WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

U.S. Senate votes to overturn Obama broadband privacy protections

Jason

Voorhees a jolly good fellow!
Founder
6,868
5,118
537
The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted narrowly to repeal regulations requiring internet service providers to do more to protect customers' privacy than websites like Alphabet Inc's Google (GOOGL.O) or Facebook Inc (FB.O).

The vote was along party lines, with 50 Republicans approving the measure and 48 Democrats rejecting it. The two remaining Republicans in the Senate were absent and did not cast a vote.

According to the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission in October under then-President Barack Obama, internet providers would need to obtain consumer consent before using precise geolocation, financial information, health information, children's information and web browsing history for advertising and internal marketing.

The vote was a victory for internet providers such as AT&T Inc (T.N), Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N), which had strongly opposed the rules.

The bill next goes to the U.S. House of Representatives, but it was not clear when they would take up the measure.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate was overturning a regulation that "makes the internet an uneven playing field, increases complexity, discourages competition, innovation, and infrastructure investment."

But Democratic Senator Ed Markey said, "Republicans have just made it easier for American’s sensitive information about their health, finances and families to be used, shared, and sold to the highest bidder without their permission."

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said consumers would have privacy protections even without the Obama administration internet provider rules.

In a joint statement, Democratic members of the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission said the Senate vote "creates a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements."

Republican commissioners, including Pai, said in October that the rules would unfairly give websites like Facebook, Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) or Google the ability to harvest more data than internet service providers and thus dominate digital advertising. The FCC earlier this month delayed the data rules from taking effect.

Source: Reuters
 
  • 1Sad
Reactions: MaxPower

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
So was the govt bad for protecting consumer privacy at one point, or bad for removing it?
It was terrible for opening pandoras box. Before government even asked the question it was morally beyond reproach at least as much as buying a oz.

Instead, they've created a hydra and they're tappin market resources and government resources to save both sides.

Id expect someone as tech savy and forward thinking as you are... to see what's happened.

Its a government run entity they thought they could keep micro and it went macro. And they split the legal authorization between a mixed economy and a government run monopoly on the use of force.

They innovated it, sold it to you.... put it in your pocket, shut up and pay your user fee while you sit juxtaposed between evils. Got you right where you should be. Just enough of a rebel to keep from wanting attention and not enough to be of any concern.

You're a walking platitude.
 

Jason

Voorhees a jolly good fellow!
Founder
6,868
5,118
537
...and Congress passes it...

The Republican-controlled Congress on Tuesday passed a bill for President Donald Trump’s signature that would empower internet service providers to snoop on users without their consent and sell the data to marketers.

Republican proponents of the measure hailed the measure as a way to level the playing field for broadband companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon and give them a leg up against content companies like Google and Facebook.

Democratic opponents said the measure would allow broadband companies to monitor all aspects of daily computer usage and reap profits by selling intimate data to advertisers.

Internet security experts also predicted a wide range of other potential impact, from lenders using data to act on loan applications to criminal finding a sweet new collection of data to hack.

“We believe today’s misguided vote will unleash even more ‘Big Data’ profiling and tracking of Americans, and spur an array of discriminatory practices,” said Katharina Kopp, policy director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a privacy organization based in Washington.

“Information about your activities may wind up being used to make adverse decisions about you. Something your kids search for online could be the basis for why you are denied a loan,” said Peter Eckersley, chief computer scientist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in San Francisco.

Companies, too, could find sensitive information compromised.

“If an ISP can sell information about how many of your employees are searching for jobs right now, why would they not traffic in that?” Eckersley asked.

The House vote cleaved closely to party lines, passing 215 to 205, with 15 Republicans breaking ranks to oppose the measure. No Democrats supported it. The vote came a week after the Senate approved the measure precisely along party lines. Trump is expected to sign the bill without delay.

Source: News & Observer
 
  • 1Helpful
Reactions: BRiT

Jung

???
Premium
14,078
2,287
487
It was terrible for opening pandoras box. Before government even asked the question it was morally beyond reproach at least as much as buying a oz.

Instead, they've created a hydra and they're tappin market resources and government resources to save both sides.

Id expect someone as tech savy and forward thinking as you are... to see what's happened.

Its a government run entity they thought they could keep micro and it went macro. And they split the legal authorization between a mixed economy and a government run monopoly on the use of force.

They innovated it, sold it to you.... put it in your pocket, shut up and pay your user fee while you sit juxtaposed between evils. Got you right where you should be. Just enough of a rebel to keep from wanting attention and not enough to be of any concern.
All those keystrokes and you still haven't actually said anything.

Are you trying to say that the markets in which turpentine and radium were sold as general health tonics were preferable?

Are you saying that voluntary participation in health and quality assurance standards is preferable?

I think the partyline is that companies will fear consumer backlash and just be really really mindful cuz they love and care about you. And yet one only need look at the recent listeria etc scares, and how quickly those stocks recovered, to demonstrate that this assumption fails to account for human irrationality.

Why would a corporation take on an elective expenditure if the market didn't actually require it? What voodoo econ principle predicts this? I think we'd all love to know.

And what makes you think this even applies when the vast majority of consumer brands exist only to obfuscate the fact that a given consumer commodity market has maybe 5 players in total.

Govt exists to protect persons and property. Codifying a bare minimum of consumer protections isn't exactly tyranny lol.

You're a walking platitude.
ironing.jpg
 
  • 1Helpful
  • 1LOL
Reactions: ib4 and BRiT

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
Yeah, you have a point... when people are making money, they're inherently more evil than when they're in government.

Maybe I missed the conversion process that magically turns humans into reasonable trustworthy individuals simply because they work in government. There's no way that could go wrong.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,246
4,893
257
Are you trying to say that the markets in which turpentine and radium were sold as general health tonics were preferable?
Turpentine and radium sold as general health tonics is a concern of science not specifically economics. Even today we do things which eventually will be seen as stupid in the eyes of our future selves.

Are you saying that voluntary participation in health and quality assurance standards is preferable?
Absofuckinglutely. Remember Grandpa's UL listed toaster oven? That actually meant something. Remember Grandpa's magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics? They actually said something. You abdicate responsibility to a faceless bureaucracy and by doing so you strip yourself of another layer what it means to be an individual hurling through space on a rock. Voluntary EVERYTHING is preferable.

I think the partyline is that companies will fear consumer backlash and just be really really mindful cuz they love and care about you.
I think the party line is that bureaucracies will fear consumer backlash and just be really really mindful cuz they love and care about you.

Same result.

And yet one only need look at the recent listeria etc scares, and how quickly those stocks recovered, to demonstrate that this assumption fails to account for human irrationality.
Wait a second. We have the EPA and the ADA and the FGB and the GMP and the YVX and STILL had a listeria scare. Maybe we just need an EDK and an FGT?

Why would a corporation take on an elective expenditure if the market didn't actually require it? What voodoo econ principle predicts this? I think we'd all love to know.
This really is the question and there ain't no chance this shitbag is going to tackle it. I can however, point you in the right direction.



Good luck escaping that rabbit hole.



Govt exists to protect persons and property.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,078
2,287
487
Turpentine and radium sold as general health tonics is a concern of science not specifically economics. Even today we do things which eventually will be seen as stupid in the eyes of our future selves.
Historical revisionism is part and parcel with your ideology, and yet infinitely cute.

Turpentine was well known to be a poison during the era which this occurred. Radium was sold as a health tonic as recently as the 30s, and was used into the 50s as the predecessor to barium.

It's self-evident that this is a social policy issue.

Absofuckinglutely. Remember Grandpa's UL listed toaster oven? That actually meant something. Remember Grandpa's magazines like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics? They actually said something. You abdicate responsibility to a faceless bureaucracy and by doing so you strip yourself of another layer what it means to be an individual hurling through space on a rock. Voluntary EVERYTHING is preferable.
You want insight into what an unregulated market looks like outside of your thought experiments? Take a look at the US supplement market. The FDA bars this market from doing two things 1) making false health claims 2) including synthetic drugs.

Companies can do whatever they please otherwise, including outright lyring about the contents of their capsules. They are under no legal obligation to sell you a biologically active dose, or even a compound that's biologically active. It's 100% legal to sell you a capsule full of nothing but cellulose.

And do you know what? When people tested supplements they found that outside a few basic vitamins which are easy/cheap to isolate, most supplements on the market were complete bullshit. Either they were underdosed to the point of uselessness, or didn't contain anything active at all. Unsurprisingly, corporations only meet the requirements necessary to turn a profit.

Consumers should not be required to perform GS/MS on a pill just to determine if the product they're purchasing contains what it says it does.

"Caveat emptor" only works when the consumer has good knowledge... which is almost never in modern commodity markets. This is one of the reasons your personal brand of idealism has never actually been realized in the real world.

I think the party line is that bureaucracies will fear consumer backlash and just be really really mindful cuz they love and care about you.
Govt doesn't exist to care about us. It exists to protect us from fraud. Such as consumer fraud or privacy violations.

It's like you guys don't actually live in reality.



Wait a second. We have the EPA and the ADA and the FGB and the GMP and the YVX and STILL had a listeria scare. Maybe we just need an EDK and an FGT?
lol relative privation. The context here is consumer privacy rights. I don't need to argue the efficacy of any of these organizations in order to demonstrate that there is no in-built incentive for self-regulation. You guys just believe really really hard that this exists, despite the fact that literally every market in history disproves this notion.

This really is the question and there ain't no chance this shitbag is going to tackle it. I can however, point you in the right direction.
Now I see your issue. :D Mises is a thoroughly refuted quack. Praxeology is pseudoscience.

Read Smith and Hayek, then read Friedman and follow Greenspan's career to see where neoclassical idealism fails to account for reality. I'd also fit some Hume, Kant, Locke, J.S. Mill etc in there - as to not confuse economic theory with ethics, which seems so fashionable among libertarians. Even Smith (who was also an ethicist) was in favor of basic regulation to, for example, prevent banking cartels (sound familiar?), predatory practices etc.

There is a reason we abandoned a priorist econ (that is, economic theory based on assumption) for behavioral econ - which employs empirical, psychological and sociological data - decades ago. Austrianism is little more than religion.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Helpful
Reactions: BRiT

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
People are frauds and want to steal money from you, concentrate power and kill you..... so.... we need a concentrated body of power that steals from you and will kill you to stop all the fraud and stealing and killing.

Government is an infallible body of men and in no way similar to a corrupt corporation. Besides.... you can't be corrupt and work in government.

Your whole line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Your base claim is that most people are incapable of making good economic decisions so therefore we need a third party to protect them. Its not working bro. Not sure where you been the last 30 years.... but all your fears are still going on. Only instead of getting robbed once, I get robbed every paycheck, again at the store, then by the corporation and again by the government when poor corporate decisions fleece the savings of millions.

Your justification is based on government education and a line of reasoning thats persisted for hundreds of years and created no different result. There are more examples of government corruption and murder than people made safe and well off by governments.

Im realistic in that there will likely always be government. However giving them power over every facet of life.... requiring no vigilance from the populace and creating some government committee will keep the market from correcting terrible actions. If consumer privacy is the issue, creating a law will not prevent privacy from being violated, nor will instituting a fine. It will make the action more profitable. The way forward is through innovation, education and entrepreneurship.... its about holding institutions accountable through boycotts.

Id like to know of a sterling example of modern protections that was championed by government that could not have been championed otherwise.
 

MaxPower

You're my number two
Staff
17,081
7,553
637
People are frauds and want to steal money from you, concentrate power and kill you..... so.... we need a concentrated body of power that steals from you and will kill you to stop all the fraud and stealing and killing.

Government is an infallible body of men and in no way similar to a corrupt corporation. Besides.... you can't be corrupt and work in government.

Your whole line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Your base claim is that most people are incapable of making good economic decisions so therefore we need a third party to protect them. Its not working bro. Not sure where you been the last 30 years.... but all your fears are still going on. Only instead of getting robbed once, I get robbed every paycheck, again at the store, then by the corporation and again by the government when poor corporate decisions fleece the savings of millions.

Your justification is based on government education and a line of reasoning thats persisted for hundreds of years and created no different result. There are more examples of government corruption and murder than people made safe and well off by governments.

Im realistic in that there will likely always be government. However giving them power over every facet of life.... requiring no vigilance from the populace and creating some government committee will keep the market from correcting terrible actions. If consumer privacy is the issue, creating a law will not prevent privacy from being violated, nor will instituting a fine. It will make the action more profitable. The way forward is through innovation, education and entrepreneurship.... its about holding institutions accountable through boycotts.

Id like to know of a sterling example of modern protections that was championed by government that could not have been championed otherwise.
Interesting and compelling. Please elaborate
 
  • 1LOL
Reactions: BRiT

Jung

???
Premium
14,078
2,287
487
Your base claim
My base claim is that you are being intentionally obtuse. One of the primary reasons govt exists is to protect privacy rights. These rights don't just go away when they involve commerce. Economic idealism is simply not a replacement for ethics or rule of law.

Again, you both lack an empirical basis for anything you say, so you stoop to fallacious reasoning. This is, again, relative privation in addition to your strawman of my position. I'm not, nor am I logically obligated to, argue for current regulations or regulatory agencies, in order to make a case for privacy rights.

The fact that you've both referenced every regulatory agency under the sun, while strictly avoiding the actual context - privacy rights - tells me that neither of you have a valid argument here.
Id like to know of a sterling example of modern protections that was championed by government that could not have been championed otherwise.
The context of this thread is a good place to start lmao.

ISPs do not, as a matter of course, log information on the scale required to sell it to advertisers. Smaller companies lack the means, and larger companies don't engage in such expensive endeavors unless there is a pay-off. Consumer privacy laws prevented the incentive from existing in the past.
 

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
So you make a claim that government is necessary for protections of privacy..... and I have to prove my point?

Government has been the biggest violator of world privacy for at least the last 15 years.... and I have to prove that to you..... because apparently you've been under a rock.

Im sure law makers would never create a situation in which they say they're protecting you and then privately profit from their decisions. War on drugs, prohibition, Vietnam, WWII, the entire military industrial complex, metadata, the telecommunications companies, the NSA, contras in Nicaragua, dealing crack in the hood, Tuskegee experiments, CIA vault 7, Operation paper clip.......


Are you seriously trying to paint ME as the one that denies reality?

Edit:
Wake up dude:

http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • 1Beer
Reactions: BRiT

Jung

???
Premium
14,078
2,287
487
So you make a claim that government is necessary for protections of privacy..... and I have to prove my point?
Privacy is a constitutional, not natural, right - so yes - govt is necessary. There is no such thing as a right outside of society. This is just laughable. Come on bro.

When you say things like that, no, I don't believe you think things through all that well.

Government has been the biggest violator of world privacy for at least the last 15 years.... and I have to prove that to you..... because apparently you've been under a rock.

Im sure law makers would never create a situation in which they say they're protecting you and then privately profit from their decisions. War on drugs, prohibition, Vietnam, WWII, the entire military industrial complex, metadata, the telecommunications companies, the NSA, contras in Nicaragua, dealing crack in the hood, Tuskegee experiments, CIA vault 7, Operation paper clip.......
You again can't help but avoid the context. We're talking about consumer privacy wrt to commerce. You keep dancing around the fact that your ideology can't account for the fact that corporations have no rational incentive to protect your privacy barring regulation which penalizes not doing so.

Your continued need to poison the well with literally everything but relevant discussion is not exactly painting the picture of someone in command of reality.

I actually agree with you on the larger picture there. You just seem to be blinded to the fact that we don't need to trust govt to establish rule of law. Grow up and stop falsely equivocating the two. We should oppose private corporations from violating our privacy on the same grounds we oppose the govt. That's my only point lol. You can calm down with all the canned responses.
 
Last edited:

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
I'm making a statement of fact. Privacy isn't a natural right so it's self-fucking-evident that it's a codified right (e.g., derived from government protection). There is simply no such thing as a right to privacy outside of society.

When you say things like that, no, I don't believe you think things through all that well.
The Fifth Amendment, and the fourth Amendment. These were rights written to ensure Privacy is a natural right that can not be interfered with by government or anyone else for that matter. And the government has since regulated those rights and consumer activities in a way to nullify these rights. The interpretation of the commerce clause for example.



Jung said:
You again can't help but avoid the context. We're talking about consumer privacy wrt to commerce. You keep dancing around the fact that your ideology can't account for the fact that corporations have no rational incentive to protect your privacy barring regulation which penalizes doing so.

Your continued need to poison the well with literally everything but relevant discussion is not exactly painting the picture of someone in command of reality.

I actually agree with you on the larger picture there. You just seem to be blinded to the fact that we don't need to trust govt to establish rule of law. Grow up and stop falsely equivocating the two. We should oppose private corporations from violating our privacy on the same grounds we oppose the govt. That's my only point lol. You can calm down with all the canned responses.
And you can't help but gloss over my point in order to fling a bunch of technical sounding garbage to see what sticks. If it involves commerce... why the fuck is the FCC even involved? Shouldn't that be the FTC?

I'm not denying that corporations have no rational incentive..... I'm denying that the government has any rational incentive to protect you or your privacy. It has demonstrated as much in an undeniable fashion for well over the last 15 years. Why can't you admit this?

Is it your position that corporate entities don't send individuals to government in order to corrupt the process? Do you REALLY believe government and its regulations so infallible that it can kill incentives to violate privacy while doing the same thing itself?

You'll sit here and speak about the inherent evils of man for profit... and then all of that disappears when man steps into government. Why is that? Why is it that when man steps across the threshold into a private run entity disguising itself as a champion of the people... magically they're beyond corruption?

Then you're gonna wrap up with... "Oh well, I actually agree with you on the larger picture, however reality says that my limited small view of the picture is more important. Grow up." One to many LSD hits?

I'm opposed to the collection of private information. And as a result I take what reasonable protections within my own power to deny that from happening where I see fit. I don't need more regulations that will drive up costs both in form of taxes and for the services I pay for... in order to feel good about if or not my privacy is being violated.

The whole internet thrives off of the collection of information in order to exploit its use for profit. And you think that some regulation will put a stop to that? You really think that corporations that could financially benefit to an enormous degree won't come up with some work around for the regulation?

You're just pissed because my correct bigger picture argument invalidates your argument. And rather than me pointing our specifics and arguing like a gentleman... I mocked you into admitting you agree with me. Then you're going to take my original root position and present it as your own. Whatever man. You're clever... I've always thought that... but if anyone has canned responses... I'd say its you.

Your whole argument is an appeal to emotion. You're not arguing the main point... privacy protection.... you're arguing the government's involvement in privacy protection. What a ridiculous position. Either we let giant corporations violate our privacy.... or we get the government, who's been violating the privacy of billions, to get the bad guy to stop violating our privacy.

They opened pandora's box. The government created this monster in is quest for more control and different ways to catch criminals. Criminals they created in their quest to regulate the world. In order to create a rational global economic model that prevents rich people from losing money.

But hey.... I'm no stranger to being called crazy. I'm no stranger to 'intellectual types' like you completely denying the cause of all this.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Beer
Reactions: BRiT

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,780
5,439
487
Character limit reached. FCC is so efficient and not corrupt. God damned Republicans.... its all their fault!!

In yet another break with its campaign promise to fight to restore civil liberties and privacy, the Obama Administration has made a breathtaking claim of state secrets to block a public interest organization from suing the government for illegal surveillance. There is not a scintilla of difference in the legal position of President Obama and the position of President Bush in trying to quash any effort to challenge unlawful surveillance by the government. It appears the “yes we can” means “yes we can do most anything that we want” when it comes to unlawful programs. I discussed this story on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.

The Administration is moving to kill a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers who were unlawfully intercepted by the government. Not only is the Administration making an extreme argument under the military and state secrets doctrine but it is claimed that citizens cannot sue, even if the government engages in unlawful surveillance, under the Patriot Act. Due to changes put through with Democratic support, the statute is being used to block any lawsuit unless the citizens can show that there was “willful disclosure’” of the communications by the government.

Congress passed the new language last summer with the support of then Sen. Obama in a complete caving into the powerful telecommunications lobby. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has been addressing the impact of this law in dozens of public interest lawsuits. At the same time, the Obama administration is invoking state secrets to try to prevent the review of evidence in the case of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The Administration has even threatened to remove a document from the Court after Judge Walker ruled against it — a position that exceeds even the Bush Administration.

For the government filing, click here.

For the full story, click here.


Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets To Kill Lawsuit Over Unlawful Surveillance Program JONATHAN TURLEY
Apologists: Please try to comprehend the post you're replying to.

The issue is not that they are seeking to protect state secrets, it's that they're claiming state secrets as a basis for maintaining warentless wiretaps et al. This is something that had you fuming at Bush.

This is wholly illegal.
This doesn't make any sense. His position is exactly the same as Bush's; his administration has already made the arguments for this position. It's not an issue of him "not getting around to it yet." So what exactly are we supposed to give him time on?
Every year, the FCC is required to come out with a report on broadband competitiveness. Every year, it's a joke. Way back in 2006, the GAO looked at the 2005 report and pointed out that the FCC's methodology sucked and was highly inaccurate. Basically, the FCC looked at whether or not a single node in a zip code was wired for broadband (defined at some laughably low rate), and declared that the provider offered service across that entire zip code. On top of that, it relied on the broadband providers themselves to let the FCC know who was covered. So, in theory, you could have a zip code where only two houses were covered by broadband, and the FCC would define that entire zip code as not only covered, but a competitive market. That was in 2006. Yet, the FCC basically ignored the GAO and kept putting out its bogus reports each year, even as the GAO continued to highlight the problems of the report.

So here we are, years later, and the FCC has finally, finally, finally changed its methodology and for the first time released a report admitting that all is not well in the US broadband market. As Broadband Reports notes:

The report ditches the inaccurate zip code determination, and takes the long-overdue step of bumping the minimum definition of broadband from just 200 kbps, to at least 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.
I should admit, by that definition, even I don't have broadband at home. To be honest, I'm less concerned about the amount of people who have access to broadband, as I am about the actual level of competition, which isn't really covered by this report. Still, it's amusing to see how angry the telcos and some elected officials are about the FCC finally telling the truth.

A telco lobbying organization, US Telecom immediately trashed the report saying it "strained credulity." And, it didn't take elected officials long to start grandstanding as well. Rep. Cliff Stearns wasted little time blasting the FCC report, saying he was "perplexed" by the report.

Perhaps we can clear up some of the confusion. You see, it appears that over the course of Cliff Stearns career, the single largest contributor to his campaign was (you guessed it) AT&T. Oh, and as for this year's campaign, it's probably worth noting that while AT&T is still his top contributor Comcast and Verizon are number two and three respectively, and closing in fast. And, of course, in the last election (2008), Stearns' top two contributors were AT&T and the National Cable & Telco Association. Verizon was fourth. But I'm sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with Stearn's confusion over the FCC report. Couldn't possibly be... And people wonder why every day citizens think that DC is corrupt.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100721/00274810301.shtml

Herp derp free market, amirite?
Herp Derp government regulation of privacy amirite?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cfpb-threatens-independence-of-bankruptcy-office/article/2535482

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-10/nsa-phone-records-spying-violated-court-rules-for-years

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nsa-machine-too-big-anyone-understand-071323221--politics.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-mayer-jail-nsa-surveillance
 
Last edited:
  • 1Beer
Reactions: BRiT