Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 480543)

3. Privilege. Attorney-client. Cleric-penitent. Husband and wife. The right to keep these communications private goes back to the common law, before this nation was born. These privileges have been honored through all other technological innovations. That same barrier exists here. There is no way under the Verizon order that the NSA, FBI, or anyone else could determine whether or not they are collecting privileged information.

There. Specific points, none of which have been addressed to any significant extent here. I'm out. If anyone wants to come at me on this, they better come heavy.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 480566)

Re 3, at least at common law, isn't the privilege just a rule of evidence, i.e. the communication (and its fruits) cannot be used against a person in a court of law? Or was it a crime to intentionally gather the communication?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 480562)

Brazil has riots in the streets. Turkey's exploding. Egypt, Indonesia, Libya... These people stood up to much scarier controlling elements than our govt. We shrug.

"It's all good... I'll have some more soma. Seen my new iPhone?"

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 480564)

I am highly suspicious of big data analysis. I think it suffers a lot of the flaws of epidemiology. I also think the proof offered for its brilliance - "It works in finance" - is untrue. The algorithms used by traders aren't usually big data miners, but clever high frequency programs. The metadata analyses I see are usually dull, and based on old information. They only seem brilliant in hindsight because Wall St. is filled with herds. One guy says something, another steals it, the same data gets repeated enough and soon you've a self fulfilling prophecy. It's as much reflexivity as anything else. The only wisdom is guessing the peak in any sector's or market's run.

I'll say this is un-American and we shouldn't be doing it. It's also anti-freedom generally. But I think the better response is coming. Technology will allow people to get around the scraping. See: http://prism-break.org/ In time, privacy protecting internet interfaces will get better, and become the norm. Where there's a market, there'll be a way.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 480564)

But I think the better response is coming. Technology will allow people to get around the scraping. See: http://prism-break.org/ In time, privacy protecting internet interfaces will get better, and become the norm. Where there's a market, there'll be a way.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 480565)

If there is an attack here, my position will not change. .

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 480566)

Re 3, at least at common law, isn't the privilege just a rule of evidence, i.e. the communication (and its fruits) cannot be used against a person in a court of law? Or was it a crime to intentionally gather the communication?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 480571)

I think that's pretty funny. Where there's data, there will be a way to snag or collect it.

If there is a way around it, it will very quickly become a target of law enforcement.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 480569)

My son asked me a couple weeks ago if I thought there was going to be insurrection here like there is in Greece, Turkey, Syria, etc. I had to tell him I hoped not, but I couldn't rule it out.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 480573)

No. It was not just a rule of evidence, it was also substantive. Cops can ask the spouse questions, but she needn't answer them. At least since the 20th Century. In the 13th, I don't believe the king could question a wife about her husband's affairs.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 480575)

We're discussing paring down benefits as soon as the old fucks of today are gone (so no one will argue there was a bait and switch).

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 480571)

I think that's pretty funny. Where there's data, there will be a way to snag or collect it.

If there is a way around it, it will very quickly become a target of law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 480578)

Have you noticed how quiet anonymous has been during this affaire?

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 480569)

My son asked me a couple weeks ago if I thought there was going to be insurrection here like there is in Greece, Turkey, Syria, etc. I had to tell him I hoped not, but I couldn't rule it out.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 480579)

Since this board is almost entirely dems now, I wonder if the reaction to this issue hasn't doomed the board. All of the socks who has lined up to defend Obama can hardly criticize the next r president, can they? I mean they surely have no credibility anymore, sure. but even these sad socks cannot possibly step and make the crazed hate posts these socks all made 2001-2008 again, can they?