On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 03:47:48 +0000 Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:31 PM juan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:22:30 +0000 > > Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM juan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Sean, who apparently doesn't know that google and > > > > the rest of 'technology' psychos are US military contractors > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRISM required (and received) no cooperation from Facebook or > > > Google, > > > > > > Now you are barefacedly lying? > > > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337863/PRISM-Google-Facebook-DID-allow-NSA-access-data-talks-set-spying-rooms-despite-denials-Zuckerberg-Page-controversial-project.html > > > > You are a piece of shit Sean. > > > > > You apparently aren't capable of reading articles past obvious > clickbait headlines. Both companies have "portals" where law > enforcement can submit requests that either have a warrant Not what the article says. Not what the wikipedia article says. Not what the wired article says. Are you joking, completely retarded, or a government agent. Now your tune is that the NSA surveillance is 'legal' and they have 'warrants' - are you out of your fucking, retarded mind? > or where > they can show probable cause that someone's in immediate danger. Both > companies also release reports with the number of requests they > received, how many they responded to with the requested information, > how many partially responded, how many they denied. This should be > obvious to anyone with half a brain; the law requires the companies > to respond to your typical warrants, and it's way more efficient to > give them a single form to fill out and a place to download > responsive archives than it is to have them emailing or calling > random people or showing up at random offices with warrants. > > Which is exactly what this article YOU LINKED BUT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT > READ says. > > Yet I'm somehow the piece of shit here.
