Im saying you are a cuck because you complain about them and defend them at the same time
A quick guide to OPSEC
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
Ok last time.
Tech companies which refuse to break into someone's phone because their "ethics" won't allow it even if the accused is directly involved in mass murder is stupid and possibly illegal -- hindering a investigation.
The gubbermint will simply do it without their help, and do.
Tech companies which sell your data is nothing new. The best way to avoid that whole issue is not to use those apps. Don't see the problem.
If the gubbermint finds out you've documented a crime using one of these apps they have the right to that information through warrants. However, if it is posted in say a public e-space they don't. Don't see the problem.
Bigtech censorship is wrong because it violates their non-publisher status. Which is illegal. That's the beef. Dorsey can't cry about his status when he's openly selecting content or YT changing the algorithms to force specific content creators into near obscurity because fweelings.
The politicians which run interference for these tech companies are often the same ones receiving huge campaign contributions to not only their campaign but also to their party. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
I cannot comment on the NSA data farm. That legal case was fought and lost, and most couldn't care less. I think that's dangerous. However, the NSA is not the real threat. The real threat is the real secret agency/agencies which is/are operating in the shadow of the NSA. In the 60's the gubbermint openly stated that NSA stood for No Such Agency. This is how the game is played.
Accepting what is, is not being a cuck. There are limits to what a law abiding citizen can do, because -- laws and stuff. Ranting about them when the majority of the politicians couldn't give a fuck about anything other than their re-election poll numbers is a waste of energy. Again, what can you do legally? Protest? That may change policy but it sure doesn't change the politician.
Cuck
translation: bend over
what is a National Security Letter?
lol yeah i bet it's not, you unspeakable faggot
it never is
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
If I stopped who would you bitch about?
Exactly. Now you understand the power of the fed and why it's so important to restrict the expansion of power.
This shouldn't worry you.
1. No one cares about the fat lesbian porn you look at
2. You have no finances to speak of.
3. You haven't traveled outside your county, let alone state so their is little or no worry of you contacting foreign agents of any importance.
4. Credit LOL you have none.
K
How are you going to do that. Angry tweets?
Conservatives: we have the constitutional right to bear arms against a tyrannical government
Also conservatives: tyrannical government?
Also conservatives: tyrannical government?
I was going to say "your mom" but then realised she's probably been dead for 30 years
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
You do what you can do you vote against it and hold politicians accountable. Democracy is a slow process. Things just aren't changed over the long run because someone gets the idea of bombing a police station to bring attention to it.
The problem with the political class is that all too often the choices to replace a politician are WORSE than the one in power. When someone comes along that is decent they face an uphill battle of incumbency. I'm shocked that I have to explain this to you.
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
Little over 10 but thanks for caring.
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
Just because the gubbermint wants to impose stupid laws that erode the freedoms are not cause for an armed insurgency. Tyranny and bad laws are not equal. Bad laws are made because due to overreacting. Overreaction is always a poor policy maker.
tl;dr
Fuck dude, Portland and Seattle are prime examples of this. The optic is fuckheads just want to destroy shit. It ends up being counter productive, which makes the political elite paranoid, because MUYYOB, and swing back the other way. It's been like this since Merica was founded. Prohibition anyone? Slavery? Segregation laws? etc. Aside from the slavery issue which was more about state rights, (and complicated by the Civil War, and further compounded because kids are not taught history), whether or not states have a right to break their compact with the federal gubbermint, how many of these were solved though armed conflict? In each case, it took several years to hammer out by trial and error, protections which everyone was satisfied with. Whenever the liberals try to circumvent the system, i.e. using the courts or some oversightless fed agency you get a bunch of people saying, "waitaminute, this isn't supposed to happen." The only way to stop this is to get everyone on board and say the gubbermint is acting improperly. However, it this doesn't happen because the group pushing for their issue have successfully advertised that their proposal is somehow more just, and democracy is just too slow.
In Merica you have a situation which 47% of the country or more actually believe the BoR and the Constitution needs to be updated and would have no problem violating those documents in order to achieve a "safer" society. There is no evidence which those changes would make society any safer. For example the ACA. The same number of people are uninsured. Some are less ensured because of it. However, everyone has to report to the gubbermint that they have H.I. or they get fined. Which makes the gubbermint happy because MOAR MONEY. ACA'ers jerk off because they believe they've done a good thing while the majority don't vote for someone who will correct the system due to bad media, and ironically mistrust of the gubbermint caused by these very same people.
I can't tell you how many people who would vote for legalization of pot if pot use didn't infringe on their 2nd. These single issue voters don't care about the personal philosophy of the politician they are voting for and end up voting in someone in on ONE issue while that same politician promises to do things which are rejected by that same voter.
Does the OPSEC list make you safer from the gubbermint? Perhaps a rinky-dink town or some low end ISP provider, but overall it doesn't. You want real security? Then you set guidelines based on the BoR. None of this is done because money and "safety," and the overhyped need for urgency. You can't vote them out because as we've seen, the Fed is a entity in itself and now it is self aware. Agency Directors like their GS14/15 jobs. It's a good gig.
In Merica you have a situation which 47% of the country or more actually believe the BoR and the Constitution needs to be updated and would have no problem violating those documents in order to achieve a "safer" society. There is no evidence which those changes would make society any safer. For example the ACA. The same number of people are uninsured. Some are less ensured because of it. However, everyone has to report to the gubbermint that they have H.I. or they get fined. Which makes the gubbermint happy because MOAR MONEY. ACA'ers jerk off because they believe they've done a good thing while the majority don't vote for someone who will correct the system due to bad media, and ironically mistrust of the gubbermint caused by these very same people.
I can't tell you how many people who would vote for legalization of pot if pot use didn't infringe on their 2nd. These single issue voters don't care about the personal philosophy of the politician they are voting for and end up voting in someone in on ONE issue while that same politician promises to do things which are rejected by that same voter.
Does the OPSEC list make you safer from the gubbermint? Perhaps a rinky-dink town or some low end ISP provider, but overall it doesn't. You want real security? Then you set guidelines based on the BoR. None of this is done because money and "safety," and the overhyped need for urgency. You can't vote them out because as we've seen, the Fed is a entity in itself and now it is self aware. Agency Directors like their GS14/15 jobs. It's a good gig.
Last edited by a moderator:
Groy hasn't been a mod for months (resigned). That was even before the banners were taken off.
The only way to solve government overreach is to keep shooting politicians until they learn to stop betraying the citizenry
LIC was being sarcastic.
The problem is the Courts have "interpreted" the Bill of Rights in such a way it has been watered down next to nothing. Case in point: asset forfeiture laws.
Yes, the government "violates" the law, but they do so with the permission of the courts. I just found out yesterday that cops can install spyware without a warrant on your phone.
I feel that the SCOTUS will declare (within the next few decades) that "hate speech" is not free speech.
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
Perhaps. But even then, what level has to be reached before the citizenry reacts? Then there is the issue is WHO replaces them? See banana republic.
Plus, what is the threshold for tyranny? 47% of this country believe anyone with a "R" after their name is enough.
Unlike the US, some countries do not allow "end arounds" to collect people's info without a warrant. Even if that info is freely given to a company.
The US constantly collects data from companies that you signed off on - which is legal under Court interpretation.
Should it be? I don't think so. But the thing is it can be easily fixed via Federal Law. If they wanted to fix it.
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
Which illustrates the situation I've outlined in my textwall.
Cell phone communications are not protected by wire tap laws.
Depends. Depends if Conservatives grow a backbone of substance and accept that no matter what they do liberals will hate them. If they don't we'll get
Conservative-lite like Kavanaugh, which in many respects is more damaging.
Call Me Tim
Dramacrat
They won't fix it because these very same companies and their employees overwhelmingly support liberal causes. Hence the rub.