My data is already bought and sold by companies. But when government agencies do it, suddenly we only need to stop them. Stop this madness. It shouldn’t matter if it’s corporations or a government, why not stop the sale of people’s data?
My data is already bought and sold by companies. But when government agencies do it, suddenly we only need to stop them. Stop this madness. It shouldn’t matter if it’s corporations or a government, why not stop the sale of people’s data?
Sure, but ex post facto is a thing. If people feel that this should be illegal they should write their representatives, but this headline is disingenuous.
Actions are only illegal if they were against the law at the time they were taken. If fireworks become illegal on July 5th I can’t be found guilty for shooting them off on July 4th.
The headline implies the NSA broke a law that does not exist, actively misleading those who read it. Shame on the “journalist” or editor that wrote it. Fabricated criticisms and grievances dilute genuine ones.
Waste of time and paper and you know that. Our representatives that would support us in this, and not just reply with a form letter, already know and push the issues but they are a minority in congress.
I’m more concerned with making sure it doesn’t happen in the future. If that means everyone being shitbags in the past get a free pass, maybe that’s worth it.
It sure would be nice if the PATRIOT act hadn’t fucked everyone’s opinion on privacy.
All of this is at best tangential.
The NSA broke no law. The article’s headline implies that the NSA broke the law. This headline is misleading.
You don’t need to simp for an agency that spies on innocent civilians, you really don’t.
Yes, wanting factual, unbiased journalism truly is the greatest form of simping.
You clearly didn’t read the tail end of my original comment. Fabricated grievances dilute genuine ones. This publication is crying wolf. This makes people pay less attention when news breaks about an actual fuckup.