Big Brother is Watching You

[Ombudsman]

Are you starting to understand why I think you're Stalinist?

Because that's you're somewhat unoriginal method of avoiding Godwin's Law.

[bannination]

Amid Data Controversy, NSA Builds Its Biggest Data Farm

[O Really]

Here's a question for anyone interested - Do you think the rank and file citizenry of a country has a right and need to know the details of the country's intelligence forces? And if so, how would you envision a country being able to conduct intelligence operations under those circumstances?

[Dryer Vent]

Here's a question for anyone interested - Do you think the rank and file citizenry of a country has a right and need to know the details of the country's intelligence forces?

No. If the rank and file citizenry of a country knows the details of the country's intelligence forces, so does the enemy. I believe it is treason for anyone to divulge that information, and the person divulging should be dealt with approriately.

And if so, how would you envision a country being able to conduct intelligence operations under those circumstances?

NO!!!

[neoplacebo]

Here's a question for anyone interested - Do you think the rank and file citizenry of a country has a right and need to know the details of the country's intelligence forces? And if so, how would you envision a country being able to conduct intelligence operations under those circumstances?

I don't think the rank and file citizenry should even be involved or concerned about intelligence matters; that's just stupid. We don't live in an idyllic slipstream of detached innocence anymore, if any of us can remember such a time. It's just that times change, methods change, perceptions change....hell, I'm an old hippie, and I can't get too excited about any of this "new" NSA shit. It is what it is, and it's not going away.

[bannination]

[O Really]

For those of you worrying about NSA having phone and email records, here's an excerpt from a bank's privacy statement (accurately paraphrased) :

What personal information do we collect and share? (When you) open an account or deposit funds; pay your bills or apply for a loan; use your credit or debit card... Social Security Number and income; account balances and payment history; credit history and credit scores. Quote: "when you are no longer our customer, we continue to share you information as described herein"

Who do we share your personal information with? Our marketing people; or affiliates and partners and other financial companies. For our affiliates to market to you; for our non affiliates to market to you.

Without regard to whether NSA's work is good, bad, intrusive, whatever - this is just another example where "private" doesn't mean anything anymore - if it ever did.

[bannination]

For those of you worrying about NSA having phone and email records, here's an excerpt from a bank's privacy statement (accurately paraphrased) :

What personal information do we collect and share? (When you) open an account or deposit funds; pay your bills or apply for a loan; use your credit or debit card... Social Security Number and income; account balances and payment history; credit history and credit scores. Quote: "when you are no longer our customer, we continue to share you information as described herein"

Who do we share your personal information with? Our marketing people; or affiliates and partners and other financial companies. For our affiliates to market to you; for our non affiliates to market to you.

Without regard to whether NSA's work is good, bad, intrusive, whatever - this is just another example where "private" doesn't mean anything anymore - if it ever did.

Again, that doesn't make the NSA look good, it just makes what banks do bad. They would share much more than that if it were for Federal privacy regulations that already exist. Privacy laws need to be strengthened.

[O Really]

Again, that doesn't make the NSA look good, it just makes what banks do bad. They would share much more than that if it were for Federal privacy regulations that already exist. Privacy laws need to be strengthened.

My intent isn't to make NSA look good or bad. It's to put a perspective on what (by any entity) could reasonably be considered "outrageously intrusive" given the "privacy" context in which we live.

But as to NSA data collection on phone calls and email, why is that not the same as looking at ones garbage? You can't look in the house, but once they put it on the street, it's fair game. Could anyone argue that phone call data is not "on the street"?

[Stinger]

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

Whatever little victories you can claim.

What a fucking joke.

[homerfobe]

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

Whatever little victories you can claim.

What a fucking joke.

I love it! You go boy! The libbies are at each other's throats now!

Their genial personalities are showing!

[Stinger]

Lie, again. You applauded my doing it to Det.Thorn, as I linked.

Lie again. I didn't applaud anything. Your logically-impaired delusions that my not speaking about your act in no way proves anything. Applauding is applauding. Silence is not applauding. Silence is not expressed approval ... unless you're in an argument over your head, and you're really, really, really, really, pathetically desperate.

Despite at least 8 posts on the topic when I outed Det.Thorn, you never objected once.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... 4&start=20
Plus, you conveniently forget that it was after years of his still whining about my aliases even though I wasn't using any here. Seems like Det.Thorn (Troll Patrol?) and Stinger now have a mutual admiration society.

No request to out anyone on a public forum.

Lie, again. It was not a PM from you that I've posted several times now, and even if it was it's still a request for me to out someone you don't like to you so that you could do whatever. In other words, a supposed violation of privacy that you've suddenly and conveniently developed a conscience about.

Lie again. No request to out anyone on a public forum. Your psycho mind-reading powers may allow you to leap to such conclusions in Vrede World, but they don't hold much water here in reality.

I didn't suddenly develop a conscience about anything. I suddenly developed a need to point out your hypocrisy.


Oh my, you've conveniently lost track of your own words again. You posted, "I didn't try to relate it to this topic," I responded, now you're saying that you did try to relate it to this topic. That's what happens when you're such a cowardly liar, you trip yourself up.

Read much? I simply pointed out that your illogical statement was stupid.


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.

In other words, there's no from me lie there. You did exactly as I posted and you've tried to deny. That you were sneaking around requesting the info. to use however makes you worse by your own standards of new found objection, not better. Why didn't you ask openly if it wasn't just as shameful as you're accusing me of being?

Pathetic little liar. You repeatedly accused me of asking you to publish private information -- "You asked me to publish what you're now screeching about." I never asked you to publish anything.



Wrong again, dummy. We disagree on whether an IP address is sacrosanct (well, you do now but didn't before). Do we disagree that misquoting, as you keep doing, deceptive editing, as you've done, and lying, as you can't stop doing, are wrong? If not, then your comparisons are stupid. If so, that explains a lot.

Wrong again, dummy. You've repeatedly claimed you're faultless because you acted before the rules were put up. The deceptive editing you keep desperately whining about was refuted by any number of publications. They lying is all yours or all in your imagination. Do we disagree that your stupid is stupid?



You asked me to reveal to 14 people what you now claim is "personal information" about your enemies and your rationalization now is that they didn't know you were doing so. We may not even have 14 active posters here anymore.

I'll repeat for whoever is that slow on the uptake -- a private forum is private. It's not public. Do I really have to post the definitions for private and public? Are you really that dense?

Publishing is for the public, not the private.

My rationalization is reality, not some cockamamie, illiteracy-fueled delusion you cooked up. Where did I say they didn't know what I was doing? That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even fathom how you got that far afield. Must be some good shit.


Yes you did, even after a rule was posted against it. Yet, neither banni, Ombudsman, nor yourself is guilty of the infringing on civil liberties and intimidation that you suddenly accuse me of - a very selective and hypocritical Pontius Pilate at that.

I revealed no new information. I discussed what was already public knowledge.

Pontius Pilate. That's so cute. I hope you don't imagine it some sort of rhetorical zinger.

Ah, you were referring to my revealing that you requested exactly what you're now whining at me for doing. Tough, go cry to your mommy about not wanting to be responsible for your own words.

Ah, I was referring to what happened. Again, private vs. public. You keep working on that concept. I know you'll get it ... whenever that shit wears off.

Of course you don't care, that's how whiny hypocrites are.

More pointless stupidity. You're good at it.


My, you're dense. We disagree on IP addresses being sacred, I have no power to do what the NSA does, and the private message that you're screeching about happens to be the exact one that proves how hypocritical you are. Convenient that.

You conveniently forgot that you posted messages from a PRIVATE FORUM on a PUBLIC FORUM.


Doesn't matter, your accusations are that plus infringing on civil liberties and "intimidation". They all have to apply to all of us or none at all, but you're being too much of a weasel to say so. That's how whiny hypocrites are.

If Ombudsman asks, I'll tell him I don't think it was right, but he's not here casting himself as the saint of civil liberties and the right to privacy like you are.

Not once and you can't provide a quote. You've repeatedly rationalized it while attacking me for the same supposed crimes.

Damn. Is saying that I asked about an IP address on a PRIVATE FORUM not admitting what I did? Several times?

I "attacked" (mentioned, actually ... you're not worthy of an attack) you for POSTING and IP address on a PUBLIC FORUM. Not the same supposed crime.

Wait till the shit wears off.

You kept the info. alive in clear violation of the rules re discussion of IP addresses and locations. Pontius Pilate, your excuse-making for yourself is pathetic.

There she goes again. I revealed the information, but you broke the rules.

That Pontius Pilate is so cute.

Ah, all these supposed crimes are okay if you, and only you, think they deserve it. "Extenuating circumstances" -

Try to keep up. Try to remember what actually happened. I ribbed him over information that had already been revealed. I did nothing to violate his privacy. I just broke the rules.


Now that you've found religion and attack me for it, yes.

No religion. You were the saint on a soapbox of right to privacy, so I MENTIONED a perceived transgression. Your hyperbolic "attack" meme is pretty entertaining.

You must take yourself very seriously.

I didn't think it was a big deal then and don't now, no hypocrisy in that. Get a dictionary or take a logic class.

That's your opinion. There is also reality.

Another misquote, Stinger lies again.

Another dodge. Vrede lies again.

This is so much fun. I really would have appreciated the little numbers, though.

My guess is because he was sick of the crap you and especially Ombudsman were pulling, but you'll have to ask him. After all, less than a month before banni and I had done it together.

Uh, wait a minute. What crap that I was pulling? Didn't he make the rules BEFORE I pulled any crap? Isn't your excuse that I broke the rules and you didn't?

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel okay.

Sure you did, with Det.Thorn, and you gleefully used the same info. re Leo Lyons for page after redundant page. Ironically: "Parsing and lying. Parsing and lying." The Stinger way. "Once again so dishonest."

I didn't do anything with Thorn. I never mentioned Thorn's IP address. I used the already-published, nothing-new-here information to rag on Leo for page after redundant page.

Now, the page after redundant page, coming from you, is serious irony.


You asked me to reveal to 14 people what you now claim is "personal information" about your enemies and your rationalization now is that they didn't know you were doing so. We may not even have 14 active posters here anymore. "gossiping" -

PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC. 14 active posters. 14 dead posters. Doesn't matter.

Just wait till the shit wears off. Maybe you'll get it.


If, as is suddenly now your claim, I was wrong then you were equally as wrong but you're too spineless to admit it.

PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC. 14 active posters. 14 dead posters. Doesn't matter.

Just wait till the shit wears off. Maybe you'll get it.


You, as much as anyone here and as recently as anyone here used the same kind of info. for the nefarious purpose of attacking Leo Lyons.

The same kind of info AFTER if had already been revealed. I didn't reveal it. You really lose track easily, don't you?


You never once objected over months and months until you thought you could hypocritically use it when floundering with me. You failed, big time, but will never have the smarts or spine to admit it.

Blah, blah, blah. I'll give your delusions all the consideration they deserve.


Whoosh.

Double whoosh.

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 hand an envelope to the government and know they can read the outside.
I don't have to put my return address on the outside.
I can drop it in any mailbox.
We don't have reason, yet, to believe that they scan and retain the info. on each envelope.
We've only just gotten the proof about the phone records.
The government does know that it's my phone.
The government lied and kept what it was doing secret.

Lots of huge differences there. You'll be ducking now.

You can also call from a pay phone. That takes care of the "no return address" problem.
They can scan all mail if they wish. We don't know that they don't.

You know the carriers keep detailed records. There is no expected right to privacy. The scope of the data collection is what flipped people out.

The government lied and kept it a secret. Duh.

Why the hell do you think they're collecting this data? Trying to gain an edge on the terrorists. Do you think it would work if they didn't keep it secret?

I don't think I've ever once expressed worry about that. Got a quote and link? No, you're making things up, again. ...

False accusation and request for proof ducked, again.


Your reference was unclear, their were several thoughts in that sentence.

No, it wasn't. Your words immediately preceded my quote.

My bad, though. I should have posted as I did earlier on the same page, "violation of the spirit if not the letter (we'll see if SCOTUS ever gets over its timidity) of the 4th Amendment".


2 direct quotes that were really misquotes, take away the "4th Amendment" one thanks to your unclear reference, add in your lie now about your misquotes - back to a hat trick of lies about me, hat trick of running away.



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

It's not hypocrisy if it's not comparable. Get a dictionary.

More stupid.

I can compare a Smart car and a McLaren, but they're not equal.

Sure you did, with Det.Thorn, and you gleefully used the same info. re Leo Lyons for page after redundant page.

Damn, the dumb shit with Thorn continues. I bet you're glad delusions aren't painful. I revealed nothing about Thorn or Leo.

And you're the expert of page after redundant page, so I'll take your word for it.

Yep, you just lied again about your own posts.

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."

Not bad, but you neglected to mention the damage that the NSA can do but I can't.

Doesn't make your illogical claim logical.

And you neglected to mention the good that the NSA can do (and has done) that you can't.


Yep, you're comparing anything I've done or can do to what the NSA is doing and can do is about as illogical and nonsensical as it gets. Your hysterical laughter suits you.

I wasn't comparing. I was pointing out some hypocrisy in the Saint of Right to Privacy. Kind of like all the irrelevant shit you drag into arguments on a regular basis.


2 direct quotes that were really misquotes, you just lied about your own posts, again.

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


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.

Nice invention! Do you know how many people work for Asheville? Besides, as Ombudsman discovered and posted and you refuse to fault him for, Mad American's IP address was never hidden. It already was available to all of us. You've whined for page after page about "private" that was never private at all. How stupid is that?

Apparently he was the only one who paid enough attention to notice it.


Exactly the same as could be done to someone posting from a city IP, hypocrite, and a clear violation of the rule that you brought into this tangent. But, I don't think either is "intimidation" - that's your stupid word for what we've both done.

Uh, slow one. I didn't post anyone's IP on a public forum. Nice try.


Got it, you initiate a topic, I respond, you respond, etc. but it's my "distraction" and your choices are all my fault. Do you even make sense to yourself when you get this loony and irresponsible.

The irony is that the real topic, content vs. metadata, started when I mentioned it from one of your posts, and you actually responded a dozen times, -- I respond, you respond, etc. -- arguing that PRISM is all about content, claiming The Guardian supported you, etc., etc. You cried like a baby about "deceptive editing" about a topic we weren't even discussing.

Then when the evidence became more solid that PRISM was about metadata, it became "Who cares? It's not even the topic ... anymore."

Fortunately, I mentioned an aside that you could run with, and now we have 800-line posts about what the topic wasn't.

Do you even make sense to yourself when you get this loony and irresponsible?

Nope, none, another lie from you.

Nope, none, another lie from you.

Gee, this is fun.

[/quote]


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.

Still running from the fact that PRISM is about metadata, and not content is note, pitied, and ignored. Sorry you wasted more time and effort.[/quote]

[Stinger]

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

Whatever little victories you can claim.

What a fucking joke.

I love it! You go boy! The libbies are at each other's throats now!

Their genial personalities are showing!

I'm sure you meant "genital," as obsessed as you are.

[Stinger]

Stalinist

Ooooh.

[neoplacebo]

Here's a question for anyone interested - Do you think the rank and file citizenry of a country have a right and need to know the details of the government's trampling on the spirit and possibly the letter of the 4th Amendment? And if not, how would you envision a country being able to conduct freedom and democracy under those circumstances?

I think we're long past mourning the deterioration of the 4th amendment. Up to a point, the rank and file citizenry need and should know what the government does. Having said that, there has to be some sort of limit to what is known, what is suspected, and what must remain "secret" as it relates to the "man on the street." Many Americans have served in the military, but the vast majority of those don't know what the top brass is up to at any given time. And the vast majority of those veterans never had higher than a "NOFORN" or "Confidential" security clearance. I had a "Secret" clearance for a couple of years, but sometimes the weather forecast was classified "Secret." Also, I venture to say the vast majority of the rank and file employees of the alphabet agencies know very little about what is actually happening in the grand scheme of things. If you're applying for a job, any mom and pop business can invoke state law that glaringly flaunts the 4th amendment just by asking you to submit to a "drug test." Don't get me wrong; if there is evidence or even actual knowledge of drug abuse by someone, certainly they don't need to be in positions of responsibility, but the wholesale testing of everyone for "drugs" hits me the wrong way and conveniently avoids the notion in the 4th amendment that there should be "probable cause" and the issuance of a warrant that particularly describes the person or persons to be searched and the items that are being searched for. So, the 4th has been chipped away at for quite some time now. As for secrets, they have been held to one degree or another by governments since the beginning of governments. I'm personally only surprised at the actual volume of data that's evidently being gathered, but if you consider how rapidly computer and information science changes, this, too should not be alarming. Just the way I feel about it.....

[Ombudsman]

Are you starting to understand why I think you're Stalinist?

Because that's you're somewhat unoriginal method of avoiding Godwin's Law.

Nope, it's specific to your stupid delusion that people that disagree with you and prove you wrong are unbalanced, just like the Soviets were well known for. But, I'm not surprised that you pretend otherwise.

You're not a big fan of logic are you? My comments about your disorder, have nothing to do with disagreeing with you. In fact much of the time I do agree with you even when I find your method for getting to the right answer to be nothing more than a parrot job of someone brighter than you.

My questions have to do specifically with your inability to make rational comments, your emotional outbursts and overreactions, your inability to draw logical conclusions, your constant projection and your insistence that you've proven other people wrong when you've done no such thing.

As one of many examples, I asked you if you know the definition of metadata and you ignored the question but still claimed you had answered it. The fact is, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. Normal people are okay with being able to admit they don't have the expertise to discuss every topic in the world. For whatever reason you are not. I've noticed that is often the case with home schooled children. Like you, they tend to think if they memorize facts, that they understand them as well, and that often isn't the case. You seem to think if you google something you suddenly understand something that people with years of experience on the topic don't understand.

Calling someone a "Stalinist" is a childish and rather unoriginal ad hominem.

[Ombudsman]

Hypocritical in an argument, Stinger has yet to accuse banni and Ombudsman of doing the same.
.

This is a good example of your inability to think clearly. I didn't "reveal" anything. I simply pointed out that Mad American's IP that you and Banni posted was the same as Roland's which was listed (along with all of our IP's) on Banni's stats page. His IP was revealed by himself for posting it and by Banni for making it public. You on the other hand thought you were privy to the info as a mod and posted it for all. (Another example of you tech ignorance.) There is a difference in privacy expectations between a mod that has special access to member info and a member who has the same access as every other member. You're clearly too stupid to comprehend that difference.

[Ombudsman]

Vrede my apologies. You're obviously perfectly normal.

[Guest2]

I'm smart enough to see your and Stinger's desperation to whine about something that never bothered you before. It's hilarious that y'all are so twisted up that you're now defending the likes of Det.Thorn, Mad Roland, and even racist Partisan62.

Speaking of Partisan62:

...but you posting private PM's...

...There's no rule against that (revealing an unsolicited PM) and I owed zilch to racist Partisan62. Interesting that you're defending his privacy now given that you came oh so close to outing his real name. How stupid and hypocritical is that?

Quite ironically, the PM that Ombudsman is griping about my revealing was one attacking himself and Crock Hunter. I have no idea why he thinks there's a responsibility for me to keep private such unsolicited attacks on people that are unaware of their existence, or why he's upset about my letting others know what Partisan62 was sneakily saying about him behind his back.

It's also very, very interesting and hypocritical that you're openly discussing a private post of mine, not that I mind.

That's a pretty good picture of Vrede in the second image, don't you think?

[guest2]

Racist Partisan62, is that you?

Censoring posts, are we?