|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
I think what we need is someone malicious. Theoretical arguments don't seem
to be making an impression. Disclosures that harm nobody in power don't seem to
be making an impression. Perhaps having a few dozen powerful Congressmen,
Senators, Federal judges and CEOs of major corporations facing vicious divorce
proceedings and other legal entanglements after full details of exactly who
they'd been communicating with and when got sent to their wives, business
partners, corporate counsel for competitors and firms they were doing business
with and other enemies/opponents would make an impression. It's nasty, but the
only way to get the point across seems to be conclusive proof that those in
power are not safe as long as this sort of thing is allowed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
More to the point, they don't need to see the "contents of the message" when
you read the Groklaw web page. They already have it. They will have read and
analyzed every web page in advance, just like Google does. They just want a list
of who read the page, that is the meta-data.
You could think of the
system as like a reverse-Google. With Google, you tell them what sorts of things
you are interested in, and they come up with a suggested list of web pages that
match those interests. With PRISM, you tell them (via monitoring) what web pages
you are reading (via the meta-data), and they make a (secret) list of what you
are interested in.
With Google, you learn things about the world,
while with PRISM, the NSA learns things about you.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
As often as we've seen goofy juries, the jury system may save many of us from
this mischief.
As we saw in the O.J. jury's message to the LAPD, "We don't care what your
evidence is. We've had enough of you."
And that's only the half of it. I wonder how many courts will admit this kind of
evidence into the trial. I await the first ruling calling the FISC
unconstitutional and denying admissibility of evidence obtained in this way.
Let's see if the government can even get a trial conviction of Snowden, let
alone have it stand up on appeal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
