Let's get personal

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Let's get personal

Postby assateague » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:08 am

slowshooter wrote:Since you apparently can't understand how to use "the goggle". I've done it for you.

Now go back under the sack you taint troll. :lol3:




So what you're telling me is that a woman has a right to privacy which extends to killing a baby, but nobody else has a right to privacy which extends to NOT having their conversations recorded by the government. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: You're a fool. An intellectually dishonest, thoroughly lacking in logic fool.


Because of course, the interpretation of some very, VERY simple words by some guy means what you want it to mean, but the actual words mean nothing. In your opinion, does "unreasonable search" apply to governmental electronic trolling through every aspect of your life? Eavesdropping on all of your calls? Being viewed in your backyard by a drone? All these things are "reasonable"? As I said, you're an idiot. Although it shouldn't surprise me, since the same folks saying that it's perfectly ok "because the Constitution doesn't really MEAN that" also think that the Constitution doesn't apply to semi-automatic weapons, but does apply to the Internet.

You go to Scalia to support your view. Fine. Since apparently you believe that it's ok to choose the views of a Supreme Court justice, how about this one:

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States


You "living document" folks never cease to amaze and amuse me with your inconsistent application of that theory, and complete lack of logic when discussing it. It's only a "living document" when it supports your agenda.

some liberal guy wrote:Well, a Supreme Court justice said something I agree with, so I'll use that as an example instead of the Constitution
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: Let's get personal

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:51 pm

Andy W wrote:
slowshooter wrote:It's YOUR choice to put politicians in place that represent you. If there's money in not representing their constituents, then either remove the politician with a recall, remove their pensions for not earning them, and remove money from Washington to keep the problem from happening again.

Don't you realize the electorate is too busy with more important issues to pay attention to political matters? We've got to name a baby in England! :help:



LOL! I thought we started this country so we didn't have to pay attention to the Monarchy. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Let's get personal

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:56 pm

assateague wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Since you apparently can't understand how to use "the goggle". I've done it for you.

Now go back under the sack you taint troll. :lol3:




So what you're telling me is that a woman has a right to privacy which extends to killing a baby, but nobody else has a right to privacy which extends to NOT having their conversations recorded by the government. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: You're a fool. An intellectually dishonest, thoroughly lacking in logic fool.


Because of course, the interpretation of some very, VERY simple words by some guy means what you want it to mean, but the actual words mean nothing. In your opinion, does "unreasonable search" apply to governmental electronic trolling through every aspect of your life? Eavesdropping on all of your calls? Being viewed in your backyard by a drone? All these things are "reasonable"? As I said, you're an idiot. Although it shouldn't surprise me, since the same folks saying that it's perfectly ok "because the Constitution doesn't really MEAN that" also think that the Constitution doesn't apply to semi-automatic weapons, but does apply to the Internet.

You go to Scalia to support your view. Fine. Since apparently you believe that it's ok to choose the views of a Supreme Court justice, how about this one:

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States


You "living document" folks never cease to amaze and amuse me with your inconsistent application of that theory, and complete lack of logic when discussing it. It's only a "living document" when it supports your agenda.

some liberal guy wrote:Well, a Supreme Court justice said something I agree with, so I'll use that as an example instead of the Constitution


Haaa haaaaa!!!!

If you flail any harder you are going to break your own arms.

You disputed me and so I showed you that the conservative icon Scalia actually supported what I said.... You wigged out and started barfeling - that's when you puke and crap at the same time, keel over and spin around like a katherine wheel powered by brown liquid) That spray isn't going to distract anyone.

Now just admit you are wrong and creep back under the sack with your head hung in shame.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Let's get personal

Postby assateague » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:29 pm

"Conservative icon"? So now you feel that you get to apply random labels to SC justices as well. Where does this "conservative icon" come down on abortion?


And speaking of abortion, you must've missed that part of my response- you believe an inherent right to privacy extends to killing a baby, but does NOT extend to keeping the government form recording all your phone calls? Makes sense. So which is it- is there a right to privacy or not? Or does it only exist when it supports your viewpoint? (The latter is, I suspect, far closer to the truth than you'll admit)

I'm inclined to agree with whomever just said it- you're not as intelligent as most give you credit for.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Let's get personal

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:56 pm

LOL. And I thought that Spinner was the biggest crawfish here.

You wouldn't happen to have an unreasonable fear of large pots of boiling water would you? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Let's get personal

Postby assateague » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:05 pm

What right to privacy does a woman enjoy which allows her to have an abortion?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Let's get personal

Postby assateague » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:06 pm

And apparently you really don't have a very solid understanding of the term "crawfish". Not surprising, though, based on your understanding of most things.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Let's get personal

Postby cartervj » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:09 pm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/
The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.
If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.

"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."
A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"

Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.

"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?"
--Jennifer Granick, Stanford University

A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: "No, we don't, and we can't see a circumstance in which we would provide it."

Google also declined to disclose whether it had received requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson said the company has "never" turned over a user's encrypted password, and that it has a legal team that frequently pushes back against requests that are fishing expeditions or are otherwise problematic. "We take the privacy and security of our users very seriously," the spokesperson said.
Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast did not respond to queries about whether they have received requests for users' passwords and how they would respond to them.

Richard Lovejoy, a director of the Opera Software subsidiary that operates FastMail, said he doesn't recall receiving any such requests but that the company still has a relatively small number of users compared with its larger rivals. Because of that, he said, "we don't get a high volume" of U.S. government demands.

The FBI declined to comment.

Some details remain unclear, including when the requests began and whether the government demands are always targeted at individuals or seek entire password database dumps. The Patriot Act has been used to demand entire database dumps of phone call logs, and critics have suggested its use is broader. "The authority of the government is essentially limitless" under that law, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence committee, said at a Washington event this week.

Large Internet companies have resisted the government's requests by arguing that "you don't have the right to operate the account as a person," according to a person familiar with the issue. "I don't know what happens when the government goes to smaller providers and demands user passwords," the person said.

An attorney who represents Internet companies said he has not fielded government password requests, but "we've certainly had reset requests -- if you have the device in your possession, than a password reset is the easier way."
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Let's get personal

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:29 pm

assateague wrote:And apparently you really don't have a very solid understanding of the term "crawfish". Not surprising, though, based on your understanding of most things.


Clutch for all the straws you can bro. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Let's get personal

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:27 am

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15806
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests