Big Brother is Watching You

[bannination]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/bipartisan- ... veillance/

Well, at least the Democrats are making a show of investigating this crap.

[Ombudsman]

Name something "made up", like your fantasy about all the "tech savvy" was. Good luck.

Just kidding, it's obvious by now that "Run away, Stalinist Ombudsman, run away," will be the result.

1) That I'm running away.

None of the page 28 and before points and questions addressed, none.

2) That you've embarrassed me.

It's the only explanation reasonable for your not addressing any of the page 28 and before points and questions. Your excuse?

3) That you've proven me incorrect.

Tally so far:
Tech savvy proponents of the snooping - 1
Tech savvy opponents of the snooping - 2 and a whole bunch of organizations

Poor Ombudsman just can't catch a break when he posts wingnuttery and doesn't have the stones to modify his claim.

4) That I'm a Stalinist.

To be accurate, you're Stalinist in repeatedly deluding yourself that folks that embarrass you on so many facts are mentally ill. I actually think you're liberal to the point of approving of Obama actions that you would have opposed from Shrub.

5) That I'm lazy because I don't take the time to read every fucking thing you post.

"lazy" was not in the page 28 points and questions you're dodging, nor in any of my posts today. What are you inventing now?

6) That I'm dodging you just because I don't accept your poor logic.

Cite some "poor logic", like your fantasy about all the "tech savvy". Good luck.

7) That you're mentally sound.

Stalinist.

I'm sure if I took the time to read through all the rest of your non-stop endless commentary I could find many more examples. Posting a list of tech companies that don't want the government monitoring their customers does not prove that tech savvy people are surprised it happens any more than the fact that you are tech ignorant proves that every tech ignorant person is surprised.

"surprised" is just your latest irresponsible revisionism.

More stupid patronizing from Ombudsman, just like his utterly failed "tech savvy" using the same exact "wringing their hands" dismissiveness. Folks knew, they did not have the proof, the government lied and lied about what was known, the scale had not been IDed, and the public wasn't focused on it.

I was making a general comment.

Two posts after mine, uber-tech savvy rstrong being the only other person to post similar views in the 2 days prior. Of course you meant me. The ACLU and all those other tech savvy and other groups aren't reading this forum.

Being the eternal drama queen that you are, you took it personally. Get the fuck over it and quit being such a baby.

I've never claimed that I am or want to be "tech savvy". I prefer more physical work, nothing for me to take personally you deluded thing, other than your misinformed view that we're all sudden Henny Pennys. I proved you wrong on an indisputable fact and that's what you take personally. Man-up and quit being such a baby about it.

Besides, the latest is almost all about your hypocrisy and faulty facts and logic re Stinger's attack - 'infringing upon "civil liberties", "intimidation", betrayal of "person's more-than-reasonable expectation of privacy". You've conveniently lost track, again.

Still running away, Stalinist Ombudsman.

Histrionic Personality Disorder

[Ombudsman]

And as some of your friends might say Vrede, still cray cray.

[O Really]

Whether you're overplaying the regulatory burden or not, I don't have a problem with some burden if the result is increased protection from government snooping. For example, people and businesses are required to maintain financial records for a period of time. That's different from sending all of them to the IRS the moment they're generated.

Not an overplay at all. There are many real-life examples of an on-the-surface simple law or regulation turning within a few years into an administrative rat's maze. And this one, if it were passed, would not be simple to start with. "Snooping" seems to have a negative connotation. Do you really think the actual purpose of the call data collection is to "snoop" for no reason? Isnt' that in the same category as referring to a person who reports a crime as a "snitch"?

[Stinger]

Several folks have been essentially saying that the privacy we've lost to the corporate world makes the NSA snooping not such a big deal.

Don't know who they are. Haven't seen them.

I agree that businesses are more likely to cause us misfortune, but not "any sort of misfortune".

Wait till your credit card number gets hacked.

Someone trying to sell me something doesn't care what my politics or other recreational activities are.

You really don't understand, do you? They do everything they can to detect your politics, your recreational activities, your attitudes towards drugs, when you last took a shit, or anything else they can find out about you. The more they know, the more effective their advertising and manipulation.

And politics is getting just as bad. Obama's Moving America Forward is constructing a huge database of information with which to determine how best to influence and manipulate voters.

It's a Big Brother world.

[Stinger]

I don't consider an IP address to be personal info. That's a difference of opinion, not the running from something that you're lying about.

And we must all adhere to your opinion. How convenient that you can excuse yourself for what everyone else expects -- and has every right to expect -- to be kept private. The world according to Vrede.

You made an irrelevant and dumb charge when you were floundering, I responded to it, you replied back, it only became a "distraction" when I pointed out your hypocrisy on the issue.

I made an apt remark about the irony (hypocrisy?) of someone complaining so loudly about the right to privacy, yet bringing up information in an anonymous forum. You're the one who's been flailing and failing to dance around it since then. The best you can do is to claim that you don't consider it private. So, if the government doesn't consider your metadata private, it's okay too.

You used the info. and continued to harp on the info. long after the then nonexistent rule that you brought up was posted. After months and months it only became a problem for you when you foolishly tried to relate it to this topic.

After months and months? Banni first suggested making personal information taboo on May 28th. That barely qualifies as a month.

I didn't try to relate it to this topic. I just mentioned your hypocrisy. Since then, you've been belaboring the minutiae, trying to turn this into a topic.

Again, I didn't reveal anything. I discussed what had already been revealed. Dance on.

You asked me to publish what you're now screeching about. Busted, don't "run from it".

And you're lying out your ass. I never asked you to publish anything. I asked a question. Got an answer.

Besides your lying, you're relaying the information from a "Private Message," once again revealing information that was expected to remain private. How apropos of Vrede.

It's still not intimidation in any sane sense of the word to highlight that those complaining about government are paid by government, or that some use multiple aliases on this uncensored forum. And, if it is intimidation, then your endless posting about a poster being on an Arden, NC server is just as "chickenshit" and just as much browbeating. Busted, again, don't "run from it".

I had been browbeating that poster over the ridiculous measures he went to to disguise his anonymity on an anonymous forum for a year. Nothing new there.

Misquote, again. I suggested that you ask banni for information, nothing more. You're the one ranting on and on about the violation of rules that didn't exist.

Not my fault. Rules weren't there then.

To the extent that your expressed approval does so, yes, my ass is covered. Not my problem that you're now contradicting yourself.

Not my problem that you're once again imagining you have valid points while speaking gibberish.


Whatever one thinks of the new rule the fact is that Stinger brought it into this chat, I have not violated it since it was imposed and he and Ombudsman, and only he and Ombudsman, have broken it - "LOCATION, IP ADDRESSES, NAMES" - for page after page since it was posted..

You're running around like a little wingnut, shouting "Scandal! Scandal! Citizen's arrest! Citizen's arrest!"

Revisionist misquote, again. You sure get desperate and dishonest when you're floundering.

Not as dishonest as someone who claims I asked to publish information.

because the government collected records you deem private.

Lots of people less ovine than you deem them private.

Lots of people less porcine than you don't consider them private. There is no right-to-privacy for what you write on the outside of an envelope, or the government knowing whom you wrote, when and where -- metadata.


I don't think I've ever once expressed worry about that. Got a quote and link? No, you're making things up, again. It's well known historic, possible current and potential future repression and the fact that it's a 4th Amendment violation whatever they do with the info. that concerns me.

Not a fact. An opinion.

As do you, ranting on and on about a user's location based on their IP address for page after page even after the rule that you brought into this tangent was posted and even though I immediately did stop discussing it.

And won't admit to the hypocrisy of having done so.

There's no hypocrisy in not coming to your wingnutty conclusion that anything I've done without any enforcement powers equates to what the NSA is doing. Otoh, there's plenty of hypocrisy in your having applauded and encouraged what I did only to suddenly oppose it, and plenty of hypocrisy in your citing a rule that you violated for page after page when I did not.

I didn't equate posting a server with what the NSA was doing. That's just stupid. I did point out the violation from the paragon and chief defender of the right to privacy, though.

Trying to blame me for discussing what someone else revealed would be like accusing us of treason for discussing what Snowdent revealed. It's not our fault that Snowden released the information if we're talking about it. And it's still classified information, so maybe it's "against the rules" for us to be writing about it.

Agreed, it does sound stupid when you misapply it.

No more misapplication than when you said it, but your entitlement to always have your hypocrisies, disingenuous statements, and faulty assumptions ignored is legendary.

That you're still ranting on imaginary limits to what the NSA is doing or can do as if it matters in the big picture, based entirely on what the NSA tells us, is noted, pitied, and ignored. Sorry you wasted all that time and effort.

Your attempt to obfuscate, deflect, and dodge the topic that we were originally discussing is noted.

It certainly seemed important when you started hallucinating about my own sources blah, blah, blah.

Now that all the smoke has cleared, your case is extremely weak tea. I can see why you would work so hard to escape your original contention.

Sorry that after all the evidence that's been posted here, you're incapable of grasping that the NSA PRISM program is about metadata, not content. There are specific incidents where content has been obtained, but that has nothing to do with the huge range of data that the NSA has collected from phone companies, etc. under those 90-day FISA warrants.

Sorry you wasted all your time and effort chasing your content tail around and around.

[Stinger]

Just to touch base on the metadata vs. content debate that Vrede repeatedly discussed and insisted that PRISM was "all about content," here's the latest from Greenwald and The Guardian -- the source with the mostest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... picks=true

After all the smoke has cleared and Snowden's information analyzed, Greenwald writes an article about the history of post-September-11th NSA surveillance.

In this latest article, the term "records" appears over a dozen times, and the term "metadata" appears over twenty times.

Poor old content appears only twice, as in, " It did not include the content of emails," and "don't include any content."

Judge for yourself.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede, just out curiosity, what do you think metadata is?

[Ombudsman]

So you don't actually know? That's kinda what I figured.

[k9nanny]

My brother wore headphones to intercept transmissions, first in Vietnam, then in Ethiopia. The technology back then was ... low tech.

But I get it. The collection of data makes me squirm, although I have currently nothing to hide.
I do think Vrede gets to the crux of the matter with this:

Most Americans object to the invasion of privacy, regardless, and most informed folks don't believe that the NSA's self-imposed limitations can't, aren't or won't be breached.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow.

Right now, the majority of us are irrelevant, but what is down the road? Semantics do not negate the possibility that all this collection of data won't bite innocent people in the ass.

[Stinger]

No, My opinion may be wrong and you're entitled to your own. It's your saying that my having a different opinion from you is "running away" that's a lie. In fact, that means that what you just posted applies to you more than me. That's funny!

Another Vrede delusion of having made a point.

I see. Now you're completely dodging your stupid "distraction" claim. Figures.

Another Vrede statement devoid of common sense, logic, and literacy. Figures.

One can state a relevant but pointless aside in an argument. I did that. One can also obsess about the point to the point of distracting from the original argument. You did that ... and are still doing it.

Oh my, now you've gotten yourself all confused. "After months and months" of your expressed approval for my outing of Det.Thorn and your requests that I out others.

One can't help but become occasionally confused with the amount of nonsensical BS you throw out during one of your performances.

And now you go lying again. No "expressed" approval. No request to out anyone on a public forum.

LOL. If not related to this topic there's no hypocrisy, and it was your own accusation in the middle of a post on this topic. In your desperation to run away from the door you chose to open you're not making any sense at all now. Or, you're just lying.

That's stupid. You're not a hypocrite for standing up for rights to privacy while publishing people's IP addresses ... because it's not a part of the original argument?

And I'm not making sense? Best you can do, I guess.


You specifically requested that more be revealed.

You're specifically lying again. I specifically requested that the information be revealed on a private forum of trusted individuals, not published in the open, public forum.

That absolves you? By your "reasoning" prosecutors should be able to use illegally gathered evidence. Dance on.

No posted rule absolves you? By your "reasoning," it's okay to misquote or deceptively edit because there's no rule against it. By your "reasoning," it's okay to lie because there's no rule against it ... which may explain some of your statements here.

You asked me to publish what you're now screeching about. Busted, don't "run from it".

And you're lying out your ass. I never asked you to publish anything. I asked a question. Got an answer.

[Note: I don't consider posting something on a private forum to be publishing anything because the public cannot see it -- just a handful of trusted people.

Publish: 1) Prepare and issue for public sale. 2)Print (something) in a book or journal to make it generally known

Public (as opposed to private). Generally known (as opposed to among a small, private group).

I'm sure you'll conveniently have another definition of publishing that trumps what the rest of the world thinks.]

You didn't use PM, you didn't get your answer PM, you've used what I, banni and Ombudsman revealed ad nauseam even after it became against the rules you brought into this tangent to do so, Pontius Pilate.

I used what Ombudsman revealed.

Pontius Pilate. That's so cute.

Besides your lying, you're relaying the information from a "Private Message," once again revealing information that was expected to remain private. How apropos of Vrede.

My mistake. It wasn't a PM.

That's a different issue than you've mentioned so far, a desperate "distraction". However, Ombudsman did bring it up then ran away several times from my response and question about it:

Don't care what you and Ombudsman had going on. I'm talking about you. You reveal IP addresses. You reveal messages from a private forum. You claim to be big on right to privacy.

The "new" part was you and Ombudsman gleefully taking the info. Ombudsman posted and browbeating that poster over it even after it became against the rules to do so:
And yet, not a word of reproach for Ombudsman or acceptance of responsibility for what you did. How hypocritical is that?

Am I having a discussion with Ombudsman? Is Ombudsman portraying himself as the saint of right to privacy?
I accepted responsibility for what I did. How illiterate is that of you? I made fun of Leo after the rules were posted ... but I revealed no IP addresses and no new information about anyone.

Extenuating circumstances -- Leo had lied about his location for over a year. As much as Leo tried to rag on me for calling him on his lies, I figured he deserved some ribbing. (By the way, you can consider that ex-DEA thing of his more of his BS.) Hypocritical of me to ask and use the information, but not as hypocritical as what you did.

"I'm not guilty because there was no rule then."

Why do you think Banni made the rule? Because such information shouldn't be bandied about in a public forum?

Not my fault. Rules weren't there then.

A lying misquote of me is not your fault and you need a rule to know it? Interesting rationalization.

A lying defense of your argument.That's exactly what you're claiming. Not your fault. You're blameless because there was no rule, not because what you did was ethically acceptable.

Not my problem that you're once again so illiterate. My actions prior to the posting of the rules are justified by your support for them and request for me to do it more. If, as is suddenly now your claim, I was wrong then you were equally as wrong but you're too spineless to admit it.

Parsing and lying. Parsing and lying. The Vrede way. Once again so dishonest. I didn't support you posting IP addresses on a forum that's open to the public. I supported you telling me about one in a private forum of trusted individuals, but that's not publishing it on a public forum. That's gossiping.

There's a difference between discussing something privately andrevealing it publicly , but you're too spineless to admit it.

Really? Oh, I see, you're running away from another lie.

Ut-oh, I interjected a response in the middle of a sentence, again. Expect pages of mewling about how I "moved" something, again.

No, not running. Just stating the facts.

Not a PM:

Vrede, have you ever found any common IP addresses between Doo Hickey and Leo Lyons? DH said something the other day in reference to Latent Leo posts that sounded like he was too familiar with Latent Leo's body of posts.

Have you ever tried to run down Latent Leo's location using his IP?

Nor was the answer delivered as a PM. You replied openly without a hint of the objection you've suddenly developed, and now you're going so far as to lie about having asked.

You're right. That wasn't a PM. My mistake. It wasn't a Private Message. It was from a private forum. Get it? Private. The public can't just pop in and read it?

It was a forum of people whom I trusted would not attempt to use such information for any sort of nefarious purpose. I also trusted that such information -- i.e. someone's IP address -- would not be revealed on an open forum to people I don't know. I'll learn one day.

Lots of people less porcine than you don't consider them private. There is no right-to-privacy for what you write on the outside of an envelope, or the government knowing whom you wrote, when and where -- metadata.

Yep, you're a sheep defending the pigs.

Explaining the facts to a sheep. Pigs are smart enough to figure them out.

There is no right to privacy for what's written on an envelope. Who sent it. Where from. Where to. To whom. What's the difference between that and your phone records?

I'll be waiting.

I don't think I've ever once expressed worry about that. Got a quote and link? No, you're making things up, again. It's well known historic, possible current and potential future repression and the fact that it's a 4th Amendment violation whatever they do with the info. that concerns me.

Not a fact. An opinion.

"historic" is a fact and of course "possible" and "potential" are opinions, goofball. History and English much?

"The FACT that it's a 4th Amendment violation ...." Read much? Read your own words much? ROTFLMAO!!!

That you again ran away from getting caught lying about my posts is noted. Hat trick of lies about me, hat trick of running away.

Well, thank you for noting that. That you imagine me lying while running from your own lies is noted. Your hat trick's really cool, but i liked all the little numbers best. That and the forest and the tree thing. Oh yeah. And "thy name is ...."

There's no hypocrisy in not coming to your wingnutty conclusion that anything I've done without any enforcement powers equates to what the NSA is doing.

Who said equate. I thought it hypocritical of you, but it doesn't equate to anything else. Read much?

Otoh, there's plenty of hypocrisy in your having applauded and encouraged what I did only to suddenly oppose it, and plenty of hypocrisy in your citing a rule that you violated for page after page when I did not.

I never encouraged you or applauded you publishing IP addresses on a public forum. Two more lies, and you've got another hat trick.


No equating = no hypocrisy. Try to make sense. Or, you're just lying, again.

Nice rule you just made up. "If you're not equating revealing ONE IP address on one forum with a worldwide surveillance that garners records on billions of phone calls and billions of emails (and IP addresses) daily, you can't possibly claim any hypocrisy."

Logic much? And I should try to make sense? ROTFLMAO!!!

Can't defend yourself. Deny and accuse the other person of lying. The Vrede way.

Translation: It's "intimidation" if I reveal something, not "intimidation", apparently, if banni and Ombudsman do so, and not "intimidation" if Stinger uses that info. for page after redundant page even after there's a rule against it. How illogical is that?

If you're arguing with someone, and you point out that he's posting from a government server, then there's the intimidation of him getting busted for posting from work. No intimidation with Leo. He's not going to get fired. Just some everyday, lowbrow harassment.

Poor baby, still whining about my responding to a post of his that he continues to discuss. How hypocritical is that?

I continue to discuss it because you continue to bring it up. And post lies about me.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a distraction from the original metadata vs. content discussion. I guess you probably needed the distraction. You're welcome.

That you're still ranting on imaginary limits to what the NSA is doing or can do as if it matters in the big picture, based entirely on what the NSA tells us, is noted, pitied, and ignored. Sorry you wasted more time and effort.

That you're too stubbornly fixed in your delusion to recognize what your own source, The Guardian, the man and the paper with the info from Snowden, is noted, pitied, and laughed at. Sorry you wasted more time and effort denying what pretty much all the major sources have said.

[O Really]

Here's the thing - to be particularly afraid of the types of data collection being discussed, one has to see the government as the enemy. Not just a situation where a rogue analyst or an ideologue General could run amok, or where you could get isolated and illegal use of the data for "enemies lists" but where "the government" actively opposes its citizens. How this view differs from that held by those we call "wingnuts" and "conspiracy theorists" I'm not sure. How did it happen that we think our own military is our enemy? Why do we let a whole generation of (mostly) brave and honorable warriors be painted by Lt. Calleys and Abu Graibs? No, I don't trust every department in the US Government to always act in the best interest of every individual. But I do believe that more is done in the best interest of the country than not.

[Stinger]

Here's the thing - to be particularly afraid of the types of data collection being discussed, one has to see the government as the enemy. Not just a situation where a rogue analyst or an ideologue General could run amok, or where you could get isolated and illegal use of the data for "enemies lists" but where "the government" actively opposes its citizens. How this view differs from that held by those we call "wingnuts" and "conspiracy theorists" I'm not sure. How did it happen that we think our own military is our enemy? Why do we let a whole generation of (mostly) brave and honorable warriors be painted by Lt. Calleys and Abu Graibs? No, I don't trust every department in the US Government to always act in the best interest of every individual. But I do believe that more is done in the best interest of the country than not.

The potential for abuse is greater than previously imaginable. This is the government knowing far, far more about us than it ever did before. The odds that someone, somewhere will abuse something is almost a lock.

The idea that a tyrannical government could use this isn't a fantasy. It could. It could also do much the same without this. The age of Big Brother is here, via computer.

The idea that the NSA is reading our emails or listening in on our phone calls is ludicrous. They simply don't have the time. According to the experts, they can paint a more compete picture of you using the metadata than they could listening in on a few phone calls or reading a few emails.

There certainly is reason for concern. The potential for abuse is disconcerting and catalyst for rational discussion and probably some changes, but the "The gummint is listening in on my phone calls. The sky is falling." routine is over the top.

[Stinger]

Sure you haven't (posted on this page and the last).

I may have said something that sounds like that...

Others, too. Illiterate or just lying this time, Stinger?

Or maybe I just didn't read that particular post. But you can always accuse me of lying again. Seems to be your fallback when you have nothing to say.


That's a different "sort of misfortune", as I clearly posted.

Which would be included under "any sort of misfortune," as I clearly posted.


My bad, I should have posted: Someone trying to sell me something doesn't care what my politics or other recreational activities are in order to punish me for them.

I thought the implication would have been obvious even to you, but clearly "You really don't understand, do you?"

No, I just don't have your psych mind-reading abilities. I have to go by what you actually write.

So, you're essentially saying that the privacy we've lost to the corporate and electoral world makes the NSA snooping not such a big deal.

See. There go those psycho mind-reading powers again. I thought I was just pointing out that there are other groups out there collecting 1200-page documents and more of information about you. I suggested no such thing about snooping not being such a big deal, but you, from 500 miles away, are able to read my mind and tell what I'm actually thinking.

I am genuinely impressed.

I disagree. You've become the "them" that you "Haven't seen".

No, I've become the "them" that your paranoia tells you is there.

Thank you for proving my point that you've twice disputed, really, thank you.

Thank you for imagining that you've proved anything you've said. It's truly entertaining.

[O Really]

The potential for abuse is greater than previously imaginable. This is the government knowing far, far more about us than it ever did before. The odds that someone, somewhere will abuse something is almost a lock.

The idea that a tyrannical government could use this isn't a fantasy. It could. It could also do much the same without this. The age of Big Brother is here, via computer.

.

Evil governments have always found ways to abuse their citizens/subjects. The fundamental question is not whether a given process, system, or database could be used to abuse the citizenry, the question is whether you think the US government is ally or enemy to the citizens. When a majority of US citizens think their own government is the enemy, we're all up the crick.

[Stinger]

Just to touch base on the metadata vs. content debate that Vrede repeatedly discussed and insisted that PRISM was "all about content," here's the latest from Greenwald and The Guardian -- the source with the mostest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju ... picks=true

...Poor old content appears only twice, as in, " It did not include the content of emails," and "don't include any content."

Judge for yourself.

Okay.

...In reality, it is hard to distinguish email metadata from email content. Distinctions that might make sense for telephone conversations and data about those conversations do not always hold for online communications...

"Seeing your IP logs – and especially feeding them through sophisticated analytic tools – is a way of getting inside your head that's in many ways on par with reading your diary," Sanchez added...

Opps, Stinger "missed" that or "forgot" to mention the quote which makes thrice, not "twice". Opps.

Opps. You're right. Thrice. Not twice. Doesn't change a thing. Doesn't change that the other two mentions said, "It did not include the content of emails," and "don't include any content." Doesn't change that even your third mention implies email metadata, not email content.

Doesn't change anything. It's metadata, not content. Or couldn't you read that?

They get -- as stated previously -- sender, recipient, subject line, IP addresses, time. Not content. Or couldn't you read that?

As I've also stated before, the analysis of the metadata can often paint a more complete picture of you than attempting to read a few emails or listen in on a few phone calls.

Of course, the distinction only matters to Stinger.

It mattered to you when you thought you were right. You're the one who insisted that PRISM is all about content and insisted your sources were right. Now it only matters to me.

Most Americans object to the invasion of privacy, regardless, and most informed folks don't believe that the NSA's self-imposed limitations can't, aren't or won't be breached.

Probably doesn't hurt that a third of Americans mistakenly believe that the NSA's out their reading their emails and listening in on their phone calls.

[Stinger]

Evil governments have always found ways to abuse their citizens/subjects. The fundamental question is not whether a given process, system, or database could be used to abuse the citizenry, the question is whether you think the US government is ally or enemy to the citizens. When a majority of US citizens think their own government is the enemy, we're all up the crick.

So far, it's the far right who's been spouting the tyranny charges ... based solely on their fertile little imaginations.

[O Really]

Evil governments have always found ways to abuse their citizens/subjects. The fundamental question is not whether a given process, system, or database could be used to abuse the citizenry, the question is whether you think the US government is ally or enemy to the citizens. When a majority of US citizens think their own government is the enemy, we're all up the crick.

So far, it's the far right who's been spouting the tyranny charges ... based solely on their fertile little imaginations.

Vrede is not far right, and neither is s/he ignorant, ill-informed, nor alone. I'm not trying to make the argument that assurances not to spy on innocent Americans is 100% trustworthy. I'm not trying to say there are zero opportunities for abuse. I'm saying Pick one: (1) the US government and its military generally works for the citizens or (2) it is the enemy of citizens.

[Ombudsman]

So you confuse yourself or lie about my response? That's kinda what I figured.

Well darling, sweetie, sugar...you didn't actually answer my question. You avoided it in favor or more whiny ass personal attacks and misrepresentation. Are you starting understand why I think you're fucking nuts?

[Ombudsman]

Note: Stinger screwed up the formatting and colors again. I'll try to fix it without messing anything up.

You have no idea how fucking crazy that alone makes you seem do you?