Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 16 2017, @01:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the now-they're-all-watching-you dept.

If you thought government surveillance was bad already, it just got worse. A lot worse.

[T]he Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along.

[...] Executive Order 12333, often referred to as "twelve triple-three," has attracted less debate than congressional wiretapping laws, but serves as authorization for the NSA's most massive surveillance programs — far more than the NSA's other programs combined. Under 12333, the NSA taps phone and internet backbones throughout the world, records the phone calls of entire countries, vacuums up traffic from Google and Yahoo's data centers overseas, and more.

In 2014, The Intercept revealed that the NSA uses 12333 as a legal basis for an internal NSA search engine that spans more than 850 billion phone and internet records and contains the unfiltered private information of millions of Americans.

[...] But this massive database inevitably includes vast amount of American's communications — swept up when they speak to people abroad, when they go abroad themselves, or even if their domestic communications are simply routed abroad. That's why access was previously limited to data that had already been screened to remove unrelated information and information identifying U.S. persons. The new rules still ostensibly limit access to authorized foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes — not ordinary law enforcement purposes — and require screening before they are more widely shared. But privacy activists are skeptical.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday January 16 2017, @08:21PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday January 16 2017, @08:21PM (#454492) Journal

    You are a complete idiot. How in gods name are you confusing selling weapons to terrorists to refusing to sell cakes to gay people?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 16 2017, @08:27PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 16 2017, @08:27PM (#454496) Homepage Journal

    No confusion. They're exactly the same thing. They're discrimination based solely on the actions of the customer.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:27AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:27AM (#454750) Journal

      This post, more than any other of its length, perfectly exemplifies exactly what is wrong with you. It should be bronzed and hung on your tombstone.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:14AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:14AM (#454762) Homepage Journal

        I know, right? I'm utterly unable to twist things into what they aren't so that they fit the progressive narrative. It's a huge failing.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:20PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:20PM (#454997) Journal

          I'm utterly unable to twist things into what they aren't

          I laughed so hard I almost threw up. "Logically" connecting the selling of weapons to terrorists, and the selling of cakes to gays is beyond failing.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:31PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:31PM (#455007) Journal

            Yeah he's a piece of work isn't he? A microcosm of everything wrong with the "conservative" wing of the population. I've never understood how this kind of solipsism wasn't instantly and messily fatal.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:38PM

              by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @07:38PM (#455028) Journal

              It's disturbing because he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the word discriminate.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:18PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:18PM (#455074) Homepage Journal

            reductio ad absurdum
            If it's in Latin, it's been around for a bit. You probably should have heard of it by now. Oh well, always glad to help educate.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:40PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @09:40PM (#455093) Journal

              Petitio principii. That one's been around a while too, snowflake :)

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:15PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:15PM (#455138) Homepage Journal

                Inapplicable. Both examples I gave were clearly and indisputably examples of making a judgment to sell or not to sell based on the actions of the buyer. The only difference was scope and that was intentionally different to illustrate the point.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:06AM

                  by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:06AM (#455199) Journal

                  Both examples I gave were clearly and indisputably examples of making a judgment to sell or not to sell based on the actions of the buyer.

                  Bzzzzt. Gay isn't an action. Try again.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:19AM

                    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:19AM (#455202) Homepage Journal

                    Getting gay married, however, is. You should have read further.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:21PM

                      by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:21PM (#455580) Journal

                      The fact that the wedding is same-sex isn't actually an action. You don't go get "gay married", you go get married. It's the same ceremony, the same actions.

                      If you don't want to bake wedding cakes, don't bake wedding cakes. But if you advertise that you sell wedding cakes, you can't refuse a customer just because you don't like their skin color or sexual orientation. Because that isn't their choice. And yes, getting married is their choice, but if you're discriminating based on the fact that they CHOSE to get married, then you have to discriminate equally against EVERYONE who chose to get married -- which is perfectly fine. I don't sell wedding cakes, and there is nobody putting a gun to my head trying to force me to.

                      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:21PM

                        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:21PM (#455736) Homepage Journal

                        How many knots did you have to twist your brain into to decide that taking an action is not taking an action? Marrying someone of the same sex is an action, there can be no debate on this.

                        Sexual orientation is not an inborn trait. Oh, I'm sure it is for some but the last time I heard an SJW mouth off about gay people being born that way, my friend allowed "Bullshit. I wasn't born gay. I just got tired of putting up with women's shit." The look on her little SJW face still makes me laugh every time I think back on that moment.

                        Did you conveniently forget that business owners may refuse service to anyone for any reason unless that specific reason is explicitly protected by law? Your state may have a law saying that gay people are a protected class but it is far from universally agreed upon, so don't act like it is.

                        --
                        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:29PM

                          by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:29PM (#456049) Journal

                          How many knots did you have to twist your brain into to decide that taking an action is not taking an action? Marrying someone of the same sex is an action, there can be no debate on this.

                          I never said getting married isn't an action. What I said was that "getting married" is the action; "same-sex" is not. It's not a DIFFERENT action when it's done by a same-sex couple vs when it's done by a heterosexual couple. Both couples got married. Both couples took the same action. So if you are discriminating based only on the action taken then you have to discriminate against anyone who got married, not just homosexuals who got married. Otherwise you aren't discriminating based on action, you're discriminating based on identity.

                          As for the legality...if you're basing your concept of right and wrong on what is legal, you are already hopelessly lost.

                          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:32PM

                            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:32PM (#456169) Homepage Journal

                            It's not a DIFFERENT action when it's done by a same-sex couple vs when it's done by a heterosexual couple.

                            Yes, yes it is. The participants in an action matter. Much like the difference between two teenagers knocking boots versus a teacher knocking boots with a student.

                            As for the legality...if you're basing your concept of right and wrong on what is legal, you are already hopelessly lost.

                            Because we're discussing legality. I don't personally give a rat's ass if gay folks want to get married. It doesn't hurt anyone, so go for it. I also don't give a rat's ass if a baker doesn't want to sell them a cake. It doesn't hurt anyone, so go for it.

                            --
                            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:53PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday January 17 2017, @05:53PM (#454981) Journal

      *facepalm*

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:51PM

      by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 17 2017, @11:51PM (#455159)

      No confusion. They're exactly the same thing. They're discrimination based solely on the actions of the customer.

      While I am in awe of the intense 3-way you and the others have managed to get into, I'll try to point out why I disagree with you in hopefully sensible terms. At a fundamental level, yes, you are correct. Both are acts of discrimination based on the acts of the customer. The problem is that those behaviours are overwhelmingly different. In the case of selling guns to terrorists, terrorists are actively trying to kill anyone who disagrees with them. The terrorists are the aggressors and oppressors. They would take those guns and kill and mame.

      WRT the gay cake thing... Gays (et al) are the ones who are being oppressed. Anyone who honestly thinks that it's the gays who are being aggressive, has absolutely no idea about the wider scope involved. LGBT people are raped, beaten and murdered on a *daily basis*, for no other reason than who they are. That cake thing was nothing more than a focal point for years of abuse. Things have definitely improved in the past couple decades, but they haven't improved even remotely enough to come anywhere close to equality. That is the whole reason why there are protected demographics in the first place, because if there wasn't, people would fuck them right over for no other reason than cause they could. It's no different than refusing to bake a cake for someone who was black, or in a wheelchair. If they were to deny someone in a wheelchair a wedding cake, I can't think of a single person who wouldn't flip their shit, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Yet for some reason it's acceptable to deny them if they're gay? Is it also acceptable to deny them food from a grocery store? Why not just kill them outright like they do in the Middle East? I mean, that's what happened to Matthew Shepard, isn't it? Where do you draw the line (and WHY would you draw one, for that matter...) against someone who wants nothing more than to live their life in peace?

      So for that reason, I consider your comparison invalid. It's one thing to discriminate to save lives. It's another thing to discriminate because you want to take someone else's, which is the exact and only consequence when discrimination goes unhindered.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:03AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday January 18 2017, @01:03AM (#455184) Homepage Journal

        See, I dig well thought out comments like this. Kudos.

        The scope difference was intentional as the scope was irrelevant because we're talking about judging someone by their actions rather than nit-picking specific actions and carving out holes for them. Things you cannot help like skin color or gender have no moral or ethical component, so should not be open for discrimination. Actions a person takes though can and should always be subject to discrimination and marriage is not only an action but a premeditated one if you're having the forethought to order a cake.

        Personally, I'd sell them a cake with a two foot, vibrating, rainbow buttplug if that's what they wanted. I do, however, respect the rights of others not to deal with people they find distasteful. Tolerance does not mean approval or the desire to associate with, it simply means tolerating someone's existence.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:05AM

          by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:05AM (#455789)

          I admit that I am heavily biased in this, for the simple reason that I have seen the lives of friends destroyed by repugnant people (including a presiding pastor of a church) who don't think said friend should be allowed to live their life. I know of several who have committed suicide. Trans people in general, for example, are murdered on an almost literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) daily basis.

          So when I see things like the cake debacle, I just can't bring myself to feel any sort of sympathy to the baker's stance, simply because I consider their stance to be on a slippery slope with a VERY steep decline. Two guys getting married hurts absolutely no one, and by allowing the bakers to openly discriminate against gays, that sends a message that discrimination of gays is ok, and opens the door for even worse actions. To flog a dead (possibly undead, the way things are going) horse, look at Nazi germany. Jews were the biggest demographic to be butchered, but they had to work up to it. First they started with Trans people. Then they moved on to gays. Slowly working their way up the "undesirables" tree until they were gassing Jews by the millions. They couldn't have gotten away with that without the support of the average citizen.

          Anyway, I could go on about history repeating itself, rampant anti-intellectualism worsening the cycle, etc etc, but I just don't have the energy to go into all that.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:11PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:11PM (#456000) Homepage Journal

            Two guys getting married hurts absolutely no one

            That is an opinion not shared by all. A majority but not all.

            and by allowing the bakers to openly discriminate against gays, that sends a message that discrimination of gays is ok,

            Put simply, it is. Gayness is not just thinking that guy over there is attractive. It's also acting upon that thought. Thoughts and actions are both fully open for discrimination unless they're part of an ADA protected mental illness. This in no way opens up the door for violence perpetrated upon them because perpetrating violence upon people is already separately illegal.

            As for the slippery slope, there isn't one. This nation is extremely tolerant of homosexuality and I expect shall remain so at least for the foreseeable future. You can tell this by how that couple had to go through nearly every bakery in the city before they found one that wouldn't sell them a cake so they could sue (that's a fact, feel free to verify it). Even then the bakers weren't even rude about it, they simply did not wish to make said cake.

            Let me ask you, would you demand of a gay baker that he supply a catholic church ran anti-gay camp? It's precisely the same thing.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 1) by ilsa on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:22PM

              by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:22PM (#456095)

              Do you happen to have any links regarding them hunting for a baker to sue? This is the first time I've ever heard this and my google fu is failing me. I already know that there was a lot more to the situation than just 'baker sued for not making a gay cake', but this is news to me.

              But I have to disagree on a couple of your other points.

              Firstly, so what if they act on it? It's not like they're having surprise buttsecks at a bus stop in front of a school. They're not forcing other people to have gay sex. If two guys hold hands in the street, any discomfort a person might feel is exclusively their own problem, as a result of their own upbringing, attitudes, etc. And if discrimination doesn't open the door to violence, then please explain to me how LGBT people are being murdered on a daily basis? Or the fact that people have successfully used the 'gay panic' defense when in court for murder?

              Regarding tolerance... It's certainly more tolerant now than it was two decades ago, but to say that it is extremely tolerant is a major stretch. I mean, yeah, people arn't being dragged into the streets and beaten and lynched anymore, so that's definitely an improvement. But that's still a far cry from saying the US is 'extremely tolerant'. There's a critical difference between "live and let live" and "I'm tolerant as long as those faggots don't come near me." Again, trans people alone are being murdered on an almost daily basis. Let me say that again. Trans people are being murdered on an almost daily basis . I'm not sure what the stats for gays are, but I'm assuming less. I won't even get into levels of unemployment and wealth disparity, despite existing legislation that bans this kind of thing.

              I mean, hell. Racial prejudice was supposed to have been outlawed half a century ago, and you're *still* dealing with rampant racism. You have an entire governing party that made it their mandate to deliberately block your president, to the exclusion of everything else, just because he was black. What chance does LGBT people against a backdrop like that?

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:50PM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:50PM (#456184) Homepage Journal

                Do you happen to have any links regarding them hunting for a baker to sue? This is the first time I've ever heard this and my google fu is failing me.

                Not offhand and mine is failing me as well. There've been a pretty astounding amount of gay wedding cake stories and cases and I can't figure out the proper terms to pull the one I read a year or two ago.

                Firstly, so what if they act on it?

                Okay, here's our derailment then. As Americans we are supposed to tolerate people being different than us. You apparently think tolerate means something it does not. Tolerate does not mean "approve of" or "cheerlead for". It only means tolerate. "I'm fine as long as those faggots don't come near me" is absolutely tolerance. What you're demanding is not tolerance but approval and you have no right to demand that.

                You have an entire governing party that made it their mandate to deliberately block your president, to the exclusion of everything else, just because he was black.

                You really should choose your news sources better. That is so far from true that not even our newscasters that were cheerleading the Obama presidency (all of them not on FNC) would say it.

                Again, trans people alone are being murdered on an almost daily basis.

                I highly doubt this. The mainstream media would love to get its teeth into a story like this and it hasn't showed up at all to date. Citation needed.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.