5 ms·

You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) Essentially what they’ve done is commit treason by c

You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) Essentially what they’ve done is commit treason by colluding with hostile foreign powers to mutually spy on each others citizens, bypassing the pesky constitutional/charter limitations in the process. In the right political climate we could Nuremberg trial 5 levels deep into the organizations responsible, I’m hopeful for that outcome. Reminder: “I was just following orders/policy” wasn’t a defense then and it won’t be this time either.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
> You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) If they are doing it, where's your evidence? You don't have it because otherwise, Klayman would have filed a lawsuit.
- imwillofficial 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I did. I read the actual documents Snowden leaked instead of relying on wild conspiracy theories people conjured up out of thin air at the time the documents leaked. If you have evidence, you can file a lawsuit. You don't. You're just repeating conspiracy theories that anybody who understands the law easily spots as nonsense.
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      Those docs are not the final word. Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws. There’s probably no standing to sue. It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > Those docs are not the final word. Then tell me, which document says otherwise? I've been waiting. > Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws The law forbids the US government from asking anybody to spy on its citizens. > But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject. Well "understood" by conspiracy theorists. The rest of us living in reality knows this isn't happening or else we would have filed a lawsuit.
        mixmastamyk 3y ago
        I repeat: > It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. You’ll have to read most of it as well, the juicy parts and citations are towards the bottom. Bootlickers have the burden to prove data is not misused these days—not the other way around.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud That well-sourced Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. Nowhere does it say the US government can access data on its own citizens from other Five Eyes countries. It says this: "So far, no court case has been brought against any US intelligence community member claiming that they went around US domestic law to have foreign countries spy on US citizens and give that intelligence to the US." The source says the following and does not have any information contradicting it: "'Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself,' Emmel said." A bunch of conspiracy theorists theorized that these countries could skirt their laws by asking for data from other countries in the intelligence sharing agreement without the proper warrant, but it turned out that they do not.
        mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Yes, “we’ve found no wrongdoing.” The page does mention the canadian case and european fallout (though that with conflicting language). Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case. - Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise? - Of course warrants are rubber stamped. - There’s no laws against using third party data. - No one every gets in trouble… see Clapper lying to Congress on national TV. Oh, except the ones that speak up about the law. They even have a technical term for it called “parallel construction.” The important point is they get whatever they want without practical restraint. This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

> You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) If they are doing it, where's your evidence? You don't have it because otherwise, Klayman would have filed a lawsuit.

imwillofficial 3y ago
[flagged]
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  I did. I read the actual documents Snowden leaked instead of relying on wild conspiracy theories people conjured up out of thin air at the time the documents leaked. If you have evidence, you can file a lawsuit. You don't. You're just repeating conspiracy theories that anybody who understands the law easily spots as nonsense.
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    Those docs are not the final word. Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws. There’s probably no standing to sue. It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      > Those docs are not the final word. Then tell me, which document says otherwise? I've been waiting. > Further, it’s done with the express purpose to route around laws The law forbids the US government from asking anybody to spy on its citizens. > But good job trying to sow doubt on a well-understood subject. Well "understood" by conspiracy theorists. The rest of us living in reality knows this isn't happening or else we would have filed a lawsuit.
      - mixmastamyk 3y ago
        I repeat: > It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. You’ll have to read most of it as well, the juicy parts and citations are towards the bottom. Bootlickers have the burden to prove data is not misused these days—not the other way around.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud That well-sourced Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. Nowhere does it say the US government can access data on its own citizens from other Five Eyes countries. It says this: "So far, no court case has been brought against any US intelligence community member claiming that they went around US domestic law to have foreign countries spy on US citizens and give that intelligence to the US." The source says the following and does not have any information contradicting it: "'Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself,' Emmel said." A bunch of conspiracy theorists theorized that these countries could skirt their laws by asking for data from other countries in the intelligence sharing agreement without the proper warrant, but it turned out that they do not.
        mixmastamyk 3y ago
        Yes, “we’ve found no wrongdoing.” The page does mention the canadian case and european fallout (though that with conflicting language). Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case. - Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise? - Of course warrants are rubber stamped. - There’s no laws against using third party data. - No one every gets in trouble… see Clapper lying to Congress on national TV. Oh, except the ones that speak up about the law. They even have a technical term for it called “parallel construction.” The important point is they get whatever they want without practical restraint. This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.