Luke

Stop posting.

Isn't that what 'National Security' is?
Not having to worry about 'foreigners'?

I'm just defending mine ^^ like all terrorists

What can you do, i'm non-violent at least =D

how many foreigners have you killed this year america?

Lets hold a foreigner referendum, to decide how much authority NSA has over us?
Mind your own affairs demon ^^

What use could you be here in not-america?

Planet not-america even?

Necessary and Proportionate? =)

You will be evicted, squatter!

Be grateful it was only seven days of ice ^^
I would've gone with fire

but i suppose it is only winter =D

>>2
have the most exquisite and exclusive discussions about PhD things with your peers.
I have a PhD in internet shitposting from an online diploma mill.
/prog/riders are my peers.

You could say america got coal'd after all? ^^

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/01/07/nsa-insiders-reveal-what-went-wrong/

Even after the developers of THINTHREAD left NSA in October 2001, I kept trying to get it authorized to go operational – in vain. However, I was able to acquire enough funding to complete a THINTHREAD Content Evaluation of NSA databases that contained huge amounts of collected data.

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

“That’s where I found the pre- and post-9/11 intelligence from NSA monitoring of some of the hijackers as they planned the attacks of 9/11 had not been shared outside NSA. This includes critical pre-9/11 intelligence on al-Qaeda, even though it had been worked on by NSA analysts. I learned, for example, that in early 2001 NSA had produced a critical long-term analytic report unraveling the entire heart of al-Qaeda and associated movements. That report also was not disseminated outside of NSA.

“Make no mistake. That data and the analytic report could have, should have prevented 9/11.

“Top NSA management knew that. They knew that I knew that. I was immediately shut down. In spring 2002, the remnants of THINTHREAD were unceremoniously put on the shelf in NSA’s ‘Indiana Jones’ data warehouse, never to be seen again.

Cover-up

“Hiding the worst: In December 2001, Senator Saxby Chambliss, chair of a House Subcommittee on Homeland Security announced a preliminary investigation into 9/11. At a SIGINT Leadership Team meeting in February 2002, SIGINT chief Maureen Baginski directed me to lead a NSA Statement-for-the-Record effort for a closed-door hearing scheduled by Sen. Chambliss for early March to discuss what NSA knew about the 9/11 hijackers and their plotting before 9/11.

As indicated above, the highly embarrassing answer was that NSA knew a great deal, but had not shared what it knew outside of NSA.

“After a couple of weeks Baginski rejected my draft team Statement for the Record report and removed me from the task. When I asked her why, she said there was a ‘data integrity problem’ (not further explained) with my draft Statement for the Record. I had come upon additional damaging revelations. For example, NSA had the content of telephone calls between AA-77 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar in San Diego, CA, and the known al-Qaeda safe house switchboard in Yemen well before 9/11, and had not disseminated that information beyond NSA.

“In short, when confronted with the prospect of fessing up, NSA chose instead to obstruct the 9/11 congressional investigation, play dumb, and keep the truth buried, including the fact that it knew about all inbound and outbound calls to the safe house switchboard in Yemen. NSA’s senior leaders took me off the task because they realized – belatedly, for some reason – that I would not take part in covering up the truth about how much NSA knew but did not share.

“When the 9/11 Commission hearings began, Director Hayden chortled at executive staff meetings over the fact that the FBI and CIA were feeling the heat for not having prevented 9/11. This was particularly difficult for me to sit through, for I was aware that NSA had been able to cover up its own culpability by keeping investigators, committees, and commissions away from the truth.

Why would the NSA stop 9/11?
Their top priority is getting more funding so they can buy more spying tools.
9/11 was payday for them.

I think we're done here...

I thought i saw hope with obama promising 1974 privacy protections for foreigners...

You couldn't save yourselves in 2001, why would 2014 be different..?

luke meet me on irc pls

Maybe this will be the american civil war people have been talking about..?
All this crying about Al Qaeda, and you are just as guilty as they are?

http://soundcloud.com/kitty_purrrry/05-rock-the-nation

Killing your own people for national security purposes..
And then broadcast it around the globe?
Such proud murderers you have for a government..

Or maybe... maybe you're not killing your own people at all.
Maybe the US government really is populated by lizard people

lol, cold-blooded certainly..
I guess they found a new way to make money out of war...

I think it's fair to suspect anyone who uses the 'National Security' Defense as Utterly Corrupt. What other purpose does it serve?

>>61
To give politicians a way of saying "look at all this great protection I've given you! I've saved all your lives a thousand times over!" without having to provide any actual proof of anything, since that would be revealing state secrets and therefore treason.

>>60
Or maybe... maybe you're not killing your own people at all.
Maybe the US government really is populated by lizard people
Or maybe it was real people killing lizard people working in WTC. Think about it.

“The Right to Privacy”

Warren and Brandeis

Harvard Law Review.

Vol. IV    December 15, 1890     No. 5

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.

... Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone" [10] Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops." For years there has been a feeling that the law must afford some remedy for the unauthorized circulation of portraits of private persons;[11] and the evil of invasion of privacy by the newspapers, long keenly felt, has been but recently discussed by an able writer.[12] The alleged facts of a somewhat notorious case brought before an inferior tribunal in New York a few months ago,[13] directly involved the consideration of the right of circulating portraits; and the question whether our law will recognize and protect the right to privacy in this and in other respects must soon come before our courts for consideration.

The common law secures to each individual the right of determining, ordinarily, to what extent his thoughts, sentiments, and emotions shall be communicated to others.[16] Under our system of government, he can never be compelled to express them (except when upon the witness stand); and even if he has chosen to give them expression, he generally retains the power to fix the limits of the publicity which shall be given them. The existence of this right does not depend upon the particular method of expression adopted. It is immaterial whether it be by word[17] or by signs,[18] in painting,[19] by sculpture, or in music.[20] Neither does the existence of the right depend upon the nature or value of the thought or emotions, nor upon the excellence of the means of expression.[21] The same protection is accorded to a casual letter or an entry in a diary and to the most valuable poem or essay, to a botch or daub and to a masterpiece. In every such case the individual is entitled to decide whether that which is his shall be given to the public.[22] No other has the right to publish his productions in any form, without his consent. This right is wholly independent of the material on which, the thought, sentiment, or emotions is expressed. It may exist independently of any corporeal being, as in words spoken, a song sung, a drama acted. Or if expressed on any material, as in a poem in writing, the author may have parted with the paper, without forfeiting any proprietary right in the composition itself. The right is lost only when the author himself communicates his production to the public, -- in other words, publishes it.[23] It is entirely independent of the copyright laws, and their extension into the domain of art. The aim of those statutes is to secure to the author, composer, or artist the entire profits arising from publication; but the common-law protection enables him to control absolutely the act of publication, and in the exercise of his own discretion, to decide whether there shall be any publication at all.[24] The statutory right is of no value, unless there is a publication; the common-law right is lost as soon as there is a publication.

  1. The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest. In determining the scope of this rule, aid would be afforded by the analogy, in the law of libel and slander, of cases which deal with the qualified privilege of comment and criticism on matters of public and general interest.[42] There are of course difficulties in applying such a rule; but they are inherent in the subject-matter, and are certainly no greater than those which exist in many other branches of the law, -- for instance, in that large class of cases in which the reasonableness or unreasonableness of an act is made the test of liability. The design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate concern, from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity and to protect all persons, whatsoever; their position or station, from having matters which they may properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will.

This development of the law was inevitable. The intense intellectual and emotional life, and the heightening of sensations which came with the advance of civilization, made it clear to men that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and profit of life lay in physical things. Thoughts, emotions, and sensations demanded legal recognition, and the beautiful capacity for growth which characterizes the common law enabled the judges to afford the requisite protection, without the interposition of the legislature.

Are you going to argue that Government is not in the public interest? Because you might be right...

Luke, nobody is going to read that shit.
As the board nutcase it's your job to condense it for us so it's easier to digest and so we can bask in your greatness.
Perhaps gaining a little ourselves in the process.

that was the condensed version...

But to summarise, humanity peaked in 1890.

please post more, luke

LLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLL E/G/IN LUKE /G/RO XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
LELELELEL FUCKIN/G/ E/G/IN /G/RO! TRULY E/G/IN XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD I LOVE LE RANDUMNESS ^^ XDDDDDDDDD
WHATAFUK MAN LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

E/G/IN LUKE
Are you implying that Luke is from /g/?
How dare you say such hurtful and completely wrong shit about him!
I hope you die of stomach cancer!

>>74
Luke is from /g/

https://archive.installgentoo.net/g/?task=search2&search_username=n3n7i

>>75
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>2014
>not coming from /g/

yamete

>>77
>MFW WHEN LE /PRO/G/ROS/ DON'T /G/
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD E/G/IN FAIL PROG/G/RO XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>LE MFW WHEN LE /G/ROS ARE E/G/IN
E/G/IN /G/ROOOOOOOOOOOO LLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>2014 SHILLBAITMFWWHENIMPLYIN/G/PLE/B/ROS

>>75
He uses emoticons, but he isn't talking about nsa, etc like Luke