Customize

10 Ways the Government Watches You

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Coalde, Mar 17, 2012.

  1. A.O.T.F Member

    Always remember 612 that when you're feeling down,.. We are with you Deep Down Inside.
  2. anonymous612 Member

    I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about but I'm pretty sure it doesn't change the definition of copyright.
  3. Anonymous Member

    Sometimes 612 just needs a friend.
  4. Anonymous Member

    One time 612 told me she was waiting for that one hug that makes the butterflies in her stomach flutter. That one kiss that makes her feel like she is floating in clouds of cotton candy. That hug, that kiss could be you!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. anonymous612 Member

    I'm saving this for future reference.
  6. Anonymous Member

    uh oh, blackmail material
  7. Anonymous Member

    First tell us what happens to the failures.
  8. The Wrong Guy Member

    Vice: The Man Who Hunts Spy Satellites



    Published on Nov 27, 2012 by vice

    We went to Paris to interview premier astrophotographer, Thierry Legault, about tracking spy satellites in the sky. It's a story of mutual surveillance, adept tracking and ultimately one man's quest to do "things that nobody has done before."

    Watch more episodes of Spaced Out here: http://bit.ly/Spaced-Out

    SPACED OUT - produced by http://Motherboard.vice.com

    Follow MOTHERBOARD
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/motherboardtv
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/motherboard

    Check out the Best of VICE here: http://bit.ly/VICE-Best-Of

    Subscribe to for new videos every day: http://bit.ly/Subscribe-to-VICE
    Check out our full video catalog: http://www.youtube.com/user/vice/videos
    Videos, daily editorial and more: http://vice.com
    Like VICE on Facebook: http://fb.com/vice
    Follow VICE on Twitter: http://twitter.com/vice
    Read our tumblr: http://vicemag.tumblr.com
  9. Anonymous Member

    Mutual surveillance, oh puhleez!
  10. Anonymous Member

    Hunts down satellites to get grainy pics for what exactly lmao
  11. cafanon Member

    A link would have sufficed, though it was an interesting article. Copyright noob question: While indeed a bit overboard, how is reposting an article verbatim any different than reposting a video...I mean, so long as you credit the author and the website, isn't that still fair use?

    Anyway, this whole "super-duper" sophisticated key word searcher somehow doesn't worry me, I mean not only does it have to sift through billions and billions of text messages, emails, blog posts, google searches, etc being generated every single day but these key words are hardly narrow it down. I remember reading a list somewhere that included a huge list of words you might find on any video game fansite (call of duty discussion, for example) and god knows what else, maybe narrowing down the billions and billions to....well just billions.

    So then some poor human being has to pick up where this machine leaves off, because lets face it the most complex high speed computer is completely incapable of deciphering things like meaning, metaphor, sarcasm, idioms etc. (go to any foreign language translation program to see what I'm getting at). So this team of people working in this building have to sift through billions of "potential hits" that this machine found to see if any of them are worth ten cents or are just typical internet shit that people post.

    Not only does this not sound scary...but it sounds like a complete waste of time and money, if I wasn't a taxpayer...I'd find it almost hilarious.
  12. Anonymous Member

    So many weirdos here. Glad we support the psychs.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Anonymous Member

    And I wasn't talking about OP. I was referring to the weirdo troll.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  14. PREACHER Member

    i agree
  15. Anonymous Member

  16. Anonymous Member

    You mean it coming out?
  17. Anonymous Member

    @Agents of the Free.

    Holy Shit. Convo dominator.
  18. Enturbulette Member

    Here are some ways you can camo yourself against this, (or ways in which you may be fixing your hair in the future, whether you like it or not):

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/how-to-hide-your-face-without-a-mask.108820/#post-2271696
  19. The Wrong Guy Member

    US Supreme Court refuses to let Americans challenge FISA eavesdropping law — RT USA

    February 26, 2013

    The United States Supreme Court will not let Americans challenge a provision in a foreign intelligence law that lets the federal government secretly eavesdrop on the intimate communications of millions of Americans.

    On Tuesday, the top justices in the US said the country’s highest court will not hear a case in which Amnesty International and a slew of co-plaintiffs have contested a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, that lets the National Security Agency silently monitor emails and phone calls [.pdf].

    Under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), the NSA is allowed to conduct electronic surveillance on any US citizen as long as they are suspected of conversing with any person located outside of the United States. That provision was scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, but Congress voted to re-up the bill and it was put back on the books for another five years.

    Along with human rights workers and journalists, Amnesty International first challenged the FAA on the day it went into effect, arguing that the powers provided to the NSA under the FISA amendments likely puts the plaintiffs and perhaps millions of other Americans at risk of surveillance. Now years later, though, they are finally being told that they cannot challenge the law that, while meant to collect foreign intelligence, puts every person in the country at risk of being watched.

    “Under the FAA, the government can target anyone — human rights researchers, academics, attorneys, political activists, journalists — simply because they are foreigners outside the United States, and in the course of its surveillance it can collect Americans’ communications with those individuals,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote on behalf of the plaintiffs in a legal brief filed last year with the court.

    Amnesty, et al have been pursuing an injunction against the NSA in their lawsuit, which names former NSA-Chief James Clapper is a co-defendant. Because the plaintiffs cannot prove that they’ve actually been targeted under the FAA, however, the case is been stalled endlessly.

    In last year’s filing, the ACLU acknowledged that an appeals court panel agreed in 2011 that “plaintiffs have good reason to believe that their communications, in particular, will fall within the scope of the broad surveillance that they can assume the government will conduct,” and the full body of US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later refused the government’s attempts to have them reconsider.

    “But instead of allowing the case to be heard on the merits, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to review the case,” the ACLU’s Ateqah Khaki, wrote. “Our brief urges the Court to affirm the appeals court’s decision.”

    On Tuesday, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the claims that the plaintiffs were being watched under the FAA. Amnesty and others had argued that the presumed surveillance they were subjected to has caused them to go out of their way to maintain working relationships with clients, forcing them to travel abroad to communicate without the fear of being monitored.

    In the suit, the plaintiffs have said that because they communicate “with people the Government ‘believes or believed to be associated with terrorist organizations,’ ‘people located in geographic areas that are a special focus’ of the Government’s counterterrorism or diplomatic efforts, and activists who oppose governments that are supported by the United States Government,” they’ve undertaken “costly and burdensome measures” to protect the confidentiality of sensitive communications.

    "This theory of future injury is too speculative," Justice Samuel Alito said in announcing the 5-4 decision, calling it "hypothetical future harm."

    “In sum, respondents’ speculative chain of possibilities does not establish that injury based on potential future surveillance,” the court ruled. “[R]espondents’ self-inflicted injuries are not fairly traceable to the Government’s purported activities under [the FAA] and their subjective fear of surveillance does not give rise to standing.”

    But only last year, Amnesty et al were given good reason to worry right from the NSA: Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community asking, “how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected or reviewed under the authorities granted by section 702” of the FISA Amendment Act (FAA). The NSA responded by rejecting the lawmakers’ request, and said a “review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of US persons.”

    “All that Senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the Inspectors General cannot provide it,” Sen. Wyden told Wired’s Danger Room at the time. “If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ‘back door searches’ loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant.”

    In the court’s majority opinion, five justices even added that the government’s ability to wiretap Americans doesn’t begin and end with FISA, either. "The Government has numerous other methods of conducting surveillance, none of which is challenged here,” they ruled.

    “Because respondents do not face a threat of certainly impending interception” under FISA, “the costs that they have incurred to avoid surveillance are simply the product of their fear of surveillance,” the court told the plaintiffs.

    Journalists Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein joined Amnesty in the case, along with Joanne Mariner, the Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program Director at Human Rights Watch, attorney Sylvia Royce and others.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas ruled in the majority. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all dissented.

    Source, and open comments: http://rt.com/usa/scotus-FISA-FAA-surveillance-483/
    • Like Like x 3

  20. I think we should give this try
  21. Anonymous Member

    As it turns out TT was prophetic. License plate cams are used frequently to track ppl, NSA eavesdropping was worse that suspected in 2012.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins