|
| quote: | | aside from the fact that you have mischaracterized the article by not understanding that it's ALL of Congress that mines the pop. for data, not just your fearless leader. the answer to your question would be, in most cases, no. the names and addresses of voters are traded like baseball cards. 1 case in point. |
Ahh, I see my mistake here, which admittedly I was a little off the mark. I used to work for a company that utilizes phone lists in a somewhat similar (albeit I believe questionable) manner for sales purposes, so I was clearly wrong in believing such information was voluntarily given up.
In any case, the argument given by the link you provided breaks down to the three arguments here:
| quote: | | First, we were told the entire voter file was "a draft memorandum," which couldn't be released until it was completed. Does a database meet the legal definition of a "memorandum," which is compiled in order to help an official make a decision? In any event, will this database ever be complete? And even if, say, Ladysmith isn't done, why can't we look at the data from Racine? |
Which doesn't apply to the telecom/NSA case, so onto #2:
| quote: | | Then they told us we could have the data, but that we'd have to get it directly from the hundreds of individual municipal clerks..... |
Again this does not apply in parallel, but I think the final reason does:
| quote: | | Finally, the Elections Board told us the reason we couldn't see the data was that it contained some private information (such as phone numbers) and that they were incapable of separating it out for us. This appears to have been an outright lie not only does the technology obviously exist to separate out private information, but, since our lawsuit settlement, they've now agreed to provide it. All we have ever asked for was a copy of the fields that are public record. |
Now this part does apply because it is the counterargument given by the Bush supporters: the phone numbers themselves are not revealing any private info. But as the argument above states, in that particular case it was a lie and that such information was being used to deliberately separate out identifying information tying the phone numbers to identities of individuals.
However, that is clearly not the case with the NSA database mining, since they are, in fact, "looking for patterns", they are indeed quite interested in identification of phone numbers to individuals.
Which is the crux of the argument you are providing is here:
| quote: | | according to your bible, USA Today, they're just numbers. so the question is bogus. |
Well I'm sorry if I don't use your National Review/Limbaugh Letter/Newsmax Biblical commentary for my sources – I tend to have this darn propensity for the common media sources of information to report the facts as they come about. Of course they don't always get it right, but if you have some problems with the factual accounting of what USA Today reported here, you're welcome to point it out as such.
Regardless, I think we can cut the bullshit right now about the "just reporting numbers" line that's prevailing in the wingnut blogs persistently. Ordinary commercial databases can be accessed by a fucking kindergartener and given a name. Let's go back to "my bible" for a moment:
| quote: | [D]omestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...05-10-nsa_x.htm |
As well as a May 12th WaPost article:
So shall we cut the charades on this tripe of an argument?
| quote: | | in your case, i'll take it back...your indignation is not a charade, it's fucking clinical. it's what is wrong with your party. |
Ya know, I must admit I really do love watching 29 percenters such as yourself kick and scream as your Furer slowly but surely goes down in flames on his own corruption and highly legally suspicious activities.
| quote: | | the media is not over-hyping this. it's my imagination. |
No one here ever claimed you didn't have a vivid imagination, that's for fucking sure.
Clue #67 when Q's argument goes to shit: blame the media at all costs.
Are you being serious? Are you really gonna try and talk logical fallacies with me? Not that I don't think you have some practice of your own on the subject, mind you, but are you sure you really wanna go there?
| quote: | | IMO you have either fallen for the fear mongering. or purposely further it, knowing, in your mind, that it is really just hysteria. |
Which is yet another clue when you choose not to address any arguments directly – call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you hysterical, biased, crazy, and fear mongerers.
Out of curiousity, do you consider Lindsey Graham a crazy biased, fear mongering liberal?
How about Arlen Specter?
John Boehner?
Charles Grassley?
Newt Gingrich?
Gee, I didn't realize so many individuals whom identify themselves as Republicans in your party, some quite prominent far-righties, were such traitorous liberal fear mongerers. How dare they!
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
. So nice to see you taking Clinton semantics and going all the way. Or is "is" acutally "is"?
