. If we accept your premise, answer me this: truebluegreen Jul 2013 #67

It is not about the communication companies committing a crime, like when a crime is committed such Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #68

Honey, you need to get out more. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #74

I know what the Fourth amendment states, I know warrants are issued to communication Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #143

So, the communications companies are planning to kill someone? truebluegreen Jul 2013 #147

I don't think you are able to comprehend so you will just need to stay in your rut in life, Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #157

The 4th Amendment applies to individuals, not corporations. randome Jul 2013 #224

+ 10,000 n/t truedelphi Jul 2013 #154

Thank you.... midnight Jul 2013 #200

So, who committed the crime? Millions of Americans who are customers of sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #175

You don't need probable cause for third party business records. And you don't need a warrant for msanthrope Jul 2013 #72

warrants were never issued to individuals, so not sure what your point is. 'thinking HiPointDem Jul 2013 #98

In this case warrants are not issued to individuals, this thread has been about a post I responded Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #178

the warrants are to effectively search the records of 300 million people. fail. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #186

It has to meet Constitutional requirements though, which bulk surveillance does not. Waiting For Everyman Jul 2013 #96

Why why why truedelphi Jul 2013 #171

Where is your proof "mass" warrant is not constitional? How do you get "mass" in the first place. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #180

Good grief. nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #251

Absolutely NOT a warrant under 4th Amendment. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #217

A legal order is a legal order if the state says so. JackRiddler Jul 2013 #218

A warrant by definition CANNOT be generic. Fearless Aug 2013 #264

It's not. It's specific to the telco provider Recursion Aug 2013 #285

Specific data, from a specific person, for a specific reason MNBrewer Aug 2013 #290

Actually "we want to search this specific house" happens all the time. Recursion Aug 2013 #291

I don't believe that, and if it does happen, it violates the 4th Amendment MNBrewer Aug 2013 #296

What part of "the places to be searched" is unclear Recursion Aug 2013 #297

ANd the items or persons to be seized. MNBrewer Aug 2013 #298

"Persons" mean people you want to arrest Recursion Aug 2013 #299

Bingo! Fearless Aug 2013 #300

^^^ THIS MNBrewer Jul 2013 #167

And you just stated the problem yourself. ONE warrant, issued AFTER THE FACT for millions of people sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #7

Warrants are renewed from time to time. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #17

Please read the 4th amendment. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #8

I have read the Fourth amendment, it requires a warrant, warrants have been issued. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #20

You either are lying Bradical79 Jul 2013 #45

I am not lying, you can reserve this for those who continue to insist warrants have not been issued Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #65

"When the secret court was created in 1978, it was meant to authorize targeted searches" GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #283

You must be getting your information from birds on a line, warrants for phone call records has Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #284

Let's call them Neo-Warrants Bragi Jul 2013 #46

This might actually be part of the problem: GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #247

So how many warrants have been issued against you? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #151

What Greenwald is saying reflects poorly on President Obama. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #2

+1 forestpath Jul 2013 #5

+1 And... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #11

yes, you have nailed it n/t Psephos Jul 2013 #159

Astroturfing� AgingAmerican Jul 2013 #185

Lots of that kind of thing going on. nt laundry_queen Aug 2013 #287

This is EXACTLY the reason burnodo Jul 2013 #16

It doesn't reflect poorly on President Obama treestar Jul 2013 #28

Adoring! Limbaugh! Lies! Propaganda! Irrelevant! burnodo Jul 2013 #34

You nailed it! RC Jul 2013 #54

Exactly, once someone figures out a good way to blame ONLY the repukes for the NSA spying, hughee99 Jul 2013 #71

It can't just be that strictly partisan GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #203

For some people, I suspect it is. hughee99 Jul 2013 #204

Being a "team player" is not appropriate when great harm is being done GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #205

I agree completely. n/t hughee99 Jul 2013 #209

It seems that some people don't GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #210

Yes, in this case it is. delrem Jul 2013 #236

Spying on every communication of every citizen reflects poorly on the entire government GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #100

I agree--emended to "everyone in the government truebluegreen Jul 2013 #121

So it's personal? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #124

?? Sorry, you need to clarify: truebluegreen Jul 2013 #126

Ah. The trashing of Greenwald GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #131

It's extremely sad that a public servant has been elevated to the an icon of adoration Catherina Jul 2013 #106

Absolutely. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #125

Therefore, it must be a lie, a smear, personal animus or enemy action. Vanje Jul 2013 #196

lol's... KoKo Jul 2013 #211

...and Vanje Jul 2013 #213

Best post, so far. THAT is the crux of it. Everything else truth2power Jul 2013 #202

...said most wingers, looks funny here on DU though uponit7771 Jul 2013 #214

Or it reflects on Greenwald wanting a New York Times bestseller Life Long Dem Aug 2013 #242

Really? truebluegreen Aug 2013 #256

+100 RetroLounge Aug 2013 #258

The NSA has warrants to collect the meta data. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #4

No, the NSA had ONE warrant. How on earth did they get only ONE warrant to coolect and store the sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #12

SCOTUS ruled decades ago that the collection of phone bill type metadata pnwmom Jul 2013 #18

that was for one suspect, we are talking about massive suspicionless spying now, totalitarians wet d usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #193

How do you get one warrant, warrants are issued all the time, not one warrant. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #21

Could you give us an example of ONE WARRANT being issued for 300 MILLION people sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #50

My goodness, after all this time and all the discussion on this subject and from your post I can see Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #57

My goodness but that is simplistic and wrong-headed. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #60

Apparently your are referring to yourself as wrong-headed, if you do want to change and get the Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #63

What warrants, no matter who owns something, warrants must be issued ONLY with sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #62

The meta dats belongs to the company that connects the calls. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #23

Really? So your Bank records are not yours, your medical records are not yours? This talking point, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #31

You better call GMAIL or who ever else provides your email and JoePhilly Jul 2013 #33

Gmail has a privacy statement. Did you read it? You're spreading false information. The ONLY way sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #38

The government can get a warrant and GMAIL would have to JoePhilly Jul 2013 #44

Sometimes, I just want to send episodes of the "The Wire" to individual posters. Maybe it msanthrope Jul 2013 #81

You keep making my point without realizing it. If the data doesn't belong to us, sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #85

Where in the world did you get the idea the data belonged to you? Egnever Aug 2013 #255

Because it's personal data GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #282

That is utterly and completely incorrect. You claim to be a court reporter---have you never heard msanthrope Jul 2013 #79

Yes, I have heard of subpoenas and WARRANTS showing PROBABLE CAUSE sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #86

Subpoenas don't require probable cause. Your gmail records can be msanthrope Jul 2013 #94

It's going fine with Verizon, we are not being spied on by them anymore. Wish we had known sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #122

Good Lord, no wonder why there is so much disinformation out there regarding the 4th Amendment. neverforget Jul 2013 #168

Yes, that is what Michelle Bachman says, but we all know what to think of ANYTHING that sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #302

We have a business. We have customer records. Those records are between the customer and sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #305

Where are they getting the data from, you the individual? Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #58

Not any more, now that I know what they were doing with it. I have cancelled our Verizon sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #87

Surely if you do not use cell phones or the internet, and similar devices your records will be zero. Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #88

Thinkingabout:you have made claims here about the blanket warrant GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #99

The Constitution is a good document foryou to start with, in fact the Fourth Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #136

When you provide information I'll read your post GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #139

Well, it is not necessary for you to read my post, in fact it is not necessary for you to Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #142

If you were running for public office, Vanje Jul 2013 #197

I guess I need to restate myself a second time, I don't care if my phone calls, internet, etc Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #199

This is satire, isnt it? Vanje Jul 2013 #201

No, I think he means it. GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #241

The fact that you think reality is anything other than what he posted frightens me. Egnever Aug 2013 #257

The web logs for my hosting business most certainly belong to me and not my customers Recursion Aug 2013 #292

I believe I have addressed this Michelle Bachman talking point in several posts already. So here I sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #304

One per provider. They're taking the provider's data as permitted by a warrant Recursion Aug 2013 #286

There goes Michelle Bachman's false claim that MY records do not belong to ME. Wrong, and this sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #303

of course they still have your records Recursion Aug 2013 #306

Yes, they are desperately trying to humor all their customers now that the violated their own sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #307

Every call had counterparties. you have no right Recursion Aug 2013 #308

It doesn't matter, they cannot use those records other than according to their agreement with sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #309

Greenwald bad, bad. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #22

It's amazing how people fall back on homophobia GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #191

Joe, do you have links on the actual substance of these warrants? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #101

Only the trashers can definitively answer Question #1: Smarmie Doofus Jul 2013 #6

Its not about Grrenwald ... except when it is about Greenwald. JoePhilly Jul 2013 #35

Because he is making the PTB and Dear Leader look bad. Arctic Dave Jul 2013 #9

Booz Allen needs a good laugh to cheer them up.... think Jul 2013 #10

Booz Allen will have 35 different ACA (Obamacare) contracts GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #102

They have attacked him long before the NSA/Snowden story broke, often using his Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #13

A single poster since banned for his views is not "attacks.". Greenwald deserves scorn msanthrope Jul 2013 #40

That was just the worst, not the only attack. The question was 'why the trashing' Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #42

If you think particular posters are homophobic, I think you should use the jury system and other msanthrope Jul 2013 #77

So you think homophobia is playing a part here? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #103

He's a grandstanding self-promoter who made a big splash pnwmom Jul 2013 #14

How do you explain the homophobic attacks on him back in 2011? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #24

There's no excuse for them and no connection to this issue. pnwmom Jul 2013 #27

The OP 'issue': Can someone tell me the reason for all the trashing of Glen Greenwald? Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #36

Probably because Greenwald has been trashing Obama since Obama first took office. pnwmom Jul 2013 #92

However, Mr Snowden actually held off on truedelphi Jul 2013 #152

You forgot about the documents he shared pnwmom Jul 2013 #158

You are repeating propaganda from our MIC and its tightly controlled media - truedelphi Jul 2013 #170

No, he's relying on people like you to not understand that he's making a false distinction pnwmom Jul 2013 #176

What some media states that Snowden gave to the Chinese newspapers truedelphi Jul 2013 #189

Now he is claiming that his computers were hacked? What did he expect pnwmom Jul 2013 #190

How do you know who did the hacking? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #206

I don't know, but it's not really relevant WHO did it, assuming it was done. pnwmom Jul 2013 #212

So we don't know that it was done at all, and we don't know who if anyone GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #216

You're right. We could assume Snowden is lying when he says he was hacked. pnwmom Jul 2013 #220

We can't assume anything really. We just don't know. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #221

No, the previous poster in this thread claimed that Snowden says he was hacked. pnwmom Jul 2013 #222

Or the Chinese got the information from some other source GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #226

But Snowden supposedly thinks they hacked him. pnwmom Jul 2013 #229

Snowden might not know who hacked him, or if anyone did GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #233

I've always believed that nothing I put online is secure. pnwmom Jul 2013 #234

The problem is where are all being forced to do everything online GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #245

Why would you resist that? Egnever Aug 2013 #263

I want control over when and how my money leaves my account GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #271

People supporting that thread are right here in this thread, trashing away. Bluenorthwest Jul 2013 #37

I'm not going to read every thread looking for whoever you're talking about. pnwmom Jul 2013 #93

Just read that thread and read this one. RetroLounge Aug 2013 #260

Did you know how much was being collected on you several years ago? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #104

I think because he was not properly licking some boots The Straight Story Jul 2013 #19

Greenwald is an opportunist, not a journalist. Avalux Jul 2013 #25

What You Said otohara Jul 2013 #64

You have this opinion because he once felt he should support Dubya after 9/11? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #105

I don't form an opinion from one fuck up. Avalux Jul 2013 #163

There was a post last night with a whole list, but these were apparently lies GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #183

You use out of context quotes but Greenwald is the opportunist? last1standing Jul 2013 #135

If I was an opportunist, I'd be in the headlines like Greenwald. n/t Avalux Jul 2013 #164

I'm sure you have a tremendous amount of talent in journalism... last1standing Jul 2013 #165

. laundry_queen Aug 2013 #288

I think there is a difference between what a journalist does and what an author does. reusrename Jul 2013 #172

We don't know what he'd do, that's the point. Avalux Jul 2013 #179

Opportunists can still be journalists. Greenwald is definitely a journalist Recursion Aug 2013 #293

Is no one allowed to disagree with him? treestar Jul 2013 #26

I assume that's a rhetorical question GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #107

"He is not a reporter" RetroLounge Aug 2013 #261

I can tell the difference between a news story and an editorial treestar Aug 2013 #268

Yeah, okay. RetroLounge Aug 2013 #269

He's a complete douchebag and attention whore. Is that reason enough? MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #29

you know this how? ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #52

Do you have links that support your opinion? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #108

Gee I thought looking at the profile of the poster might give an answer HangOnKids Jul 2013 #116

Because neither he nor Snowden have shown that the NSA is doing anything illegal. randome Jul 2013 #30

What kind of evidence would convince you that the NSA was in fact doing something illegal? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #109

How would I know what kind of proof to look for? randome Jul 2013 #119

It might help to look up various legal interpretations of the 4th amendment GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #120

Any attempts to discuss the Fourth Amendment here treestar Jul 2013 #128

So NSA went to the FISA court and asked for a blanket warrant on all Americans? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #130

This is exactly what they do treestar Jul 2013 #132

Then explain where I got it wrong GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #133

Metadata phone records are not part of your personal effects. randome Jul 2013 #137

The phone records are considered to be property of telecoms, not the person who makes the call GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #140

No problem changing the law here. randome Jul 2013 #141

You and I will vehemently disagree here. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #145

"When we are on the phone, we assume who we are calling is a private matter" Egnever Aug 2013 #265

Yes! He does plenty of "trashing!" treestar Jul 2013 #114

Links and evidence please. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #123

In a dysfunctional family system, there is usually a lot of rage aimed at those villager Jul 2013 #39

B. I. N. G. O. laundry_queen Aug 2013 #289

very textbook indeed, Laundry Queen villager Aug 2013 #295

He's a hypocrite.... msanthrope Jul 2013 #41

Well if he is then he is in good company with this fucking country and government. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #49

Interesting. Thank you. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #127

You are quite welcome. I cannot speak to other people's knowledge, but his racist postings msanthrope Jul 2013 #134

I don't actually care about his opinions on other matters GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #138

Because he's making it clear that "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is neither. Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2013 #47

It's a nonsense agenda. n/t L0oniX Jul 2013 #48

Sock-puppetry, probably. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2013 #51

Because he's a gadfly. People tend to dislike gadflies Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #53

Mind Reading for fun and profit! bobduca Jul 2013 #181

Character Assassination - If The Message Is Disturbing - Shoot The Messenger cantbeserious Jul 2013 #55

It is not what he said nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #56

Greenwald doesn't do anything that doesn't help Greenwals. He's a grandstanding little putz. OregonBlue Jul 2013 #66

"He was mean to my boyfriend and makes him look bad!" Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #69

Some of it is because he is gay. The Link Jul 2013 #70

Homophobia is against the TOS. If you think a particular poster is being homophobic, I encourage msanthrope Jul 2013 #76

So you think homophobia is playing a part in this? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #110

The various posters that thought it was cute to call him "Geegee". n/t backscatter712 Jul 2013 #174

Ah. So it's there GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #182

He is gay? Egnever Aug 2013 #266

Kill the messenger, kill the message. Iggo Jul 2013 #73

Fascinating thread Fumesucker Jul 2013 #75

It's actually interesting to see how widely people diverge GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #111

It boils down to this Marrah_G Jul 2013 #162

I haven't been around long enough to isolate both groups GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #184

There's always pushback against an activist embellishing his 'cause'. railsback Jul 2013 #83

So Greenwald has attacked skeptics. Do you have links? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #112

People are trashing Greenwald felix_numinous Jul 2013 #84

So it's basically a disagreement over the interpretation of the 4th amendment GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #113

OH BS treestar Jul 2013 #115

Because he is a poor journalist intaglio Jul 2013 #89

You know, I didn't know about Eschelon until 10 years ago when I went on an odd little site GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #118

The reason? It's an organised campaign, that's why Bragi Jul 2013 #90

He makes some main-stream elected Democrats look bad. nt LWolf Jul 2013 #91

Fear and Loathing. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #95

Why do you assume anything he says is a lie? Coyotl Jul 2013 #97

The moderate-right wing of the party hates lefties. Rex Jul 2013 #117

because he keeps pursuing this loony idea that if something is wrong when the Republicans do it Douglas Carpenter Jul 2013 #129

Authoritarian "Democrats" reflexively attacking anyone undermining the surveillance state. n/t backscatter712 Jul 2013 #148

Fear! Truth tellers always get this response. All the more reason to support him. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #149

Orwell said that this way: truedelphi Jul 2013 #153

Yes, very well put by Orwell. But he could not in his wildest predictions,, have predicted how sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #156

Didn't he also say- eilen Jul 2013 #177

Oh, I like that quote. Don't truedelphi Jul 2013 #188

That needs to be on my car GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #207

It isn't President Barack Obama that said it Aerows Jul 2013 #150

because pesky libertarian do-gooders are going to stop the government from keeping! us! safe! Warren DeMontague Jul 2013 #155

Please understand: If they make it about Greenwald, then we won't pay attention to the spying! Th1onein Jul 2013 #160

Why would anyone on DU not be concerned about the NSA? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #215

You got me. I don't know. Th1onein Jul 2013 #223

It's also legal for cops to taser people GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #225

THAT'S what I'm saying. I couldn't agree with you more. Th1onein Jul 2013 #231

Now, how do we get people to understand that? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #232

I don't think we do need to get them to understand. I think they already do. Th1onein Jul 2013 #238

You think the NSA sends trolls in here? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #246

They are recording and storing every piece of info you send or search for on the net Th1onein Aug 2013 #267

Yeah, I guess GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #270

He helped Snowden "make Obama look bad" - ? Skip Intro Jul 2013 #161

No, they wanted to.. but ended up making themselves look like Cha Aug 2013 #249

The reason is that they are pathetic losers with no lives kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #166

"...it's all about just one guy." Scurrilous Jul 2013 #187

There are official NSA sponsored trolls that have joined the conversation in the last month. Kablooie Jul 2013 #169

They don't work for the NSA... backscatter712 Jul 2013 #173

Have joined DU? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #192

There are some posters who joined in the last month and post almost exclusively... Kablooie Jul 2013 #194

Wow. It's quite a sophisticated operation. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #195

Yes - noticeable dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #219

a lot of it has to do with his fans, I think ecstatic Jul 2013 #198

I don't know anything about his fans GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #208

And nothing that S&G stole and printed points to illegality or abuse by the NSA. randome Jul 2013 #230

Greenwald could be more properly described as "pro government" rather than "pro Bush" Fumesucker Jul 2013 #237

You might start by reading the endless other threads that have been posted in the last month. OregonBlue Jul 2013 #227

Too much vitriol on those to read for long GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #228

It mostly has to do with the fact that Greenwald is a nasty arrogant jerk. He's a Libertarian OregonBlue Jul 2013 #240

+1 Life Long Dem Aug 2013 #243

I started reading threads after this OP delrem Jul 2013 #235

I think there is a fuzziness in FISA too GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #248

Excessive secrecy mixed with dubious ill-founded semantics is creepy. delrem Aug 2013 #254

I wish I could rec your post GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #281

Again, no. The Telco warrants are targeted to the telco providers, who own the data Recursion Aug 2013 #294

Because he dared to point out the emperor's unclothed state n/t markpkessinger Jul 2013 #239

Sounds about right. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #250

signing the book deal was is my reason madrchsod Aug 2013 #252

A book deal on the NSA info? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #253

I've disliked him since 2006 frazzled Aug 2013 #259

This surveillance sh*t has been going on for a very, very, very long time... Tikki Aug 2013 #262

What's your best guess about how long it has been going on? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #272

At least since the Eisenhower Administration. I lived a while in a Government town... Tikki Aug 2013 #273

That far back! GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #274

The Wiki says 1952 for the NSA...sounds about right. Tikki Aug 2013 #275

What was that Frank Zappa quote about opening the curtain GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #276

Today the NSA is that shiny object, the new gray, the OMG it's all about me... Tikki Aug 2013 #277

Suggestions? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #278

Study the History of the NSA, how it has been used throughout the whole 60 years of it's existence.. Tikki Aug 2013 #279

Interesting. GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #280

Because many are Tories soul deep others collect a check to TheKentuckian Aug 2013 #301