SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 17 2017, @06:14AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Bzzzzt. Gay isn't an action. Try again.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 18 2017, @02:19AM
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
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
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
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
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.
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.