“These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment.”

So, they were legal searches approved by the FISA court.

What was the problem again?

"BUT GOVERNMENT NEEDS OVERSIGHT!"

That's exactly what the FISA court does. What? You don't trust the people you gave trust to?

Use iTunes for new releases instead of DVDs.

Don't complain about it.

The NSA may be efficient at amassing lots of data. But I doubt if that is an efficient way to achieve their real mission of identifying useful intelligence. They are efficient at creating haystacks, but that doesn't mean they are finding many needles.

Since you're speculating, it's just as useful to say that the NSA has the ability to find exactly what they need from vast quantities of data.

Look! I can make up shit too!

You know, one of these days, you will be the one arrested and thrown in prison without due process for 'terroristic acts', or some other set of stacked charges that cannot be challenged in court because they're matters of 'national security'.

This only happens if you're an idiot, like the average libertarian that infests this site.

Smart socialists know how to always remain in power.

The worst people in the world are those that don't know how to socialize with other members of society, and socialization is formally structured in society through a government.

When you people state "I fear and mistrust government", what the rest of us hear is "I fear and mistrust other members of society".

So, when you hate the rest of society so much, why exactly should we allow you to live with us again? Because all we hear from you is "Me! Me! Me!"

Can you explain how you benefit us? Do you think you produce more tax revenue than we pay for you? Do you think the road we paved for you all the way out to your private secluded hideout so you can avoid the rest of society came for free?

Is that what you want us to hear from you libertarians? That you're a precious snowflake and that you don't want to do what government tells you to do, because you're a precious snowflake?

You will note that this anti-socializition is extremely common among those that society traditionally rejects, such as geeks and other assorted libertarians. Remember, groups are far stronger than individuals. We socialists recognized that long time ago, which is why we can get things that libertarians cannot, such as a publicly funded health-care system.

Meanwhile, we socialist statists will do fine without your support, since there are so few of you - you will notice that no one in the real world actually complains about the NSA spying, because most people are well socialized, unlike the geeks. In the real world, no one gives a shit about the kind of privacy you think is important. The only real privacy we believe in are physical privacy, not internet ones, since the internet doesn't represent real-world. (you were actually mistaken all along in your view that the internet mattered..)

But it is your job to decide if you wish to remain with us.

Eventually you will decide to lick government's boot, and you will learn that it is better for you that way.

You know those filters used to remove American's data from surveillance? Those were there to PROTECT our privacy.

So what exactly is Snowden complaining about? Why would the US government have classified filters if their objective was privacy violations?

He really didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. That's the problem you get with mouth-breathing libertarians, like the kind that infest white-male nerd sites.

I'm also surprised that an actor in a film was able to get any claim of ownership. An actor is expected to know that a movie can change due to rewrites, or editing, or any of the reasons that films normally change between the beginning and the end of the process. But if you can show that the producer was intentionally deceptive- that he planned the whole time to make an anti-Islam hit piece but told the actors something else, then that's a different story.

This is precedent setting here as well. Usually the creator of the medium owns the copyright, not a contributor. It would change everything if new rule stands.

One point though is that the producer didn't get a release from the actress at all, so any modern release should cover any effects of changes to the film. This might case might be a unique one because of that.

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.

Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?

Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.

And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.

Living in suburban sprawl is not living. It is mere existence.

The suburbs are where humanity goes to die. You will notice that no culture comes from the suburbs either.

Suburbs should just be banned.

The houses/roads/buildings in the suburbs should be torn down, replaced with trees that were originally there.

Of course, it will be difficult for the lazy to get away from the suburbs, but with appropriate government force, they will have no choice but to comply, and will eventually get over it.

So there should be no private energy companies?
No there shouldn't.

Energy should be a socialized service.

Remember when California tried to privatize energy, and there were constant blackouts? HAHA

No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care?

Those aren't public services.

Public services should NEVER be run by private companies, since they are inefficient and wasteful.

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.

Communications is so critical that the US Constitution writes in the Postal service as part of it.

Internet communications should be treated as a basic service.

Once this happens, we can restructure more government services to be properly internet enabled.

Really, private companies do not serve the interests of the public. They never have. They never will.

Private companies are great at the luxuries of life, not the basics.

Remember, all the disclosures show that they're filtering communications data from American citizens.

Why would the NSA keep a top-secret program to filter out communications from Americans, if they weren't interested in privacy rights?

(And it's perfectly fine for the NSA to wiretap foreigners, because fuck-em.)

Really, the only people complaining about the NSA are whiny libertarians, such as all the 12-year olds that infest this site. They just whine all the time because they are not intelligent people.

No need to break them up. Just make sure they're following the laws, which as the disclosures indicate, they are.

OK. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for this systems infrastructure? People always want the service but, for some reason, they never want to pay for it.

The way socialism works is that rich people pay for the benefits of poor.

That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.

The rich need public education so that their employees can read and follow instructions and do math. They need roads to drive their goods. They need a military to protect their resources. They need everything government provides.

The poor do not give a shit about any of this. It is the rich that need this the most.

That is why they get to pay for it.

You do know that's Google's business model - to turn you into a product for advertisers.

Ultimately we need a neutral, non-advertiser driven business to support this infrastructure. Actually, socialism works well here, since this is a systems infrastructure that government is better at handling than any private corporations. We need more government solutions to these sort of problems, not private industry

Private industry cannot produce an efficient systems-level product. They will always be overpriced compared to government. It is why it only costs 50 cents to deliver mail via USPS instead of $15 to deliver it via UPS/FedEx.

A bigger government is a better government. The less government we have, the more society fails. The US is the result of a huge federal government. Let's make sure to continue to grow it with more government services and eliminate the economically dangerous freedom-lovers from our society.

A freedom-loving libertarian society is always a poor society.

A structured, socialized statist society is always a rich society.

which is why Glass will never take off.

Consumer products are only successful if they're marketed to cool, sociable people, not loser nerds with no lives.

You mistake is assuming that class divisions exist because of tyranny. It actually exists because of choice.

We have a government that takes away from the rich and give to the poor because the rich and poor are both there by choice.

The rich desire to be rich, which is fine, and we create a government that allows them to be rich by taxing them more as they gain more wealth. We use the taxes to pay for the services they need to become rich, such as education (need to make sure their employees can speak english and follow math instructions), roads (need to make sure their company goods can be transported), the military (need to protect their resources), patents (need to allow them a monopoly on their ideas), and basically every single function of government.

It is government that allows one to be wealthy.

Don't believe me?

Take away a function of government, and see how much it damages the wealthy.

That includes things like all social services (unemployment, health care, retirement, etc..) that you mistakenly assume benefit the lazy, but actually exist because it benefits the wealthy.

Really, the precious snowflake libertarians exist because they are ignorant of the overall system. It is amusing when we liberal statists watch these precious snowflake libertarians talk about their rights and freedoms and other dumb retarded shit we feed them to work harder, when we know exactly why they are mistaken and laugh at them.

These idiots actually think the money they earned is because of their hard work. LOL.

They have no idea about the Matrix we liberal statists built for them.

You're welcome.