We decided we needed an entirely separate Explainer to discuss all the stupid morons saying dumb things about PRISM and/or the collection of All Metadata Everywhere, because so many "journalists" have been MORE THAN HAPPY to come forward, pat America on its pretty head and mansplain that this is no big deal, and also, isn't it nice that we are somehow magically so much SAFER due to the technological marvels of a top secret program?
The request forms are conveniently pre-printed with the court&#039;s approval. Sort of like One-Click shopping on Amazon: <i>For instant approval of your warrant, click here.</i>
Oddly, this is the one issue where Scalia is hard-core in favor of anybody&#039;s rights. According to Tony, the gov&#039;t can kill you even if they know for a fact that you&#039;re innocent -- but you can die secure in the knowledge that at least they can&#039;t take an infrared photo of your garage roof without a warrant. (Heat from your grow-lights gives away the game).
It&#039;s weird, but it&#039;s what Jeebus and the Founders (band name, etc.) intended.
<i>[I]t is highly speculative whether the Government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties. Since respondents, as U. S. persons, cannot be targeted under &sect;1881a, their theory necessarily rests on their assertion that their foreign contacts will be targeted. Yet they have no actual knowledge of the Government&rsquo;s &sect;1881a targeting practices. Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent,they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use &sect;1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Government&rsquo;s numerous other surveillance methods, which are not challenged here. Third, even if respondents could show that the Government will seek FISC authorization to target respondents&rsquo; foreign contacts under &sect;1881a, they can only speculate as to whether the FISC will authorize the surveillance. </i>
That&#039;s the Supreme Court, <a href="https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/files\/assets\/amnesty_v_clapper_scotus_opinion.pdf" target="_blank">dismissing the ACLU challenge to FISA. </a> Because it was all just way too speculative. (Bonus: the kafkaesque concept that you can&#039;t complain without &quot;actual knowledge&quot; of what the Gov&#039;t is doing in complete secrecy.)
The same wingers and their cohorts who applaud this data collection are vehemently opposed to requiring background checks for guns because it might be used somehow, someday to create a national gun registration database.
True. There&#039;s very little problem getting drugs.
More important, which one of you put dicks in Congress and the White House?
The request forms are conveniently pre-printed with the court&#039;s approval. Sort of like One-Click shopping on Amazon: <i>For instant approval of your warrant, click here.</i>
Oddly, this is the one issue where Scalia is hard-core in favor of anybody&#039;s rights. According to Tony, the gov&#039;t can kill you even if they know for a fact that you&#039;re innocent -- but you can die secure in the knowledge that at least they can&#039;t take an infrared photo of your garage roof without a warrant. (Heat from your grow-lights gives away the game).
It&#039;s weird, but it&#039;s what Jeebus and the Founders (band name, etc.) intended.
Because they might need it someday. (Actual reason; I only wish it was snark.)
Less amusing when you consider that they&#039;ll notice you doing it...
<i>[I]t is highly speculative whether the Government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties. Since respondents, as U. S. persons, cannot be targeted under &sect;1881a, their theory necessarily rests on their assertion that their foreign contacts will be targeted. Yet they have no actual knowledge of the Government&rsquo;s &sect;1881a targeting practices. Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent,they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use &sect;1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Government&rsquo;s numerous other surveillance methods, which are not challenged here. Third, even if respondents could show that the Government will seek FISC authorization to target respondents&rsquo; foreign contacts under &sect;1881a, they can only speculate as to whether the FISC will authorize the surveillance. </i>
That&#039;s the Supreme Court, <a href="https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/files\/assets\/amnesty_v_clapper_scotus_opinion.pdf" target="_blank">dismissing the ACLU challenge to FISA. </a> Because it was all just way too speculative. (Bonus: the kafkaesque concept that you can&#039;t complain without &quot;actual knowledge&quot; of what the Gov&#039;t is doing in complete secrecy.)
Ahem - librarians have been screaming about shit like this since 2001.
As long as they stay out of my profile on ChristianMingle then we&#039;re good.
As long as they don&#039;t dig too deeply into my stuff on various dating sites then we&#039;re good.
Meh. Call, don&#039;t call... whatever.
If PRISM found evidence of calls from Bank of America to Barclay&#039;s at about the time of the LIBOR rigging, would the WSJ change its position?
I know where we are going, but what is with the handbasket?
The same wingers and their cohorts who applaud this data collection are vehemently opposed to requiring background checks for guns because it might be used somehow, someday to create a national gun registration database.