On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:00 PM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:56 AM, jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >> "The NSA's legal squirming is bad enough. But an agency writing itself a >> blank check to allegedly destroy evidence based on the sheer size and >> complexity of the possibly illegal program in questionis another thing >> entirely. There shouldn't be an "unless your dragnet surveillance program is >> reallybig" exception to the Fourth Amendment. > > A lot of the issue is why *your* records, metadata, and maybe even full > take, are on government disks if *you* have not been the subject of a specific > warrant against you under the Fourth. That's not supposed to happen > (ie: it's illegal, regardless of whatever postprocessing, access, expiry > and oversight rules there may be) and that bothers people, a lot....
feature; not bug! configure plausible deniability to zeroise incriminating information. utilize exceptionally compartmented collections to destroy credible opponents. walk away successful without a trace to be seen... these fucks are playing a dirty game... how best to curtail?
