Comments on: NSA to AT&T customers who believe wiretapping violates their rights: neener neener neener http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Sun, 26 May 2013 07:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: PTBartman http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1537864 PTBartman Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:22:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1537864 Curses, foiled by Schrodinger's tap again. Curses, foiled by Schrodinger’s tap again.

]]> By: Tsv1138 http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1535038 Tsv1138 Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:11:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1535038  The long version of the NSA lawyer argument are: 1.) you can't claim that we're doing anything illegal because, 2.) any information that "we" were to release to confirm or deny that we are doing anything illegal is super secret and, 3.) releasing said information would reveal NSA methods as well as active targets of the investigation, 4.) which you cannot confirm the plaintif, your brother, your mom, or any other American citizen was an active target because, (start back at 2 and repeat) A physicist would argue that the wiretapping is both illegal AND legal until you open the box in the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco.  The NSA uncertainty principal?  The long version of the NSA lawyer argument are:
1.) you can’t claim that we’re doing anything illegal because,
2.) any information that “we” were to release to confirm or deny that we are doing anything illegal is super secret and,
3.) releasing said information would reveal NSA methods as well as active targets of the investigation,
4.) which you cannot confirm the plaintif, your brother, your mom, or any other American citizen was an active target because,
(start back at 2 and repeat)

A physicist would argue that the wiretapping is both illegal AND legal until you open the box in the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco.  The NSA uncertainty principal?

]]> By: embryoconcepts http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1535026 embryoconcepts Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:04:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1535026 ALL THE POINTS ALL THE POINTS

]]> By: Doc_S http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1535021 Doc_S Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:02:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1535021 substr_replace("REASONS.", $nationalSecurity, 0) where values of $nationalSecurity approach "Fuck you, that's why." substr_replace(“REASONS.”, $nationalSecurity, 0) where values of $nationalSecurity approach “Fuck you, that’s why.”

]]> By: Fang Xianfu http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1535012 Fang Xianfu Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:59:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1535012 If you'll forgive me for answering your question seriously rather than with a joke: REASONS in this context often means "unspecified reasons", but it can also mean "spurious reasons", which is what Xeni's getting at here. In this case, the reasons given by the Director of National Intelligence for why they're immune are essentially "because we said that the only people who were wiretapped were making international calls and were suspected of being terrorists" and "because telling anyone details of the wiretapping programme would harm national security". In terms of a court case, "I'm not guilty of doing anything wrong because I told you so, but I can't tell you exactly what I did" isn't normally grounds to close a case, hence the ridicule. If you’ll forgive me for answering your question seriously rather than with a joke: REASONS in this context often means “unspecified reasons”, but it can also mean “spurious reasons”, which is what Xeni’s getting at here. In this case, the reasons given by the Director of National Intelligence for why they’re immune are essentially “because we said that the only people who were wiretapped were making international calls and were suspected of being terrorists” and “because telling anyone details of the wiretapping programme would harm national security”. In terms of a court case, “I’m not guilty of doing anything wrong because I told you so, but I can’t tell you exactly what I did” isn’t normally grounds to close a case, hence the ridicule.

]]> By: joeskunk http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1534948 joeskunk Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:26:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1534948 In the short version when you put REASONS in all caps are you implying that there aren't any reasons, that there are but they're dumb, or did they literally do that too? What kind of point are the REASONS caps trying to make? In the short version when you put REASONS in all caps are you implying that there aren’t any reasons, that there are but they’re dumb, or did they literally do that too? What kind of point are the REASONS caps trying to make?

]]> By: vonbobo http://boingboing.net/2012/09/18/nsa-to-att-customers-who-beli.html#comment-1534931 vonbobo Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:10:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=181661#comment-1534931 So, illegal wiretapping is actually legal if the victim/perpetrator is indeed doing something illegal. However, proving guilt is impossible due to the secretive nature of how the illegal wiretapping is conducted. Now which ones are upholding the values of freedom again? So, illegal wiretapping is actually legal if the victim/perpetrator is indeed doing something illegal. However, proving guilt is impossible due to the secretive nature of how the illegal wiretapping is conducted.

Now which ones are upholding the values of freedom again?

]]>