 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | No point When you go against the feds especially about this program you will loose every time.
NSL's erased the constitution a long time ago (thank you Patriot Act) so we should just use it for a camp fire and be done with it. |
|
|
|
| reply to camaro92
Re: No point Claro!!! The Patriot Act was the sinle most damaging piece of unconstitutional legislation ever foisted on the American Public and our Judicial arm is nothing but a bunch of "castrated" sheep that allow for this total disregard of Constitutional law! |
|
| reply to camaro92
The tough fights are really the ones most worth fighting. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Nothing to see, move along There hasn't been a repeat of 9/11 so obviously NSL and the Patriot Act are doing what they are intended. To challenge them would be unpatriotic. So are you a traitor, or just wanting to support terrorism?
And since this is DSLReports where a good number of people have absolutely no sense of sarcasm, the above is such an example and is not meant to be taken seriously. Maybe. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
 ·Comcast
| said by cdru:There hasn't been a repeat of 9/11 so obviously NSL and the Patriot Act are doing what they are intended. To challenge them would be unpatriotic. So are you a traitor, or just wanting to support terrorism?
And since this is DSLReports where a good number of people have absolutely no sense of sarcasm, the above is such an example and is not meant to be taken seriously. Maybe.
That is the very reason they named it patriot act. They roll tyranny up in the american flag, so the sheep go along with it. Keep moving and gives your rights up for false security, the government will have the tsa assault you to make sure your safe! |
|
 mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
1 edit | reply to cdru
said by cdru:There hasn't been a repeat of 9/11 so obviously NSL and the Patriot Act are doing what they are intended. To challenge them would be unpatriotic. So are you a traitor, or just wanting to support terrorism?
And since this is DSLReports where a good number of people have absolutely no sense of sarcasm, the above is such an example and is not meant to be taken seriously. Maybe.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9JFUqBKIRE
You need to learn history, and understand the Constitution, that is all.
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  |
|
| How can that be? If "nobody could review it," how did "a government investigation in 2010 [find] 60%" to not conform to guidelines? That sounds like a form of review to me... |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to mmay149q
Re: Nothing to see, move along I think you just need to read his comment in a more sarcastic tone. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to tehGeo
Re: How can that be? It's an after-the-fact audit, by the time it's done the improperly requested data has been long turned over. |
|
| Exactly how it should be Take it to court and see what they say. There have been previous general suits filed by the ACLU and EFF that were decided against the plaintiffs. I think this is the first one brought by a carrier/ISP. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | and the contents of the NSL made public at the same time. this no review with free gag order stuff goes against the whole purpose of this country.
its like Innocent until secretly proven guilty by way of evidence sealed in an NDA.
though one way around this stuff is to release the info to a whistle blowing site and fake some router and firewall logs and claim you got hacked.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | This statement was way off "surveillance-proof ISP"
There's no such thing. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Who is this Anonymous Freedom-Fighting Carrier! ... and where did they come from! |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: Exactly how it should be Um, no. This is wrongheaded on three counts.
a) There is clearly security value in the contents of the NSLs. Why would you insist that they be made public, therefore warning the terrorists and others that they are trying to catch? Makes no sense. Plain old wiretap warrants are not made public for exactly the same reason. Kind of defeats the purpose, that you want to intercept communications that the target doesn't know are being intercepted.
b) This has absolutely zero to do with innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea what you are talking about here. The operators who receive the NSLs are not being accused of any crime, far from it.
c) Leak the info secretly and blame it on hackers. Yeah, that's the ticket. That way the terrorist/criminal groups they are targeting get warned about the government's interest in them and find out exactly how they are looking and what they are looking for, thus enabling them to simply change their communication methods. That seems like a good goal. Not. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Comcast
| reply to vpoko
Re: Nothing to see, move along said by vpoko:I think you just need to read his comment in a more sarcastic tone.
I tryed to look at it that way myself, but couldn't take it that way. |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Exactly how it should be Your A and B arguments are just silly.
A.) Let them obtain a fully reviewed warrant to obtain the information as they should. Not a single organization or entity should have unaccountable and unreviewable access to anything. They should be accountable to the court system just like they are if they want a wiretap as you say.
B.) Your statement is simply dumb. Sure they (operators) are not accused of a crime, but one of their customers are suspected of it and they should not have to turn anything over until they get a valid warrant requesting it. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| A). The NSLs are reviewed by the FISA court and signed off by a judge. Do your homework. Don't believe all the crap "reported" here.
Also your point has absolutely nothing do do with the question, which was about making the NSLs public, not about the review process.
B). NSLs ARE valid warrants. And, a warrant is NOT an accusation of a crime. Much less the arrest and prosecution of a criminal charge, which is where innocent until proven guilty applies. |
|
| Your assumption is that they are reviewed and valid, which you nor I can confirm nor deny. Especially when they want to do it super secret and put NDA's on everything.
However, being it is the US government I highly doubt they follow any procedures that interfere with what they want and skirt the requirements when they deem it necessary.
The government has very few things they do that should be secret and 99.9% of those things are military based. Justice, should not be one of those things EVER regardless of the good they or you claim it brings. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| They are reviewed and valid BY DEFINITION. The judge's signature makes it valid.
By starting off your arguments with words like "illegal, unconstitutional, unreviewed..." you are simply engaging in a rhetorical device of assuming the conclusion. The popularized version of this is the completely un-PC joke: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
If you want to argue that the review process is not working, go ahead. But don't spew dark conspiratorial phrases like "I doubt there's any review at all! Because this is the Government!". That is just lame.
Oh can't resist this one: this is the same Government you put your trust in to take over the ISPs because it's SO MUCH BETTER than those evil corporations. |
|
