Comments

1
Reverse Psychology?

Probably not, right?
2
It's sad how much money we're wasting on crap like this while the intelligence community racks up failure after failure to alert us to anything that matters.
3
Democrats: "It's not fascism when WE do it."
4
good! we need to be tracking these paranoid anarchists like the two psychos in vegas.
5
Bad Obama. Bad!
6
Welcome to the world of Watch_Dogs.

Next up: ctOS integration for the whole of the greater Seattle metropolitan area.
7
Canadian Supreme Court just ruled - today - that it's illegal to collect data on Citizens without an individual warrant - and the US signed a Data Treaty that requires them to abide by that ruling
8
Eli: Has the Stranger pursued SPD to see if they use Stingray?
9
@2 the only stuff that works - that has ever worked - is friendly police detective interrogation. The only cell or internet data that has ever been useful was on people in or from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

Ever.

Dirty secret of counter-terrorism - they want you to be sheep and live in Fear
10


Hope and Change.
11
I pretty much agree with @9, but I'd add this: this domestic spying has never been about getting terrorists, that's just a pretext. It has been pretty successful at setting up a police surveillance state at home.
12
4th amendment? Seriously we have a fucking constitution for this shit.
13
Two notes, the first most important.

This should not be a partisan issue. All Americans should be fighting mad at the systematic dismembering of basic civil liberties, whatever their ideological or political affiliation.

And it's interesting that a post on suspension of the 4th Amendment garners nearly no comments, while one on proposed suspension of the 2nd gets enthusiastic support from many commenting.

Until enough people say a big fuck you to tyrannical government practices, of whatever kind, the loss of our most fundamental civil rights will continue.
14
@13: Please explain how phone use metadata collection violates the 4th Amendment. You're delusional and execrably badly-informed.
15
@14

Gee, assuming every single person is a terrorist in a given location doesn't sound like reasonable support for a search to me.

But then, maybe you don't like being free from unreasonable government intrusion into your life.

For the record, biologist, a badly ill informed person would in fact be well informed. Double negative, you see, kiddo.
16
@15: Gathering metadata regarding phone use doesn't constitute a search of someone's person, home, or other similarly protected category. Rather, the government agency in question is requesting information (information already released by its originator) from a third party: the phone company. Try again.
For the record, construction worker, your grasp of grammar is tenuous at best. "[B]adly ill informed" could mean "bad at being ill informed" or "ill informed in a bad way", and the context should make it obvious which meaning is intended. Nor is that what I wrote previously! What I actually posted was the phrase "execrably badly-informed"; "execrably" means "horribly".

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.