Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Reality Check: New Cybersecurity Means Feds Can Read Your Email Without A Warrant?

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 24, 2012, 8:36 a.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

68 Comments

68 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

So can your boss.

Why doesn't FLAKESnews tell you about that?

It's not like you get a vote on it or anything.

Or even the chance.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

So you're alright with this then?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Excuse me, but didn't I say that.

Comprehension issues, on your part perhaps?

You're putting words in my mouth, and ignoring the fact that that provision of the bill has been removed.

BTW. Your boss has had that ability for years.

Now would you like to try and explain why you are OK with the reality? Yet bitch about a non-reality?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Seemed like you were making excuses for it saying "well if your boss can do it...this is ok."

Where did you see the provision of the bill has been removed? All i see is that when his aid was contacted they didn't get an answer. The article then went on to say that if there were updates they would update the site. But at the airing of Bens show, nothing was inaccurate about what was reported.

I know my boss has had the ability for years to look at my email....what does that have to do with anything? It's a company owned computer....it isn't my property.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Do you always base your opinion of what others say on what they "seem" to be saying, rather than on what they said?

My reason for pointing it out, was that it's been going on for years and your "friends" at FLAKESnews haven't had the courage to tell you about it.

That's because they use that ability to spy on their own "script writers"( I refuse to consider ANY of them as real journalists), in an attempt to control their message.

He's some extrapolation on your opinion.

Since you have absolutely NO problem with corporations spying on employees, and since you desire to have business savvy political representatives, why not give them that ability too, as it's often how they get ahead in business.

Why take that "choice" away from them?

PS: This is mostly a comment on the absurdity of FLAKESnews and the flakes and flaky thinking it creates.

I think all such spying should illegal and punishable. Especially so for corporations spying on their employees, as I find it just another boot on the neck of the working man/woman.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I don't disagree fox news is terrible.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

That's it?

That's your only response?

You do realize that's it's not just FLAKESnews, but the plethora of knee jerk pseudo-journalistic media outlets?

That being said, why no response to the body of my post?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Yes, that's my response. You assumed I'm supportive of fox news.

"do realize that's it's not just FLAKESnews, but the plethora of knee jerk pseudo-journalistic media "

Yes..i do...but Ben isn't one of them. Someone actually bringing accurate news.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Then you are an admitted hypocrite, as you've posted from FLAKESnews many times over, and I'm sure you will continue to do so.

If you have NOTHING to say about the body of my post, then good riddance to you, hypocrite.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I've posted from ben many times over..not fox news..big difference. And i will continue to do so...because it's accurate information on topics that aren't covered in standard news sources.

You don't like it...don't watch it...nobody forced you to sit down and watch it....quit whining.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

Still nothing on the body of my post?

Still hung up on FLAKESnews personalities?

Your statement is the equivalent of saying you post from Hannity not FLAKESnews.

Plus I did show the inaccuracies of Ben in the past.

No, I'm sorry, but if you say FLAKESnews is terrible, yet post from one of their "personalities", you are a hypocrite.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"Plus I did show the inaccuracies of Ben in the past."

No you haven't.....copy and paste what you've said.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

It was a while back. Sorry you don't pay attention, so no, I won't be searching all day to show you what you should have seen in the first place.

You likely treated it in the same way you treated most of my original statement.

You ignored it.

All I need to know at this point is that Ben is in the employment of FLAKESnews, because once I find false reports and misdirections, I discount them and look for other sources.

You don't do that.

He, like all others in their employment will only make statements that support the FLAKESnews agenda, and that's one hell of a nasty, lying agenda.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Lol..righhht "it was awhile back"....sure...i'll take your word on it. Always the same shit with people like you. Talk out of ur ass all day but when questioned about the specifics of things suddenly you're dodging and deflecting in different directions.

Ben is not FOX news - he even discusses this media group think and parent companies directly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30N2DIG0rU&t=38m50s

and then discusses potentially being shut down for the stuff he talks about thats out of line with the parent company:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30N2DIG0rU&t=43m25s

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

If I'm not mistaken, I believe I've heard a similar statement from O'reilly.

It's part of the contract.

Well, anyway, I've got to go make a couple of gallons of scratch spaghetti sauce.

Have fun with your FLAKESnews infatuation, but you know what the truly "fair and balanced" say about it.

FLAKESnews makes flakes even flakier.

Hope your boss reads all your Email. Enjoy..........................:)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

In fact the Senator who wrote the bill has scuttled it because of the warrantless email risk. So I guess FOX got it wrong again. Surprise. Surprise.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Did you watch the video? He didn't get it wrong. Ben isn't regular fox news....he's actually factual...even if it hurts the republicans.

Leah seems to be a snake in this situation....looks like got caught trying to slip this into the bill and is now kind of backtracking. Although your link even says "A spokesman for the senator did not respond to questions today from CNET asking for clarification of what Leahy would support next week." So we don't really know what he's going to do still.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh so this is the good FOX? LOL

Please, still they didn't do as much research as I did or they would have found the updated story (same day!) that I found.

So seems just as skewed to me. And so this Senator comes out against the warrentless email access and you're STILL criticizing him?

"snake"? "got caught"? Wow I guess you are just as partisan as FOX.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"The bill has been stopped! What about these foxhound? Does this illicit any outrage in you? http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/09/12/2210211/house-approves-extending-the-warrantless-wiretapping-act What about this one? Any complaints from mr fair & balanced? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/12/nadler-blasts-house-republicans-over-warrantless-wiretapping/ Please."

Yes, i've seen those because i read the crap you post. Yes i was outspoken about them before, they do bother me...yes, ben has covered these topics in the past....no, ben is not subject to the ridiculousness of the major FOX news network you keep whining about. His stories are free from oversight from that crap.

Because a republican president has done terrible stuff doesn't mean it's ok to let democrats do the same thing...which is basically what you're arguing. "Look what the republicans did when they were in office" doesn't fly with me because i hold each accountable.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I haven't said we should "let dems" do anything. That's you lying! In fact I've said they failed profoundly and I've denounced, protested, and signed petitions against dems.

My comments/objections is not defense of dems. It is an attack on the FOX unfair partisanship that your post represents. I KNOW that certain pols, and one particular party is responsible for the violations, and thefear mongering required to maintain support for said violations.

I don't have to discuss that in terms of party. I'm perfectly willing to say as I usually do that we must get in the street and pressure ALL pols (R/L) for repeal of these violations. I also say we MUST identify, denounce, ridicule any and all pols who spew the fear mongering 'war on terror' propaganda at the root of all these violations.

You're post neglects all the architects, all the fear mongers, and failed to even include thefact that the law was scuttled.

So I ain't defending Dems or anyone, I'm simply attacking your inadequate and clearly partisan post.

Get in line. End the fear. "It's the only way to be sure!"

So your accusation is unfounded.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Nothing Ben spoke about was inaccurate at all..i don't know what you're whining about. Not one thing he said was inaccurate...if you can prove me wrong with a direct quote from that video then I'll give you this argument.

It has to have been knowledge known at the time this video was created...not information that came afterwards. You've got no argument....DIRECT quote from Ben...not some BS extrapolation from you.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"I KNOW that certain pols, and one particular party is responsible for the violations"

You couldn't be more wrong...both parties have been involved in this. You really want me to rehash details of this again for you VQ? How many times do I have to post this crap for you?

"You're post neglects all the architects, all the fear mongers, and failed to even include thefact that the law was scuttled."

So every time something new that comes along and threatens our rights, we have to say "hold on....lets rehash the entire history of the wrongdoings by the other party before we speak about what's actually current news". That's BS...and you know it.

"FOX unfair partisanship that your post represents"

No, my post does not represent this....at all.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You don't have to post a Goddamn thing for me. I got it all straight.

The right wing has always used fear (because they know people are more conservative and more pliable when scared) They have used anti war, weak on defense labels to effectively move dems to the right and make the mistake of supporting the conservative rights violations that we are outraged at.

We the people have to get in the street, pressure all pols (D/R) to end the fear mongering, the rights violations, the drone strikes, the war on terror.

You can go after Pat Leahy! LMFAO! Whatta fuckin joke!

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

You're so full of it...direct question you can't answer...you've been whining on here all morning about my post, but you can't find anything that was inaccurately reported in it. Like i said if you attempt this-i want a direct quote from ben...not some bullshit that you've generalized like you always do.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"always do"? You and I have spoken maybe twice in 5 months. Who's generalizing? Sounds like you..

I'm done repeating the problem with your post. You want to pretend with continued distraction that I've said he was inaccurate because you can't deny the actual criticism I made.

That pretty much says it all Johnny!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"And please refrain from posting this partisan garbage you lyin piece of shit!"

Man...you get heated when caught in complete lies. Lots of people won't take the time to dig into the scum you post...i'm not one of them...so don't make shit up when you talk to me or try to claim that my post isn't accurate....you'll look stupid...like you do right now.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"But you said the update was 3 days after the video. It was a day before! That was an obvious lie.

So clearly you are the one swimming in shit."

Lol, you're like a f'n politician - when cornered in your own BS just make stuff up. You told me that my article had a link to another website with "updated information" that ben didn't provide. So my 11/20 link did have an article that i went to that came out and said directly that Leah would oppose the bill - on record...but that was dated 11/23 - 3 days AFTER Ben aired his show.

Quit trying to convolute to confuse people so they can't see the root of your bullshit. It boils down to that 11/20 article that you keep talking about didn't have anything in it that Ben didn't talk about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have referred to the 11/23 art you mentioned. (You probably made it u you such a lying piece of shit)

In any event I have given you all the dates You partisan video - 11/21, 1st cnet article 11/20 4am, upd cnet art 11/20 10am.

Suck on that liar!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

lol - you don't know where to go - that's what happens when you corner a rat.

VQ lets make this very simple - settle this in one post - do this one thing and I will concede you're right:

1.) Provide anything in Bens story that contradicts the article posted on 11/20.

You can't...because it doesn't exist. You'll give me some bullshit answer "i already did that, and i'm not going to do it again"...when in actuality you haven't provided anything specific at all that is wrong with the video or contradicts the story.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah it ignores the update from later in the day on 11/20.

As I said in my 1st post on this partisan lie.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Specific VQ - what specific update from later in the day? Provide it to me and you win - i'll shutup. If it's wrong though...or if you're making something up again....get ready to look like an ass again.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

LOL

Thanks for proving my point you're pulling stuff out of your a$$....you can't find one direct quote that is inaccurate in the post.

So quit whining about the post if you can't quote one inaccuracy about it. ..seriously.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

How about if I say whatever the fuck I want, and if you disagree you can do so. Or you can change the subject like a desperate little child who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

You have yet to deny my criticism, all you've done is distract with some unrelated accusation you are attributing to me.

LMFAO.

Damn that Pat Leahy, If only he was out of the senate. THEN the right violations would be over.

http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=5399#.ULJutoZU2So

Do you know who wrote the indef det language?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"Fuck you! I can't be more specific than I've been. You live by the sword of partisan FOX propaganda Then you need to be grown up when you are called on it.

i ain't repeating myself again. you don't see it cause you don't want to, or you do and are pretending not to. Either way I don't give a shit."

Dude you haven't provided one shred of any evidence!!! Don't get your panties in a twist because somebody's calling you on your bullshit and you can't back up a damn thing that you're saying.

Maybe that will teach you to not make shit up in the future.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your video was dated 11/21. 1st cnet story on your link dated 11/20 4am. updated story after click through had a date of 11/20 10am.

Your Faux news guy left out the update, cause it didn't fit his (your) partisan narrative.

LMFAO. Are you stupid, or blind!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"See. Whats with this lie?

You said:

"Ok so I go to that website and the only link "updated" goes to a webpage titled "About-face on e-mail surveillance bill" that says Leah will no longer support the bill. Showing contradiction of Bens story? NO - this was written 3 days after Bens story. "

Liar!"

I'll just repost my same reply to your other comment:

Lol, you're like a f'n politician - when cornered in your own BS just make stuff up. You told me that my article had a link to another website with "updated information" that ben didn't provide. So my 11/20 link did have an article that i went to that came out and said directly that Leah would oppose the bill - on record...but that was dated 11/23 - 3 days AFTER Ben aired his show.

Quit trying to convolute to confuse people so they can't see the root of your bullshit. It boils down to that 11/20 article that you keep talking about didn't have anything in it that Ben didn't talk about.

Quit posting on my comments where i can't reply - swear you're trying to make it so people reading this string won't get a chance to see my response to your bullshit.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't give a fuck what people think. This ain't a goddamn popularity contest, or facebook.

Grow the fuck up.

And please refrain from posting this partisan garbage you lyin piece of shit!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I know!!! But Ben discusses above and beyond what THAT SPECIFIC article talks about (the one dated 11/20). Nothing was hidden from the viewer - he actually goes a step further than that article and provides a direct quote from Leah's spokesperson that wasn't included in that article!!!!!!!

You've got more spin than fox news VQ.....you're swimming in bullshit at this point....like bobbling around in a sea of it...with no view of land in sight.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

See. Whats with this lie?

You said:

"Ok so I go to that website and the only link "updated" goes to a webpage titled "About-face on e-mail surveillance bill" that says Leah will no longer support the bill. Showing contradiction of Bens story? NO - this was written 3 days after Bens story. "

Liar!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you said the update was 3 days after the video. It was a day before! That was an obvious lie.

So clearly you are the one swimming in shit.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

You said: "If you click on the link to the cnet story in your post (below the video) you will see at the beginning of the story another link to the "follow up" update.

Here it is for the 3rd time!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/"

Ok so I go to that website and the only link "updated" goes to a webpage titled "About-face on e-mail surveillance bill" that says Leah will no longer support the bill. Showing contradiction of Bens story? NO - this was written 3 days after Bens story. So once again VQ:

"Therefore nothing is contradicted....nothing is inaccurate....the video stands as truthful and informative...unless you can provide a direct quote of untruth (that occurred PRIOR to Ben posting his video...PRIOR being a key word) i'm done talking to you."

I think you think that by continuing to BS and pray that I don't check what you're talking about you're gonna come out on top on this one....i'll check every BS answer you give me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The stories title is right their in the link "leahy scuttles his warrentless email surveillance bill" The date ofthe story is 11/20. The date on your video is 11/21.

Your Fox friend left it out because he is a partisan (surprise, surprise.) and couldn't bring himself to report on the facts that contradicted the accusation he was making on his target.

Are you so stupid you would lie about what is a matter of record? It's right there in front of you.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

you're full of shit again VQ...holy crap. The 11/20 article is the original article. Ben DID NOT LEAVE ANYTHING OUT. He went a step further and got the official quote from Leah's spokesperson who talked to Forbes. Nothing was left out....at all...Ben went beyond that initial story.

If you're claiming he left something out - write specifically what was left out or misled...or stop wasting my f'n time.

This pisses me off because you're trying to make an honest reporter look shady...when Ben brings truthful informatoin forward and I've never seen him be dishonest with partisan hackery (like you do so often).

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Fuck you! I can't be more specific than I've been. You live by the sword of partisan FOX propaganda Then you need to be grown up when you are called on it.

i ain't repeating myself again. you don't see it cause you don't want to, or you do and are pretending not to. Either way I don't give a shit.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

VQ you're the one who's dodging.

Lets break down this argument - You're pissed on my post because of the inaccuracies...but you can't directly quote any inaccuracy in it.

How am i changing the subject...that is the heart of the subject....you're accusing my post of being inaccurate....so prove your F'n point....quote something that's inaccurate in it or shutup and quit whining about it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never used the word inaccuracies. That's you dishonestly distracting because you can't deny my actual criticism.

You can reread my criticism, or you can keep pretending I accused the post as inaccurate.

Desperate liar!

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"You however are using a FOX story that conveniently leaves out the update that contradicts the fox story & I don't recall you ever attacking Repubs so, suck on that"

He did not leave out anything...he went a step further than the article and got the actual quote from Leahs spokesperson given to Forbes.

Therefore nothing is contradicted....nothing is inaccurate....the video stands as truthful and informative...unless you can provide a direct quote of untruth i'm done talking to you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You left out the update. As I indicated.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"You left out the update. As I indicated."

No i didn't...i'll repost what i said...again:

"He did not leave out anything...he went a step further than the article and got the actual quote from Leahs spokesperson given to Forbes"

Ben went a step further than the "update"..with a direct quote from Leahs spokesperson.

Therefore nothing is contradicted....nothing is inaccurate....the video stands as truthful and informative...unless you can provide a direct quote of untruth i'm done talking to you.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You did not include the update cnet story, only the 1st critical cnet story.. Period.

I won't repeat it again.

Saying "he went further" simply confirms you left out the updated story.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Where's the "update" cnet story?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you click on the link to the cnet story in your post (below the video) you will see at the beginning of the story another link to the "follow up" update.

Here it is for the 3rd time!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Here is the updated story (again) you left out.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552687-38/leahy-scuttles-his-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill/

So this story says the bill you complained about was scuttled. See that is an important update. You post may not have been inaccurate when you posted but certainly ignoring this update makes it wrong.

Sorry. Just include the update like cnet did. That's how you handle this kind of thing. Not squealin like a stuck pig that the update doesn't matter.

LOL

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Ben didn't miss anything as I already said and even your article admits. I'll show you what i wrote again:

"Although your link even says "A spokesman for the senator did not respond to questions today from CNET asking for clarification of what Leahy would support next week." So we don't really know what he's going to do still."

So based on your own article Leahy hasn't come out and stated exactly what he's going to do. Ben didn't miss anything.

Yes, leahy seems like a snake in this instance...he wanted this stuff in the bill...when it became public knowledge that he tried to slip it in there he's backtracking because he knows it's wrong. You're the partisan here....you can't admit it any time one of your own party members has done something that's f'd up....while i'm more than happy to attack anyone, whether there is an "R' or a "D" in front of their name. I don't make up excuses for a party because i don't want them to look bad in the public eye-like you do.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm registered ind, & voted 3rd party. I ain't mention the guys party let alone his name. You mentioned the parties. Not me!

You however are using a FOX story that conveniently leaves out the update that contradicts the fox story & I don't recall you ever attacking Repubs so, suck on that

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

The update does not contradict Bens story!!! at all! What was contradicted???

VQ...there is not a snowballs chance in hell you voted third party...you were obama all the way.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

My vote is my business! NYS was solid blue which allows me great freedom in my vote.

However, I am certainly pleased that we kept the right wing wackos out of office. My preference (green party) had no chance. But my 3rd party vote did strengthen the 3rd party system.

The only reason you don't believe me is because you don't know me and are judging me by the efforts I made to challenge all anti dem partisan campaign attacks. And you were unimaginative enough to believe the narrative of me by my adversaries.

Don't believe the hype. Don't be a simpleton.

I did indeed vote 3rd party. Believe what you like. Makes no never mind to me. I ain't askin you about yours nor do I ask anyone. because it don't matter to me.

Vote your conscience, but if you link out a FOX story that neglects important update expect me to call you on the partisanship of it.

Are you familiar with any rights violations originating from the other party.? (hint: FOX ain't gonna cover that!)

LMFAO

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I'm still waiting on what was contradicted in the video.....? What's inaccurate?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The video left out the update that indicated an important change in the warrantless email access.

I've already said that is the problem 2 times.

Are you familiar with any rights violations originating from the other party.? (hint: FOX ain't gonna cover that!)

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

There was no important update on wireless email access-when Leah was contacted directly there was no response - according to your own site. The site did say if they did get a response it would be updated.

Ben even reports that Leah was contacted by a few organizations asking him to "reconsider" the warrantless email access. Ben never says the bill is guaranteed - and even goes on to say that when Leah was contacted by Forbes his spokesperson said "Mr. Leah is a privacy guy and supports strong privacy laws. This bill needs to be updated to address email. But this doesn't mean warrantless searches of email will be in it, it won't."

Maybe you should watch the actual video posted instead of calling BS on it before you do.

"Am i familiar with rights violations originating from the other party"

absolutely - and i've watched ben cover them over and over again

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It wasn't "my site". It was the same site that FOX cited! They just left out the goddamn update! You fuckin ignorant narrow minded FOX hound.

"Ben"? is he friend of yours?. HE ain't the issue! Pretending the story is fair & balanced when they left out the important update (from the same day) is the problem! Which puts it squarely with you!

http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/11/23/leahys-warrantless-email-surveillance-bill-scuttled/

Does this illicit any outrage in you?

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/09/12/2210211/house-approves-extending-the-warrantless-wiretapping-act

What about this one? Any complaints from mr fair & balanced?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/12/nadler-blasts-house-republicans-over-warrantless-wiretapping/

Please.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

He didn't leave out the update! VQ, can you f'n read? Are you blind????? Did you watch the video????? You have to watch this $hit before you go off on your tangents you jackass.

I'm not a FOX hound...i refuse to watch FOX news (Bens reality check is NOT FOX...he rips apart the repubs just as much as dems)....but you're a democratic hound and it's disgusting. Everything Obama does is alright with you because he's a dem...drop bombs on Yemen, Pakistan....wherever the hell you want because you have D in front of your name....SURE! go ahead and invade libya - we're "liberating" the people according to you. You're so full of $hit...you're the partisan hack....not me.

I'm well aware of Bush's bullshit....his attacks on our liberties...the illegal wars....but the difference between you and me is i'm holding obama and the dems to the same standards...which you can't bring yourself to do.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't mentioned Obama or the Dems. I read your article which linked to the 1st cnet story. I did the digging to find the update.

Your FOX story did not!

I have protested Pres Obamas mistakes, & signed petitions against the rights violations he some dems have approved.

The difference between you and me is I denounce the current repub who are maintaining thefear mongering propaganda & support for the war on terror rights violations.

You say "Bush"! & pretend that means your are bipartisan in your criticizm. Bush created the problems but he is gone. Let's see you denounce the repubs who are continuing these violations.

Leahy? Is that a joke? What about Peter King, Bachman, Graham, McCain, Boehner, Canter, & others. THEY are behind these rights violations! They created the policies, the laws and the fear mongering that garners public acquiescence.

There is always some Dems who betray progressive principles to support violations and I denouince them. I also know that there is always opposition to these violations and with the exception of Ron Paul it is always progressive Dems who fight afainst them.

Bush? He's gone! Let's see you and your faux news garbage discuss the current repubs behind these violations.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"Your FOX story did not!"

How many times do I have to cut and paste what i've said to you in my previous comments? I don't think you read stuff...but here it is again:

"Ben even reports that Leah was contacted by a few organizations asking him to "reconsider" the warrantless email access. Ben never says the bill is guaranteed - and even goes on to say that when Leah was contacted by Forbes his spokesperson said "Mr. Leah is a privacy guy and supports strong privacy laws. This bill needs to be updated to address email. But this doesn't mean warrantless searches of email will be in it, it won't."

You're so full of shit it's insane. Hopefully nobody on here takes your comments seriously. I argued with you like 3 weeks ago about Libya and how obama was liberating the people there. You've got more spin than fox news...it's ridiculous.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The bill has been stopped!

What about these foxhound?

Does this illicit any outrage in you?

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/09/12/2210211/house-approves-extending-the-warrantless-wiretapping-act

What about this one? Any complaints from mr fair & balanced?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/12/nadler-blasts-house-republicans-over-warrantless-wiretapping/

Please.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

Not about party politics Senator Leahy is either stupid or a corrupt pig either way time for him to step down. I have to add in the fact how many of us receive emails from political groups we belong to (anyone signed in here). Non profit grass roots and political organizations have protection under the law to not be required to release the names of their members. This is designed to protect democracy, giving the government access to that information via email is the end of democracy and anonymity while belonging to grass roots organizations. Do they get to haul you off to prison with no trial for ten years based on those affiliations or for your speech within the text (aka FREEDOM OF SPEECH?) Also do they get to share your information with government analysts or perhaps even marketers or studies done by Koch brothers? Will they auction off your info to the highest bidder just like they auctioned off the public airways and RF Spectrum? So much corruption and so vast - maybe hackers are the only defense in this "TECHNOLOGICAL AGE" since Congress seems to be using new technology to subvert the constitution simply because there are no precedents or laws set for it yet. You would kind of think they would use the constitution as the model or that it would still apply when setting laws on technology, but in a corrupt system they are salivating at the chance to get rid of the constitution. (Right to bare hackers instead of arms?) Seems like the only defense where all of this new technology and violation of civil rights is occurring.

[-] 1 points by lisa (425) 1 year ago

They have been doing it anyway under other nefarious excuses, (aka: Patriot Act etc.) so making it legal really has no impact.