or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

 Nope. This was my original response to your 4th amendment comment: "Sure. It's proof of the rights that U.S. citizens have regarding search and seizure. That's why the FISA court ruled back in 2006 that the NSA had failed to correctly redact personal information from a database that the FBI/CIA were allowed to access. However, that's the only proven constitutional violation from the entire Snowden document dump, and it was the NSA itself that provided the proof from an...
 Some of the research is secret. Some of it isn't. But the organization itself is not secret.
 I see. Your argument basically consists of a complete double-standard. When you make a generalized reference to the 4th amendment, that's NOT a textbook reference to government. But when I make a generalized reference to the Constitutional powers of the executive branch, that IS a textbook reference to government. How convenient... Anyway, go back in the thread and reread the response I made regarding the Snowden document dump. That was the original response to your 4th...
 That's a bit of a whopper coming from someone who posted a response earlier in the thread that simply said "The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is proof."
LOL…already resorting to the tactic of claiming that I'm not making a valid argument? 
The President is part of the executive branch which has constitutional powers and responsibilities that are not subject to the approval of Congress. That's the "separate but equal" part of the Constitution.
 That's because Time magazine wasn't indulging in conflation.
 Sure. It's proof of the rights that U.S. citizens have regarding search and seizure. That's why the FISA court ruled back in 2006 that the NSA had failed to correctly redact personal information from a database that the FBI/CIA were allowed to access. However, that's the only proven constitutional violation from the entire Snowden document dump, and it was the NSA itself that provided the proof from an internal audit. There was a later federal court ruling that MAYBE the...
Can you claim that it's not possible for someone who wanted to subvert U.S. national security to purchase and use an iOS device? No. Therefore, the CIA does have a legitimate reason for this type of research. And in a democracy where the legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty", it doesn't really work to conflate opportunity for wrongdoing with actual proven wrongdoing. Taking the stance of conflation is actually anti-democratic.
 Clearly? What's the proof of that? The article certainly doesn't provide any evidence that the interest in cracking iOS security is not national security related. People need to abandon the conflation and focus on actual proof of abuse. Do you think a hacker that tries to crack security is definitely guilty of trying to do something nefarious without proof?
New Posts  All Forums: