Google and Twitter Take a Pass on new FISA Disclosure Deal Adopted by Facebook and Microsoft

34

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

miked6875

Thanks Bullwinkle. At least someone here doesn't go BAAAAA !

avatar

miked6875

At least Google is trying to sell you something.
The feds are trying to control you.
YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

This should read...
American Israeli's hacked Foreign Diplomats >

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/16/hacking-guardian-uk-g-8/2429423/

and now a commercial from our sponsor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjuhdKUH6U4

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Double post

avatar

dgrmouse

It would be great if the author defined the FISA acronymn (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?) and explained its powers before using it 1,000 times.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

F.I.S.A. has no powers or authority

It is just another acronym created by dirty joo basterdz who claim authority where they have none

They do not speak on Gods behalf and they are not Gods chosen people

They are liars and snake oil salesmen

This is not MY Government

Fuck these Niggerz

Come git me punks

avatar

Jox

"Fuck these Niggerz"

Well, you just lost any credibility you might once have had.

-Jox

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

I was going to call them Faggots but they might take it as a compliment

As long as I can offend the guilty, then I have done my job

But regardless of the label you choose, FUCK THOSE NAZI BITCHES

Can you hear me now?

The label is irrelevant

It is what they have done that is offensive to me

I like to treat people the way they treat me

If that offends you, that is your problem, not mine

Personally, I've had my life screwed over by both Nazi's and Joo's so if they think I will choose to side with either, they are both mistaken

avatar

Number Six

C'mon Bullwinkle. While I appreciate that you're being offensive on an equal-opportunity basis, can you at least watch your language with the N-word? (I don't mean the word, "Nazi").

-[Ch]amsalot

avatar

Engelsstaub

That was so unbelievable that I had to look at the profile to see if it was the same Bullwinkle or somebody who just made a troll acct.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

Wasn't Microsoft not too long ago advertising Outlook.com as a safer alternative to Google for privacy, etc? Guess that was another MS lie.

avatar

maverick knight

This is funny. If the government wants information on someone they will get it with a court order (and believe me, this order comes from really high officials). You do realize that Google, just like any other company, utilizes some of your info to better try to sell their products right? They might not track your conversations but they do track what you purchase and what music you listen to. But when the government does it, it becomes a bad thing and a big deal.

avatar

stradric

Yes, I would say a quasi-militaristic law enforcement organization aggregating personal information on millions of Americans *is* a bad thing and a big deal. Maybe it's something about the (abuse of) power to wrongly imprison people. Would you ever want to be on the business end of an NSA investigation into your personal life? Do you really think there's a 100% chance of you coming out unscathed? I don't give a shit how clean you think you are. They will always find something.

Furthermore, this article isn't even about the whole PRISM scandal. It's about having some transparency. How pathetic is it that we have to look to a massive corporation to actually obtain some transparency in our government? So, no matter how poorly you try to rationalize being able to ignore this issue, it concerns you greatly.

avatar

whr4usa

though I don't disagree with your sentiment I'd just like to point out for sanity sake that our NSA is a technical intelligence organization that interoperates frequently with the USAF out of necessity (they're continuously underfunded and share lots of mission overlap)

they are NOT a human intelligence organization (e.g. CIA) NOR an operational intelligence organization (i.e. NGA) and are definitely not law enforcement in any way; most of their workforce are private contractors or 'shared' with specific military units (USAF Cyber Command, Space Command et al)

this issue is meaningless compared to things the supreme court or justice department have been doing

avatar

MaximumMike

Amen brother.

avatar

spokenwordd

Because it is a bigger deal. Google or any other company may use that data to solicit you for other services but the government usage of your private data has much bigger implications. Google does not have police powers, search and seizure authority or a military under its control. Hasn't the the first half of the 20th century taught us anything about government powers run wild?

avatar

MaximumMike

Watch out. There's some unspoken rule about drawing lines of comparison between what's happening now and what happened in Germany. And apparently if you do it you will lose all credibility... though I'm not sure why.

avatar

spokenwordd

You are right but I don't even need to evoke Germany. There's still Russia, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Italy, Japan, Iran, Vietnam, N. Korea, Cambodia, Poland, Pakistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia and actually most of the 55 countries that make up Africa, Haiti, Argentina and we could go on and on. Governments that overstep are historically proven over and over to be deadly to their own people. We could go back thousands of years and site hundreds of cases but the last 20 to 100 years speaks very loudly. The over reach starts small and ends in an avalanche every time. We'd be fools to think it can't happen in America.

avatar

MaximumMike

Unfortunately, we are a land of fools.

avatar

Renegade Knight

Why would anyone need to make a deal with the government regarding transparance and disclosure? Either you have free speech on the matter or you don't. That the government is niggling thinge to death just means they want to create the illusion of transparency without being tranparent at all.

avatar

whr4usa

the issue isn't free speech...the issue is national security

the government hasn't said they can't, the NSA just doesn't wish to be singled out...for fear of it being used by our potential adversaries (which it very well could be)

however, the current 'deal' is a bit...too... translucent.

I think a nice compromise would be to classify requests by federal\local\state but not pinpoint individual agencies etc.

avatar

dgrmouse

whr4usa said, "the issue isn't free speech...the issue is national security"

Huh? He says that free speech is being suppressed, and you respond by suggesting that the speech is being suppressed because it's a matter of national security. Even if it were a matter of national security, it's still a matter of free speech. You're going to need to come up with a much better argument.

avatar

whr4usa

you missed the points

he suggested free speech was being suppressed and I said it was not a free speech issue at all; it IS a matter of national security in this case and last I checked corporations are not people and therefore don't have constitutionally-guaranteed free speech... corporations are legally-created entities and therefore can be legally limited in any and every way potentially

you can't just let every foreign intelligence unit or cyber crime group know exactly what we're able to watch and choose to watch and when we're watching

avatar

Supall

Here's one:

Because they signed a binding contract that needs to be negotiated or they could be taken to court, sued, and forced to pay some hefty fines. Not to mention potential loss of business for reneging on agreements with a government, of which is not the only government it would have agreements with.

So, Google and Twitter or any other company cannot just release information. They have their own business interests to protect.

avatar

Renegade Knight

Signing the contract is what you do when you make the deal. I was questioning why in the heck you would ever have to make a deal to begin with.

avatar

Renegade Knight

Why would anyone need to make a deal with the government regarding transparance and disclosure? Either you have free speech on the matter or you don't. That the government is niggling thinge to death just means they want to create the illusion of transparency without being tranparent at all.

avatar

Vano

And yet Google is forcing their users to disclose their real names to the public, disallow using nicknames...efin hypocrites.

avatar

whr4usa

+1

Google has always been hypocritical

Microsoft, as far as we know anyways, has never voluntarily released any information for our government or others in this century; the same can't be said of Google

avatar

dgrmouse

whr4usa said, "Microsoft, as far as we know anyways, has never voluntarily released any information for our government or others in this century"

Why do you make junk up and state it as fact? MS has stated that 32k of their customers were affected by such requests in the last half of 2012 alone.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/06/14/microsoft-s-u-s-law-enforcement-and-national-security-requests-for-last-half-of-2012.aspx

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Dude, you made me spew coffee all over my monitor

avatar

Neufeldt2002

I was just thinking of you Bullwinkle while I was reading this article and all the others that are out there on the interwebs. I wonder how all the others feel now that they denied that MS had back doors, etc. Let me be the first to apologize for the few times I may have doubted.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Thanks

and now that its public knowledge, just remember what I have said all along....

Anyone who said I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I wear a tinfoil hat, or haven't taken my meds or that I have no evidence even after I or You or anyone else shows them the evidence is either working with the Feds or a moron

Maximum PC staff took the better approach by not commenting on the subject but most of the Gov't perps like those at Microsoft are REQUIRED to lie to keep these problems a secret

I did find the videos I made a few years back when I accidentally found the kill switch on Intel motherboards

I accidentally triggered something that made my computer refuse to install XP or Linux yet allowed Windows 7 and 8 installs and the problem is PERMANENT even after swapping hard drives, wiping and replacing the BIOS with the original factory BIOS and pulling the CMOS battery for a month

That computer was Permanently destroyed by the hidden and undocumented kill switch but I have the videos of the entire procedure (start to finish)

I say destroyed because it will now only let me install spyware platform 7 or 8

many of the other backdoor features of Microsoft products are also well documented in video's I made with the exact version number used to find the problems

I do not blame Max PC staff or anyone else for not getting to the bottom of any of this publicly because they probably wouldn't get a job at McDonald's if they were to disclose any of this

So why do I?

They already ruined my life and I've had enough of the Fed's crap

avatar

Neufeldt2002

Are those video's on the web? I would like to check them out. Also, does it only affect Intel made boards? or are other manufacturers affected as well? What about AMD boards? Or are you talking about the Kill Switch in Sandybridge and (assuming newer as well) that kills the CPU?

avatar

DeltaFIVEengineer

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm genuinely curious what the Feds did to ruin your life?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.