How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

[eugene]

the idea that people make decisions based on emotion not rationality kind of applies to this thread and the arguments taking place itt. the problem is, when you remove emotion for the equation altogether, there is no rational response. like everything, there is a middle ground.

 

however if you're the sort of person that can justify the actions of the nsa and the attitude presented in these slides, you are one cold motherfucker imo. i can't see a context where behaviour like this would be appropriate, and i can't see any explicit explanation on how these actions are only for ensuring the safety of the CITIZENS of a country, not the business that contribute to the economy so greatly by hiding all their assets offshore...i mean ahh...whoops...

 

first of all, what actions ? what can you actually infer from those slides with certainty ?

secondly, you don't really need an explicit explanation why those alleged actions are only used according to the law if you're not a tinfoilhatter/ron paul supporter. the commonsensical, starting position should be that if those slides are indeed coming from nsa, a major governmental agency, that it is working according to the law, like any other governmental institution.

[eugene]

i don't care if it's operating within the law, i'm denouncing it from a moral standpoint. two different arguments.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the law/constitution in democratic countries is based on common understanding of morality.

and again, you're denouncing what exactly ?

[Guest A/D]

Guys, you have to remember that Eugene thinks mass surveillance is a myth, and doesn't accept evidence to the contrary, like this for example

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932

[eugene]

Guys, you have to remember that Eugene thinks mass surveillance is a myth, and doesn't accept evidence to the contrary, like this for example

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932

where's the evidence of "mass" and even "surveillance" in that article ?

[eugene]

 

 

i don't care if it's operating within the law, i'm denouncing it from a moral standpoint. two different arguments.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the law/constitution in democratic countries is based on common understanding of morality.

and again, you're denouncing what exactly ?

 

not at all, the law can and has been compromised by business influence and the interests of individuals with selfish motives, amongst many other things.

and what am i denouncing? yes, what ever could i be talking about based on what has been discussed in this thread.

american constitution was designed to serve business interests ? that's new to me.

 

i'm not asking this sarcastically, what act are you actually denouncing ? if you give me a concrete example we can work together and see if this act is actually based on those slides and whether its existence is unquestionable and unambiguous according to those slides. a critical, guided reading of sorts.

[Key]

*looks at watmm*

 

 

*writes on a notepad*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*notepad drawing is a cock n balls*

[Hugh Mughnus]

*looks at watmm*

 

 

*writes on a notepad*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*notepad drawing is a cock n balls*

 

"The CIA"

[xox]

eugene, what's that as your avatar?

 

 

[eugene]

http://www.discogs.com/%D0%A5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82-%D0%90%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D1%8B%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%96%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86-%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD/master/31203

[xox]

http://www.discogs.com/%D0%A5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82-%D0%90%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%86%D1%8B%D0%BE%D0%BD-%D0%96%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86-%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD/master/31203

 

wow, lord vader has taught you well. it's official now. you'r an agent of the beast.

[eugene]

lol, grenn greenwald is actually calling someone a shill for questioning him in the comments section. if the master himself operates on this level i'm pretty sure i'm wasting my time trying to push his minions towards a more critical attitude.

 

[triachus]

the jig's up, eugene

 

 

 

book 'em, john

[eugene]

eh? sorry tri, my translator microbes are not getting this.

[Guest A/D]

 

Guys, you have to remember that Eugene thinks mass surveillance is a myth, and doesn't accept evidence to the contrary, like this for example

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932

where's the evidence of "mass" and even "surveillance" in that article ?

We've been through this before, and your interpretation is so vastly different from mine, I'm not sure how to bridge the gap. But they do spell out that

1. The NSA is collecting data on USA citizens

2. Certain types of activity, e.g. drugs or tax evasion, are flagged

3. That data is eventually passed on to, e.g., the IRS or DEA

4. Those agencies are then told to recreate the NSA data using constitutionally approved methods.

 

If you don't see that, we're reading different articles.

[eugene]

no i actually haven't talked to you about this particular article in that other thread because i got exhausted and ditched it by the time you posted it.

 

1. the nsa is allowed to collect data on a us citizen if they have a warrant, are you/the article saying that they're circumventing this process ?

2. if they do so according to the aforementioned procedure i see no problem with that.

 

3-4 i really have no clue about the legality of transferring such data between agencies, but the most important point is still no. 1.

[eugene]

from the article itself, A/D:

Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst.

 

 

does it really seems like an evidence for mass surveillance to you ?

[Adieu]

from the article itself, A/D:

Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst.

 

 

does it really seems like an evidence for mass surveillance to you ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[eugene]

this is a demonstration of something that can happen in a particular place, in a particular time and in particular context. how is this related to the topic at hand ?

[Adieu]

precedents are a demonstration of something that can happen in a particular place, in a particular time and in particular context. how is this related to the topic at hand ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate

 

I just think the evidence points in the direction of illegal surveillance, but to be honest I haven't examined the current issue to the extent that you all have. I just think you are making it seems as if the government is generally benevolent and the illegal and immoral acts are just instances of specific people's wrongdoing. But it in fact it seems me that the government is regularly involved in unsavory activity. Being from Israel I can only imagine that you are even closer to firsthand experience with corrupt government than any of us americans. Why would you be making these apologetic arguments in favor of position that the government is generally honest and moral. It's quite obvious to anyone that most governments tend to blur these lines if not openly cross them? It's weird that you make these arguments really. I'm confused by it.

 

You also use blanket generalizations like people who support BTS are conspiratards.

[Guest A/D]

I have to assume they're not talking about data collected under a warrant, because they're forced to use "parallel construction" to get data they can use in court.

 

You'll note that in the article, they use language like "typical" and "usually" (constructed from foreign wiretaps), not "always". That means there are counterexamples. And yes, they also say in the article that those tips are cross-referenced with the NSA's records. And no, the wiretaps being foreign is actually more evidence of a large surveillance network, not a smaller, more controlled one.

[Audioblysk]

Eugene - Israeli/WATMMite/Terrorist.

 

Also, lol @ Eugene thinking that the NSA/DEA/FBI/CIA only act with warrants issued. Really man? I mean with all the shit that the U.S. Government is knee deep in, it's incredibly far out to think that it illegally spies on its people to serve its interest? The same country that allows grandiose Pearl-Harbor-esque 'terrorist' attack(s) as justification for financial profiteering and starting one of the most fruitless and economically damaging (to the majority) military quagmires in the last century, is going to be honest about why it has agencies employing people in the hundreds of thousands to spy on nobody without tons of due process and a warrant? The patriot act makes it incredibly easy to circumvent laws and rights for reasons of national security... where the fuck have you been for the last decade or so?

[chenGOD]

The NSA has basically admitted to mass surveillance. What do you think programs like echelon do? Now of course what is important is how they act on the data they collect, which is by and large benign. However this does not necessarily mean they are acting within the confines of the law.

And yes laws are often subverted to the purpose of businesses. How do you think corporations got the legal status of people?

 

Can we please get back to the powerpoints? Cause they're hilarious in how bad they are. One of the slides is just Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The other is just some social science categories (and weirdly, biology is included) with some vague tags associated with the various disciplines. So what? You learn that shit in first year sociology.

Also JE, the deception gambit chart is not a spectrum, it's a strategical structure/pathway to follow in executing a gambit.

[eugene]

 

precedents are a demonstration of something that can happen in a particular place, in a particular time and in particular context. how is this related to the topic at hand ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate

 

what are you trying to say with those examples, that abuse can happen ? well everyone knows this already, it's a rhetoric device not a legit argument for something that's happening at the moment. i already mentioned your inability to differentiate between occurrence and phenomena before, and you obviously not getting the importance of such distinction. would it make sense if started using examples of such agencies working according to the rules as a counterargument to your supposed arguments ?

 

 

I just think the evidence points in the direction of illegal surveillance, but to be honest I haven't examined the current issue to the extent that you all have. I just think you are making it seems as if the government is generally benevolent and the illegal and immoral acts are just instances of specific people's wrongdoing. But it in fact it seems me that the government is regularly involved in unsavory activity.

 

 

you think incorrectly because you base your conclusion on a discourse that surrounds those publication not actual content of those publication which is full of unsubstantiated assumptions and wild interpretations. western governments are generally benevolent, to claim different is simply delusional. you really need to take a step away from your "the government is out to get us" thinking and see the massive and benevolent involvement of governmental institutions in your life, without which your life would simply be unbearable.

 

 

Being from Israel I can only imagine that you are even closer to firsthand experience with corrupt government than any of us americans.

what makes you think that israeli government is more corrupt ? i don't see those argument as apologetic at all but more sensible

 

Why would you be making these apologetic arguments in favor of position that the government is generally honest and moral. It's quite obvious to anyone that most governments tend to blur these lines if not openly cross them? It's weird that you make these arguments really. I'm confused by it.

You also use blanket generalizations like people who support BTS are conspiratards.

 

because it's the reality. the idea that governments are generally corrupt is only obvious to people who believe that governments are corrupt and immoral apriori, in reality for every instance of corruption there are thousands of instances of proper functioning.

 

what's BTS ?

[may be rude]

 

precedents are a demonstration of something that can happen in a particular place, in a particular time and in particular context. how is this related to the topic at hand ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate

 

I just think the evidence points in the direction of illegal surveillance, but to be honest I haven't examined the current issue to the extent that you all have. I just think you are making it seems as if the government is generally benevolent and the illegal and immoral acts are just instances of specific people's wrongdoing. But it in fact it seems me that the government is regularly involved in unsavory activity. Being from Israel I can only imagine that you are even closer to firsthand experience with corrupt government than any of us americans. Why would you be making these apologetic arguments in favor of position that the government is generally honest and moral. It's quite obvious to anyone that most governments tend to blur these lines if not openly cross them? It's weird that you make these arguments really. I'm confused by it.

 

You also use blanket generalizations like people who support BTS are conspiratards.

 

 

why argue over which generalization to apply? any generalization will be a disservice to the issue. the us government employs around 3 millions people. of course there will be plenty of examples of wrong doing. you could also find many examples of the system being designed to reinforce fairness and protect against abuse.

[eugene]

I have to assume they're not talking about data collected under a warrant, because they're forced to use "parallel construction" to get data they can use in court.

 

You'll note that in the article, they use language like "typical" and "usually" (constructed from foreign wiretaps), not "always". That means there are counterexamples. And yes, they also say in the article that those tips are cross-referenced with the NSA's records. And no, the wiretaps being foreign is actually more evidence of a large surveillance network, not a smaller, more controlled one.

this is not a contradiction, just because they collected the data legally doesn't mean the methods of it's collection have to be open to all.

 

you're stretching your reading comprehension/interpretation way too much regarding the second point, if there were actual documented counterexamples of such it would be a a huge deal that would resonate everywhere, it's the reuters writers that use the "typically" and "usually" language for some reason, not their sources. but since the whole thing started there have been no documentation of mass warrant-less surveillance, and it probably doesn't exists because otherwise it would be leaked to the press asap.

i don't think surveillance of foreigners is actually breaking news, it's what those agencies are supposed to do by definition. there's also no question about the existence of surveillance networks, you really don't need snowden to tell you that spying agencies will use whatever resources and technologies that available to them to do their jobs, the question is their legality in relation to the people in whose name they operate.