NSA. . Maybe if we all email the constitution to each other, the will finally readit.. Maybe, Just maybe, The NSA doesn't do 90% of the stuff in those leaked documents. Maybe they just paid Snowden to leak them to make everybody thing they're much
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#42 - PhedoBear (02/01/2014) [-]
what if there's an nsa person that thinks you're cute/pretty and falls in love with you via webcam and keeps watching you
#80 to #42 - syswolf (02/01/2014) [-]
I would say raise your standards...
#57 to #42 - thedesignerisdead (02/01/2014) [-]
Idk if they would be in love with what i do alone.    
Idk if they would be in love with what i do alone.
#3 - odinshomeboy (01/31/2014) [-]
Maybe, Just maybe, The NSA doesn't do 90% of the stuff in those leaked documents. Maybe they just paid Snowden to leak them to make everybody thing they're much more powerful than anyone thought. MAYBE, They're just a bunch of incompetent retards who can't really get anything done but wants the public to think that they're this big scary entity that watches your lives.

And maybe they made the dookie in the urinal
#10 to #3 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
Well then they sure spend an aweful lot of money doing nothing.
#78 to #10 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
strippers are expensive
#14 to #3 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
So you're saying 9/11 was really done by a bunch of pissed off muslims?
User avatar #58 to #14 - frutus (02/01/2014) [-]
Yeah, what are you retarded or something?
User avatar #40 to #3 - failtolawl (02/01/2014) [-]
I would say partially. There are like, 2000 people max that work in that building. No way are they able to actually spy on "everybody"
#82 to #40 - allinallout **User deleted account** (02/01/2014) [-]
have you ever been to fort meade my friend? the NSA headquarters is ******* [big[HUGE[big]. no way only 2000 people work there, I'd garnish a wager and say the building can hold at least 50,000 but probably 15-20,000 work there and the rest is filled with computers. I live in the suburbs of DC and a ton of my neighbors work for the NSA.
#59 to #3 - thismustbeseen (02/01/2014) [-]
Why would they want that?

Even if what you say is true, which it isn't, why would mass surveillance be better than perceived incompetence?
#67 to #59 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
Well, they'd want to be perceived as an untouchable world power; would you rather go against someone who's convinced the world they know your every move before you do, or someone who just bumbles around yelling "FREEDOM" while waving guns around and shutting down over healthcare?
User avatar #154 to #3 - jaynsilentbob (02/01/2014) [-]
the picture took a long time to load so as i read it i was hoping you were referencing South Park. Needless to say you did not disappoint.
User avatar #161 to #3 - farceofnature (02/01/2014) [-]
Atleast you're right about them being incompetent retards
#99 to #8 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
Where is this from? Who's that guy?
#92 to #3 - instalation ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
That's what they would want us to believe.
That's what they would want us to believe.
#6 to #3 - fukbritain (02/01/2014) [-]
Maybe not
User avatar #144 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
If any of you honestly think that you are so worth the NSA's time that they will actually read your emails then you are some of the biggest narcissists i have ever seen.

The NSA dosen't read anything. They use filters to search for key words and phrases and then cross reference them with who they are being sent by/to in order to identify patterns that could identify potential threats. The only way you'll even end up flagged is if you are sending "lets blow up obama" over and over again, and the only way theyll even bother to LOOK at those flagged emails is if you're sending "lets blow up obama" to a known terrorist.

Stop acting like the NSA is spying on the most random people in the world, and ESPECIALLY stop acting like ANY of you are worth the time of the NSA period.
User avatar #171 to #144 - scowler (02/01/2014) [-]
The problem is that they can probably change the definition of "Terrorist" at any time.

This week it'll be Hassan over there, with a bomb stuck in his ass and somebody sitting 300 feet away with a cell phone. Next week it'll be Dale, with his safe full of "Evil Assault Weapons" and a modernized Gadsden Flag hoisted over the yard...

The risk of the NSA being hijacked by Communists is too great. Hell, the bastards are already trying to socialize medical care by driving up prices of private health providers...

BRING THE LIBERTARIANS TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2016! (I'm not talking about windbags like Mr. Kokesh when I say that).
User avatar #198 to #171 - thebballin (02/07/2014) [-]
Dude your so paranoid, how do you stand doing anything without worrying the governments going to steal your soul?
User avatar #199 to #198 - scowler (02/07/2014) [-]
I make sure what I'm doing doesn't help their agenda, obviously.

I'm barely scratching the surface of paranoia. This ****** been done before. That means the bastards have a blueprint.

Besides, only a fool is ignorant of their government...
#185 to #171 - teoragnar (02/02/2014) [-]
I can't tell if you're a troll or a real life american.
I can't tell if you're a troll or a real life american.
User avatar #187 to #185 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
When Europeans think of Americans, they think of the garbage they see on the majority of "Reality Television" programs.

So, under the reversible assumption that you live across the pond, in the Northeast, or in California I am neither.

To associate myself with domineering politicians and the stereotypes designed to make you feel more sophisticated would be an insult.
User avatar #188 to #187 - teoragnar (02/02/2014) [-]
I just couldn't take you seriously after the part with "the NSA being hijacked by Communists".
This is almost stereotypical.
User avatar #190 to #188 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
Figuratively speaking...

Oppression is like Asprin, it's marketed under many different names by many different entities in an attempt to capitalize on it. Communism and Socialism are the most common brands of Oppression.

Gaining absolute majority is simple, yet tedious. You must first engineer or exploit an incident, then either declare a state of emergency or gradually eliminate certain liberties under a veil of plausibility, then finally seize power...

The NSA's spying programs could serve as a method of cataloging persons that could pose a risk to such a power grab.

I'm a lunatic in your mind, so go ahead and laugh it up, you'll be sorry when it turns out I'm right, and I'll throw a party when it turns out I'm wrong.
User avatar #151 to #144 - rynkar (02/01/2014) [-]
It's good to see other people who understand how things work.
User avatar #181 to #144 - lulzforhiroshima (02/02/2014) [-]
jesus almight you are right!
User avatar #172 to #144 - scowler (02/01/2014) [-]
Those who trade Liberty for Security deserve NEITHER.
User avatar #173 to #172 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
Except im not trading liberty for security.

When you put something in the internet, it becomes public data.

Whining about the NSA using that data is like whining about some guy using a book you donated to a public library.

User avatar #174 to #173 - roliga (02/01/2014) [-]
"Whining about the NSA using that data is like whining about some guy using a book you donated to a public library. "

More like

Whining about the NSA using that data is like whining about some guy using a book that you mailed to your friend in hopes that only your friend would read it.
User avatar #175 to #174 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
You should have mailed it then instead of sending a digital copy of it through un-secure channels that are public data to anybody with the ability to access them.
User avatar #177 to #175 - roliga (02/01/2014) [-]
So my private e-mail account is public data to anyone? Okay, go read my e-mails to me then.
User avatar #178 to #177 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
I dont have the ability to access nor the desire to.

And they dont look at your emails saved to your account, thats not public data. They filter them as they are sent.
User avatar #179 to #178 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
Filters can be lifted. Keywords can be changed. What makes you think "Liberty" or "Second Amendment" aren't one of the keywords that place you on a watch-list?
User avatar #184 to #175 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
Who's to say they're not opening the letters?
User avatar #182 to #173 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure that's how Postal Clerks in Moscow rationalized having to turn civilian mail over to the KGB, who then opened them in search of "Subversive Material".

That, and they'd kill them and theirs if they didn't cooperate, or stop paying them, which would do the same (food wasn't exactly plentiful for civilians in the Soviet Union, if I recall correctly).

Privacy isn't exactly guaranteed when the government can just shut you down.
User avatar #176 to #173 - teoberry (02/01/2014) [-]
Putting something on is one things, but an email or private chat is a different ballgame
User avatar #180 to #176 - lulzforhiroshima (02/02/2014) [-]
actually no
User avatar #183 to #172 - teoragnar (02/02/2014) [-]
Give me your reason for this statement.
User avatar #186 to #183 - scowler (02/02/2014) [-]
People actually being complicit with the government intercepting their communications in the name of "National Security". Or just buying into the ********** about filtering and keywords.

It's just annoying how people don't consider the possibilities...

#160 to #144 - russianbro (02/01/2014) [-]
Well done agent

Well done...
#127 - desacabose ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
I hope they watch me through my webcam

I want them to look me straight in the eyes while I jerk off to midget clown porn in a gimp suit while singing the constitution in the tune of "Tik Tok"
User avatar #126 - daboomee (02/01/2014) [-]
Are there people seriously defending the NSA right now? ******* REALLY!? Has America become so docile and neutered that it'll just shrug this off?
It may not say in the constitution that it's illegal, but I'm sure 95% of people agree it's completely immoral and wrong. There's no way any government should have that kind of authority to monitor people 24/7. The NSA may not be that large, but how long will it take until they want to plant cameras in your home? Or have you arrested for crimes you "might commit in the future"? The government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.
User avatar #157 to #126 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
Keep in mind, the NSA doesn't access any information that you couldn't access from the safety of your own home, OR that a terrorist/cyber thief/etc. couldn't access with a bit of effort.

Now, I'm not saying I think it's right, but it's hardly on the level of breaking into someone's home. Closer to being a creep, stealing their mail, and then putting it back before they notice.
User avatar #150 to #126 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
Id rather there be a 0.000000001% chance of my email being read by some geek in a federal building than get blown up by some religiously-obsessed goat-herder.

Honestly, if you dont want the nsa to look at you...dont be, talk with, act like, or say things that would be said by a terrorist. Or just get off the internet entirely.
#123 - Izen (02/01/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #129 to #123 - masdercheef (02/01/2014) [-]
Try as I might, I am unable to find a suitably related reaction image in my folder.

With that being said, I have no idea how this would rustle one's jimmies, either.
User avatar #115 - majormayor (02/01/2014) [-]
Yeah. I get it. MuriKKKa is literally Nazi Germany (except we should remember Nazi Germany for not being all that bad apparently).
User avatar #111 - slapchoppin (02/01/2014) [-]
i'm sure that CSIS is spying on me and other Canadians but i don't give a ****

innocent people have nothing to fear from the government
User avatar #91 - oceanfrank (02/01/2014) [-]
But what if like the constitution actually doesn't say ANYTHING about privacy and or the spying of people through their internet browsing history? What if the Constitution doesnt apply to the people OUTSIDE of the US? Oh man, just what if huh?
User avatar #108 to #91 - thelastamerican (02/01/2014) [-]
4th amendment covers this.
#103 - DrPeppir (02/01/2014) [-]
How DARE someone see what weird **** you fap to in an attempt to protect us from future threats.
#116 to #103 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
I pity you if you think a bunch of scrawny crypto nerds are going to save you when SHTF.
User avatar #118 to #116 - DrPeppir (02/01/2014) [-]
I pity you if you think they make a major impact WHEN **** hits the fan. Their job is to make sure **** DOESN'T hit the fan.
User avatar #140 to #118 - andriod (02/01/2014) [-]
Risk isn't worth the reward.

User avatar #159 to #140 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
By definition, you would never see the reward.

Just saying.
User avatar #155 to #140 - DrPeppir (02/01/2014) [-]
And why is that?
User avatar #192 to #155 - andriod (02/02/2014) [-]
Terrorism in the US kills less then alcohol poisoning.
In the entire life spend of the NSA's operations, these plans halted one terrorist attack. that comes right from the NSA. Terrorism is just an excuse for the government to overstep it bounds. It happened with the patriot act in 2001 and its still happening 13 years later when there if virtually no need. If the NSA could stop all crime then it might be worth it, but despite there best efforts you still have all sorts of crimes happening.

Meanwhile the government gets all the communications and internet traffic of its citizens in a nice little box. Even if they don't just look at it for ***** and giggles, They shouldn't be able to in general.
#195 to #192 - DrPeppir (02/02/2014) [-]
That's a good point. Never considered it that way. Thumb for you, good sir.
#11 - ownubycake (02/01/2014) [-]
I mean... I really have nothing to hide from them. It's not like even my most personal emails or messages matter if someone like them reads them. What are they going to do? Go tell everyone I know some sort of secret of mine or post it on the internet. They just collect information and when it's not useful (like everything that I have ever said) they toss it out.
#12 to #11 - captaindropkik (02/01/2014) [-]
exactly man, I'm not that arsed about my privacy when the most private thing I've ever said was probably about the piles I had once
#18 to #11 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
you do realise that the laws are so complex that they can charge you with a felony for simply opening a lemonade stand right?
it doesnt matter if you think you're law abiding, when they want to remove you from the equation they will use any and all little pieces of dirt to do so. even if you casually posted " **** the police" on facebook one day, they'll use it to say you were inciting violence against law enforcement officers.
#85 - MrHare (02/01/2014) [-]
No where in our constitution are we guaranteed privacy...
User avatar #97 to #85 - scowler (02/01/2014) [-]
I don't think they saw the Internet coming, though...
User avatar #130 to #85 - xxiixx (02/01/2014) [-]
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Basically says they can't seize or look through any persons property or effects, which would mean email, phone conversations, all that jazz, without a search warrant.
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This basically says that just because some of our rights are enumerated in the constitution doesn't mean these are our only rights. We have so-called "unenumerated" rights which can only be rightfully infringed on if it says the government has the right to somewhere else in the constitution.
Contrary to popular belief, the federal government ONLY has the powers that are listed in the constitution, they just bend the ones listed beyond belief to do what they want; whereas the people have every right imaginable, so long as they don't conflict with the government powers.
So yeah your whole "This thing isn't specifically written down so the government can do it" is actually completely wrong. The government can only do something if that power is specifically written down.
User avatar #147 to #130 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]

The internet is a public domain. If its on the internet, they can take it. You dont own copyrights or property rights to anything they look for. Thats why they can do it.

The fourth Amendment says they can randomly break down your door and search your house. Once its on the internet, you essentially give them permission to look at it.
User avatar #152 to #147 - xxiixx (02/01/2014) [-]
It's a grey area under a lot of debate actually.
On one hand there is the Wiretap Act which "broadly prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of wire and electronic communications unless a statutory exception applies. See 18 U.S.C. ยง 2511(1). In general, these prohibitions bars third parties (including the government) from wiretapping telephones and installing electronic "sniffers" that read Internet traffic."
Then there is the question of stored emails. It is true that whoever owns the database where the email or data is stored owns it, so in this case they may do with it what they will so long as there is no privacy agreement.
User avatar #109 to #85 - thelastamerican (02/01/2014) [-]
4th amendment.
#145 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
or we can all just keep defying them. we are not slaves. we are people of America. they do not own this country.
User avatar #149 to #145 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
Im assuming you're 13 years old, and are spouting off the "ANARCHY!!!" crap your red-neck uncle says whenever you go over to his house for a barbecue because your mom is ashamed of him, but cant abandon her family because her father walked out on her and her mother when she was 8 years old, and feels a sense of guilt whenever she goes a month without speaking to her brother.
User avatar #142 - andriod (02/01/2014) [-]
I honestly can't beleive how many people don't give a **** over this privacy invasion.

Next thing you know, There going to be a mandatory anal cavity search for everyone because you might be a terrorist
User avatar #153 to #142 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
Well, here's a counterpoint to you.

the Constitution says absolutely diddly on the idea of privacy. (The Bill of Rights can be stretched some, but that's amendments, not the basic constitution itself, for perspective, alcohol was once banned by the same degree of power). So while I might agree with you on an ethical level, this post doesn't help; we need to find real ways to support our ideas, not spout off about some centuries old document that isn't even relevant.

Wait, that sort of argument sounds familiar....
User avatar #191 to #153 - andriod (02/02/2014) [-]
I agree with the anon on the 4th amendment. But even then, The world is vastly different from how it was when the Constitution was written. Some things we need to make up as we go. In my opinion, If you live in a so called "1st world country" you should be protected from this gross government oversight. They have no reason to store everyone's communications. Terrorism kill less then car accidents in the US. The terrorism is just an excuse for the government to be overstepping it bounds. Im sure if the founding fathers had knowledge of the internet and telephones these would have been specifically mentioned in the 4th amendment.
User avatar #193 to #191 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/02/2014) [-]
Anon (And apparently you as well) wasn't reading my post carefully enough I guess.

The fourth amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, as I mentioned.

I was never debating ethics, I was debating method. To use the Constitution as support for these claims is incorrect, and will lead to people simply dismissing any claims based on it as ignorant. Your claims sound much more convincing without it.
#189 to #153 - anon (02/02/2014) [-]
Have you even read the constitution?

The 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from things like this.
#71 - stepsword ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
While I don't support most of the NSA's actions, I just want to make it clear that they don't read everyone's emails - they simply don't have the manpower for that. What they do is COLLECT the emails, and put them in a searchable database. That database is used when they're searching for words relating to terrorism, and the majority of the NSA doesn't even have access to that database.

It's pretty ****** of them to put security flaws into widely used programs (like in operation BULLRUN), because that actually opens the way for more malicious attackers to break in, but on the whole the NSA isn't really out to do evil - they're just gathering information.

The "nothing to hide" argument is ******** , because it assumes privacy is about "keeping bad things secret", when privacy is actually about having control over your information, whether it is shameful or not.

However, I won't hate on them for the other means of collections they use - if they manage to break an encryption and grab information, then I say good for them, because that just means they used their brains to do something that anyone else can do. When they use their influence to pressure companies into producing purposely defective software, it goes a bit too far.
User avatar #95 to #71 - scowler (02/01/2014) [-]
What makes you think the NSA isn't malicious? They're Feds. They CANNOT be trusted.
#100 to #95 - stepsword ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
that seemed well thought out and logical
User avatar #166 to #100 - scowler (02/01/2014) [-]
Considering all the political hoopla being circulated today (mainly communist), you simply cannot trust the word of governments and their affiliates.

(Yes, I'm aware you're being sarcastic)
User avatar #37 - jewsburninindaoven (02/01/2014) [-]
There is no constitutional basis for the right to privacy. The only basis for privacy from the government is the 4th amendment and has not been extended to the internet.
#39 to #37 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
9th amendment
User avatar #41 to #37 - badassmcfister (02/01/2014) [-]
I see you buy the ******** the government spews.
User avatar #117 to #41 - jewsburninindaoven (02/01/2014) [-]
What ******** ? They say they are spying in our better interests which is obviously not true. But there is no law to stop them because they write the laws. If you believe there is, you're stupid. 9th amendment only really applies to privacy of our health or surgeries.
User avatar #196 to #117 - badassmcfister (02/03/2014) [-]
The fourth says we have the right to no unreasonable searches. I would call spying an unreasonable search.
User avatar #197 to #196 - jewsburninindaoven (02/03/2014) [-]
No unreasonable search and seizure of property. Your internet data isn't property and is the right of the server to view it. And most server providers like verizon have consented to allowing the government to view their data. So even if the 4th amendment applied to your internet data, the government has a right to view it because server corporations consented to it.
#9 - larknok ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
I hate to be that douche, but I'm not really certain that the Constitution comments at all about Government spying, seeing as all that it contained is:

1) How the legislature works.
2) How the administrative branch works.
3) How the judicial system works.
and 4) The Bill of Rights (wherein nowhere does it say that government can't spy on you.)

Yeah, its ****** up, but there's nothing there to stop it. *shrugs*
#17 to #9 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
it does.
4th and 9th amendments
#62 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
Do people really have problems with a computer recording all our texts? I mean, they can't even read all of them. They don't have enough manpower to do it. As long as the info doesn't get leaked then it shouldn't be a problem.
Do people really have problems with a computer recording all our texts? I mean, they can't even read all of them. They don't have enough manpower to do it. As long as the info doesn't get leaked then it shouldn't be a problem.
User avatar #83 to #62 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
The NSA collects 200 million texts a day. They don't need manpower when they have computers.
User avatar #86 to #83 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
Why do you care about what a computer knows? They don't have opinions. They can collect the texts but they don't have enough people to read them.
User avatar #87 to #86 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
But they have it at the ready. That's why I care. Anytime they want to blackmail you, they can.
User avatar #88 to #87 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
Yeah. If they blackmail you or do something similar then it's a problem. But what if they don't? Would you have a problem with it if they just screen the data for terrorism and other crime related stuff?
User avatar #90 to #88 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
Because attacking Constitutionalists/Republican/Religious groups funding is going to "protect" me. Especially during elections.
User avatar #93 to #90 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
you didn't answer my question
User avatar #94 to #93 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
They do do that. I just gave you an example. They use your information that they got against people whom do not support them, like the Constitutionalists/Republicans/Religious/etc. We pay them to play video games to allegedly stop "terrorism". Its just a huge pit that our president likes to throw money in.
User avatar #96 to #94 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
where's your proof?
User avatar #114 to #107 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
Wait. You need to point out the parts in the article that support your points. Because all I saw was things that say the NSA is collecting data Which I think we both agree is happening and that the info was being used to stop terrorist and hackers. They never mentioned politics, religion or the constitution which I think we both agree is being broken
User avatar #120 to #114 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
You weren't really specific on what you wanted either. And I did make a mistake. Confused the IRS with the NSA. But, the NSA has targeted Humanitarian groups. www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/20-6
User avatar #124 to #120 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
I might of not been specific but I didn't think you'd give me something that would support my side of the argument. The article include info about how the NSA has been using their information to stop terrorist and hackers And again. You're going to have to point out the part of the article where it says what they are doing. Because I see that they are collecting info on humanitarian groups and world leaders but not actually hurting them with the information. It's the weekend. I'm moving slow
#143 to #124 - include (02/01/2014) [-]
Woah, this whole conversation.
User avatar #125 to #124 - catpisseverdeen ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
I haven't slept since....I don't even ******* know anymore. I'm going to sleep. Might argue later.
User avatar #128 to #125 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #138 to #87 - princessren (02/01/2014) [-]
how big must your ego be that you think you are important enough for the government to blackmail you
#68 to #62 - thegrimgenius (02/01/2014) [-]
Actually, they don't need to read them all, just type in your name, everything related to that comes up. What about people knowing what porn you like? Would you just say "I am aroused by X" to someone? And before you quote yourself; "As long as the info doesn't get leaked then it shouldn't be a problem." Then why not just compose a file of all your personal data, every secret, every whisper, and send it to a government agency? It's same thing as what could very well have already happened. Our founding fathers rebelled partly because of unlawful searches and seizures, that you could be safe with your own info, but now you can't, and that's unconstitutional. If you think it's fine, then why follow anything else in the constitution? Why not just give up all your liberties?
User avatar #69 to #68 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
I think a lot of the parts of the constitution are outdated. It's hundreds of years old. Things get outdated. And who cares if someone knows what I watch or say. If they aren't going to tell people I know then I'm fine with it. I couldn't care less. And didn't they say that the information could be used to stop terrorism? Things like train bombings and what not have been stopped in the past do to listening into peoples conversations. How could you say that your privacy is more important then your safety?
#165 to #69 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
If we throw out (or change) our founding documents, we would not be the United States of America anymore.
User avatar #70 to #69 - thegrimgenius (02/01/2014) [-]
1984. A representation of safety over all. Liberties below Safety. As long as they tell noone right?
User avatar #72 to #70 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
When you say liberties, you sound like you're saying that we've lost all right because of this. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be free, I'm just saying that if it means giving up a small amount of our privacy to a safe and responsible group will help prevent terrorism then I think it's ok.
#164 to #72 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
User avatar #75 to #72 - thegrimgenius (02/01/2014) [-]
You say a small amount, but then you have almost all communication in America (Digital) being tapped. But still, your other logic is infallible, I still believe in the Sixth article of the bill of rights. But even then, that has probable cause, but then again, who the **** cares about something in a document that helped build this country.
User avatar #84 to #75 - seaofcoltrane (02/01/2014) [-]
I think you're right about small being the wrong word. And do you know what infallible means? And it's and old document. And while it was an important one, it's getting out dated. Topics like gun control and speech are constantly being questioned. The authors of The Bill of Rights didn't know what the U.S. would be like today. Things change. And I'm not arguing about wether it's constitutional or not. I know it's not. I'm just saying that I don't care and that our lives are more important.
User avatar #170 to #84 - thegrimgenius (02/01/2014) [-]
Infallible means incapable of failing, tell me how sacrificing a "small" bit of security in exchange for protection is bad? Also, many things in this world are old, sickeningly old. Yet they still stand, sure let them "modernize" the constitution. All they should do it change the words and add a sentence or two. Behold, the NEW Article VI: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (excluding digital communications, et cetera) nd effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. And so on.
#74 to #68 - stepsword ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
You're assuming they care about who arouses you. Do you really think the government is waiting for some angsty 15 year old to send a text to his crush? Do you really think they don't regulate every one of those database searches, and fire the people who search for the names of their nephews?

The people who worry about this data collection are really often just the people arrogant enough to think the government cares about their individual lives.

The argument about the NSA should not be about them collecting the data. When that hacker released the Scarlett Johanson pictures, no one complained. The NSA can hack what they want and still be operating within bounds of normal citizens. The argument against them should attack them for things like operation BULLRUN, where they force companies to build purposefully defective software, and open the doors for malicious attackers to break in.
User avatar #65 to #62 - dingobox (02/01/2014) [-]
Yeah i dont care what a government agent that cant talk about his job and lives thousands of miles away thinks of me
#66 to #62 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
Even if they have the manpower, why should any of us be the ones upset or concerned? I'm concerned for the mental health of the poor sods who have to read all our emails. Think about it, someone having a 9 to 5 job involving daily reading and listening to 13 year old girls whining to each other and 48 year old men discussing BDSM and **** oh christ I forgot where I was going with this but come on poor guys right
#101 - cleateater (02/01/2014) [-]
Will you faggots stop getting your anus in a sinch over this? Honestly, what does it matter if some asshole at the NSA is reading your email? Afraid that he knows you order viagra every day?
User avatar #104 to #101 - truesmokewolf (02/01/2014) [-]
The point is that they broke the rules. They violated our privacy, and in this country, the people are the highest power, as set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
User avatar #146 to #104 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
They didnt break any rules because technically it doesnt say anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to privacy. Several things put together imply that you do, but you really don't. Everything you put on the internet gets saved somewhere in some database. By putting yourself out there, you are giving consent for anybody with the ability to take that data to do so.
User avatar #162 to #146 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
Actually, since we generally consider the amendments part of the Constitution, our privacy is protected in several ways by the fourth and fifth amendment.

Granted the main body of the Constitution has nothing to say about it, so you're mostly right.
User avatar #163 to #162 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
And even then, those amendments don't really adapt well to the modern age, since the internet and information on it is difficult to peg down as something "owned."
User avatar #167 to #146 - truesmokewolf (02/01/2014) [-]
Fourth and Fifth Ammendments. Search and seizure laws. They have no right to claim a document that was forged by a private party and written to a private party without consent of either party.
User avatar #169 to #167 - clavatninenine (02/01/2014) [-]
The internet is a public domain. If its on the internet, they can use it.
User avatar #194 to #169 - truesmokewolf (02/02/2014) [-]
No, the internet is NOT public domain. Certain portions of it ARE, such as Facebook pages with no privacy settings, a thread here one Funnyjunk or even a Myspace page. But they looked at private messages between private parties. And that is illegal and the rights to those messages are held by the private parties involved. My e-mails are NOT public domain. Nor are yours.
User avatar #168 to #167 - alfrebecht ONLINE (02/01/2014) [-]
Unfortunately, because the medium is digital, there's a lot of debate on that point.
User avatar #105 to #101 - willindor (02/01/2014) [-]
My only problem with the whole spying thing is that they refuse to tell me how many operatives have been seeing shrinks because of all the weird **** that I fap to.
#113 to #101 - anon (02/01/2014) [-]
ok, send me your email address and password. I want to read them. You just said you dont mind.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)