The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

NSA data mining

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

That a contractor paid by the NSA, paid Snowden's salary in no way invalidates the fact that Edward Snowden's work with the NSA enabled him to have access to material that the United States deemed sufficiently sensitive to demand his extradition from Russia. Were Snowden's access to NSA secrets per his revelations not damaging to the NSA why would the United States authorities want to prosecute him?
They're after him because he broke the law and stole state secrets. No one is making the argument what he took wasn't damaging. The government has said as much. What we're arguing is that just because it is damaging doesn't mean that anything unconstitutional is going on. You would see the same reaction if Snowden had stolen the launch codes for a nuclear weapon. Your logic of "because the information is damaging it must be about illegal activities" is ludicrous (and, again, not really based on facts.)

Were fiction the matter under discussion on this thread we would not be holding this discussion. Were Snowden's damaging revelations fictional the United States authorities would not be demanding Snowden's extradition..were fiction the issue President Obama would not have cancelled his visit to Moscow.

If the matter under discussion here were mere hearsay, and conjecture Congress would not have debated the matter.
Is this sarcasm or a joke? I could sit down and have a day long discussion with someone about the Game of Thrones books or the TV series Archer, yet that doesn't make them reality. You are drawing an indefensible conclusion that because the United States is going after someone who stole state secrets and broken the law, then that is proof positive they are spying on Americans. You're making the insane argument that because President Obama cancelled his meeting with Putin due to the fact Putin gave asylum to a fugitive from US justice, it can only lead to the conclusion the US is violating the Constitution. And I won't even get started on Congress, a group which debates everything from whether two guys can have sex in the privacy of their own home to whether to issue a resolution congratulating the Little League team in Buttfuck, Idaho on their most recent win.

Every one of your posts drifts not only further from any logical, evidence based argument, but further from reality and any coherent statements in general.

Damage control is of paramount importance for the NSA to enable this agency to continue its practice of snooping on United States citizens without credible oversight from Congress....and it is succeeding....for there are those Americans determined that the NSA should continue with its deceptive practices....for national security purposes......
And for this, we'll go back to the usual - do you have any evidence to support anything you said here? I'll agree damage control is paramount to NSA because some traitor is out there running around with state secrets about how the NSA accomplishes its missions of foreign intelligence and that's not something you want adversaries to have. Everything else you stated is mere opinion (and poorly based opinion at that) that you have not and will not be able to ever produce any evidence to support. You would serve your cause better by just coming out and saying "I hate the US Government" instead of making yourself look ill-informed by making arguments that are....ill informed.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

We don't need the NSA to provide evidence for anything. If Snowden had all of the access he claimed, he should have easily been able to get and provide evidence. As of now, he hasn't provided any so his claims of spying on Americans have no factual basis. All this is right now is paranoia and luckily it's limited to the people who already hate the government.

What a twisted world you live in.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Okay, first, Snowden was not an employee of the NSA. He was he employee of a contractor who had a contract with the NSA. This employee of the contractor has offered no evidence, only hearsay testimony and conjecture. If constitutionally acceptable evidence were available, we would be watching a trial in the media and in the courts. You are correct, constitutionally acceptable evidence of a crime is not necessary to convict in the court of public opinion, just look at the United States Tabloids, the general public will believe anything you tell them. You are not arguing to the general public in this forum. There is a reason we are typing words in this forum instead of watching the drivel on network television. I was a sociology major in college. I put an emphasis on the criminology component of Sociology, and I have taken many college level criminology classes. I also happen to read mysteries, and write fiction in the mystery genre. The facts in this so called case, are insufficient for me as a criminologist, Do not provide a believable story line as a mystery reader, and fail to give me any thing to work with as a writer. I WRITE FICTION, and this isn't enough for me to work with to write a good story.

Yeah -- not enough blood. Dry analysis and investigative reporting just don't sell these days.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Exactly. That's why I linked to Reuters because they have less of a political agenda than the Washington Post or the Guardian. You also linked a Washington Post BLOG, which is highly opinionated, and it looks like the blog post has been updated with this"

The problem is that the information is classified.

You demand proof over significant circumstantial evidence when all parties are prohibited from examining the evidence. You require the impossible as a condition for disproving your thesis.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

What a twisted world you live in.

And some.....

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that the information is classified.

You demand proof over significant circumstantial evidence when all parties are prohibited from examining the evidence. You require the impossible as a condition for disproving your thesis.

Eureka!.......................
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

To further cement T-Rexx's quote, have a look at the statement of the now closed http://lavabit.com/ - an US-based e-mail service that made privacy a #1 priority after the founder wasn't happy with google's policies.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

^ How sad that is. This is the first I've ever heard of lavabit.

*****************
Oh, if only Obama's decision not to participate included a statement about [STRIKE]Russian[/STRIKE] Soviet antigay laws (Yes, the Soviet Union really does seem to have reassembled, minus its satellite regions, doesn't it?), in addition to the Snowden thing. Well, that's starting to gather steam, though.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Yeah -- not enough blood. Dry analysis and investigative reporting just don't sell these days.
Generally, investigative reporting doesn't have to retract and edit statements they print because they weren't well researched. The earlier linked Washington Post blog didn't even have to investigate much - they just had to read past the headline of the Reuters article they were basing their "article" off of.

I told a friend here yesterday he really should get a phone.

He said he didn't want the NSA to know where he is....
Well that's obviously proof positive that the government is spying on Americans. Case closed, right?

The problem is that the information is classified.

You demand proof over significant circumstantial evidence when all parties are prohibited from examining the evidence. You require the impossible as a condition for disproving your thesis.
That's not the problem at all. Snowden is the one who made the claims that the government is spying on Americans. He broke the law and released classified documents showing technical capabilities the NSA had (minus the slides that showed how they were used of course, since that wouldn't support his cause.) He shouldn't have had any problem gathering the requisite screenshots, e-mails, phone call snippets, metadata, etc. to provide to the Guardian to support his claims. Yet he did not. The NSA director provided a screenshot of what an analysts sees when accessing the metadata database in his presentation at Black Hat. Surely Snowden could have at least done that. But nope. So the onus is on him to provide support to his claims, not the government to provide evidence that his claims aren't true.

To further cement T-Rexx's quote, have a look at the statement of the now closed http://lavabit.com/ - an US-based e-mail service that made privacy a #1 priority after the founder wasn't happy with google's policies.
I'd be interested to know more about this guy's claims. I'd imagine the government served him with a warrant to turn over any stored communications of Snowden's for the criminal investigation they are conducting. If this is the case, it is a legal search and seizure. We'll see as his case progresses.

^ How sad that is. This is the first I've ever heard of lavabit.

*****************
Oh, if only Obama's decision not to participate included a statement about [STRIKE]Russian[/STRIKE] Soviet antigay laws (Yes, the Soviet Union really does seem to have reassembled, minus its satellite regions, doesn't it?), in addition to the Snowden thing. Well, that's starting to gather steam, though.
President Obama has publicly condemned Russia's anti-gay laws.

President Obama on Tonight Show said:
“I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in a way that intimidate them or are harmful to them,” Obama responded, while stressing that “Russia is not unique,” and noting he’s had to balance his pressure over laws like these within larger relationships with several African nations as well.

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-russia-anti-gay-laws-95266.html#ixzz2bPqBknfa

The White House also noted a number of reasons for canceling his visit with Putin:

White House Statement on Putin Visit Cancellation said:
Carney cited a “lack of progress” with Russia over the past 12 months on a broad range of issues including missile defense and arms control, trade and commercial relations, global security and human rights and civil society issues. Carney added that Russia’s “disappointing decision” last week to grant Snowden temporary asylum, allowing him to live and work in Russia for up to a year, was also a factor.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...43f24a-ff98-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Ok. Your point? The government can legally search and seize e-mail from a service provider when the requisite legal requirements are met. This guy is free to fight them in court, which he appears to be taking donations to do. But if he stores the e-mails, then he can be compelled by law to turn them over. Maybe he should have researched the law a little more and either not stored customer's e-mail or hosted his servers beyond the reach of US authorities if he wanted to provide this service for privacy purposes.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

I'd be interested to know more about this guy's claims. I'd imagine the government served him with a warrant to turn over any stored communications of Snowden's for the criminal investigation they are conducting. If this is the case, it is a legal search and seizure. We'll see as his case progresses.

That would be legal in basically any country and would not require a gag order on him to not release this info. So you can count on the fact that there is more to it than just that. Probably he is being bullied into the same "voluntary" NSA wire tapping program that Lostlover is raving all over.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

That would be legal in basically any country and would not require a gag order on him to not release this info. So you can count on the fact that there is more to it than just that. Probably he is being bullied into the same "voluntary" NSA wire tapping program that Lostlover is raving all over.
Or he could have been served a warrant with a gag order (not required, but not prohibited) since the subject of the investigation stole state secrets and could have easily passed them through his service. There are definitely more possibilities than just "the NSA is recruiting him for wiretapping."
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

All of the clamor for Mr. Snowden to reveal evidence of actual wrongdoing by the field minions is a red herring. I sincerely doubt he was exposed to such field activity.

The thrust of his - and others - revelations is that the present system of metadata surveillance and content surveillance is rife for abuse. We are seeing that abuse come to light now. "Parallel construction" by the IRS in conjunction with the DEA, to say nothing of the DEA's own use, is, so far as I know, independent of Mr. Snowden. It is also an apparent abrogation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Anyone clamoring for some form of definitive proof of evil-doing at this point is trying to foreclose further inquiry. I think we shall have conclusive proof when already adjudicated cases are dismissed for manufactured evidence - excuse me, parallel constructed evidence.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

All of the clamor for Mr. Snowden to reveal evidence of actual wrongdoing by the field minions is a red herring. I sincerely doubt he was exposed to such field activity.

The thrust of his - and others - revelations is that the present system of metadata surveillance and content surveillance is rife for abuse. We are seeing that abuse come to light now. "Parallel construction" by the IRS in conjunction with the DEA, to say nothing of the DEA's own use, is, so far as I know, independent of Mr. Snowden. It is also an apparent abrogation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Anyone clamoring for some form of definitive proof of evil-doing at this point is trying to foreclose further inquiry. I think we shall have conclusive proof when already adjudicated cases are dismissed for manufactured evidence - excuse me, parallel constructed evidence.
All the clamor for evidence is indeed no red herring. I would imagine were someone to accuse you of murder and the court convicted you without requiring any proof, you would not claim that any demand for proof is a red herring. Snowden made the claim himself that he could wiretap anyone. The exact quote:

Edward Snowden said:
"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

If he had this authority and the programs he leaked the details of were in fact used to spy on Americans, he could have very easily utilized those authorities he had and obtained evidence of spying on Americans. So yes, I do demand proof of these claims he makes because these are important tools in our fight against terrorism and people like you clamoring for them to be shut down, agencies to be disbanded, people to be charged with crimes, etc. over claims that have no evidentiary support is what people should be appalled at. Your argument of it being "rife for abuse" is a weak and untenable argument, because that could be extended to anything. Since you brought it up earlier, places like Lavabit should be shut down because they could be used by child pornographers to transmit their materials. Guns should be banned because they can be abused and used to kill people. Cars should be outlawed because they can be used as tools of destruction. It goes on and on. Saying that because something has the potential to be misused means that is should be abolished is a weak and ludicrous argument to make.

Finally, anyone asking for definitive proof is trying to further any additional inquiry, not foreclose it. Any rational and substantial inquiry needs to be based on facts and evidence, not circumstantial hearsay. Snowden revealed, through stolen classified documents, that capabilities exist to collect and process various metadata and content. What Snowden didn't provide is any evidence on how it is used or anything to support his CLAIM that it is used to spy on Americans. In fact, any information on how the programs are used (some of the missing 36 slides from the PRISM briefing, the Guardian-redacted successes from the XKeyScore briefing, etc.) seem to be omitted or hidden from the public by the very publications and individuals who claim they are for transparency and free information sharing. So if you want to talk about manufactured evidence (which is not the same as parallel construction BTW), then you need to look no further that the Guardian, Washington Post, Daily Kos, etc. etc.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

If he had this authority and the programs he leaked the details of were in fact used to spy on Americans, he could have very easily utilized those authorities he had and obtained evidence of spying on Americans. So yes, I do demand proof of these claims he makes because these are important tools in our fight against terrorism and people like you clamoring for them to be shut down, agencies to be disbanded, people to be charged with crimes, etc. over claims that have no evidentiary support is what people should be appalled at. Your argument of it being "rife for abuse" is a weak and untenable argument, because that could be extended to anything. Since you brought it up earlier, places like Lavabit should be shut down because they could be used by child pornographers to transmit their materials. Guns should be banned because they can be abused and used to kill people. Cars should be outlawed because they can be used as tools of destruction. It goes on and on. Saying that because something has the potential to be misused means that is should be abolished is a weak and ludicrous argument to make.

So you expect him to become what he's warning against: a lawbreaker.

I figured that all along.


As for your later statements, it's government power that should be restricted so it can't be abused. Rights reside with the people, not with the government, and the whole point of American style government is to keep government from having any power at all that hasn't been specified.
 
Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

So you expect him to become what he's warning against: a lawbreaker.

I figured that all along.


As for your later statements, it's government power that should be restricted so it can't be abused. Rights reside with the people, not with the government, and the whole point of American style government is to keep government from having any power at all that hasn't been specified.
He was already committed to being a lawbreaker. You're contention is the he was ok breaking the law to steal and release secrets showing a capability but wasn't ok breaking the law to prove it's alleged illegal use? Sounds a bit weak to me.

And the government has been given the power to provide for the common defense. Congress has been given the power to make laws. Both of those have been exercised here. The Constitution set up a representative government, not a direct democracy. The people don't get to vote on everything the government does. The law is a reflection of the will of the people.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/nsa-surveillance-poll-94809.html

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=19756563

http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/

The best and most telling thing about these polls is that people think they go too far, that NSA is not telling the whole truth, and that they don't think they make the country that much safer, yet they still support the programs. The people have spoken - they just haven't said what you want to hear.
 
Back
Top