Apple, Tim Cook and Others Sued Over Alleged NSA/PRISM Privacy Violations

[Wild-Bill]

'What is happening' may occur naturally, but it's clearly being accelerated for some reason.

It certainly seems that way. This is ***just*** my opinion, but I think there are forces at work here who have been and continue to be outraged that a black man holds the highest office in the land, and want to get him out of office prematurely.

(My theory is that certain groups are trying to make the bible come true (artificially) and to transform religion. Hence I don't care, it's no big deal...)

Even scarier than that is the fact that some of those ^^^^ people are in Congress and trying to steer things that way. I guess they never heard of "separation of church and state".

I really don't want to believe it, but I have this really nagging feeling that, within my lifetime, this world is going to resemble something like Mad Max and that scares me.

 

[3282868]

It certainly seems that way. This is ***just*** my opinion, but I think there are forces at work here who have been and continue to be outraged that a black man holds the highest office in the land, and want to get him out of office prematurely.



Even scarier than that is the fact that some of those ^^^^ people are in Congress and trying to steer things that way. I guess they never heard of "separation of church and state".

I really don't want to believe it, but I have this really nagging feeling that, within my lifetime, this world is going to resemble something like Mad Max and that scares me.

You have expressed everything that I have been fearing for a while. Couple this with over-population, climate change impacting weather patterns and agriculture, lack of affordable health care and higher education, increased civil unrest brought on by a divided nation/globe over party lines and media rhetoric, I don't see a bright future. If things continue in this manner, we'll either kill each other in a WWIII, destroy ourselves and planet as our population is exploding, or die from an "unknown" outbreak with a "cure" that comes out after a few billion die off. These aren't far fetched notions, but very real.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Doesn't matter - the "system" would never let him win anyway.

You mean the voters? Paulists never seem to get that only a small fraction of the population agrees with his views. So that must be the fault of "the system," not in what Paul espouses. Naturally.

 

[GoldenJoe]

They shouldn't be suing the companies. If the government wants Verizon's, or Apple's, or anyone else's data, they're going to get it. It's called compliance.

The only target of lawsuits in this case should be the government itself. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that these suits will amount to anything more than another media circus. If you don't like it, start changing your voting behavior.

 

[Lark.Landon]

Absolutely. People don't realize the corporate influence on governments and policy. For decades this has been happening, back to the beginning of "big oil" and their collusion with GM and state politicians that put L.A,'s electric mass transit system out of commission, leading us to the mess it is today. Google it, it's amazing that in the 1920-30's L.A. had the best electric mass transit system in the nation until GM and oil companies worked together with politicians in putting it out of commission, and tax dollars to build highways for buses and cars,

The terms "government" and "corporation" are practically one and the same. Democrat, Republican, they're both doing the same things, some vote for the "lesser of two evils", one party grandstands one election year, then the other the next. From campaign contributions to party influence and policies, this isn't a "democracy" and we are far from free, it's an illusion and a grand one. We're so programmed to buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume through our media, we don't even realize we're rats on a spinning wheel, greasing the industry and living in ignorant bliss. At least communism is upfront about it, here, they dress it up with apple pie and a side of ice cream.

I completely agree. The two party system IMHO does not work. It is merely a show to keep people thinking that they're making a difference or creating some type of change in our country.

 

[roadbloc]

All I can say about this is: Good!

 

[robbyx]

Great speech, would have been awsome back in 2001 when the Patriot Act was introduced, now it's too late. I'm not a democrat, but I'm not going to blame Obama administration for expanding on something introduced back in 2001.

I blame this administration and our current batch of do-nothing crooks in Congress for renewing and strengthening it. Sad that this is what our country has come to.

 

[henryonapple]

Haha. I can hear the gov laghing like in Austin powers when dr evil asks for such a relatively low amount...

i wonder if any of them will settle though......even .001% would be a significant amount

 

[robbyx]

Revisionist history. Policy has not changed. Spying technology is just better now.

And that makes it right? Either you care about privacy or you don't. Either you believe in the individual's right to a life free from constant surveillance by unnamed government entities or you don't. Which is it?

----------

That is not entirely true, this data mining is all still being done under the Patriot Act Title: II and warrants are still required. Unfortunately the warrants are obtained in secret courts who immediately approve all requests. They literally approve request 100% of the time and their rulings are classified.

Face it, nobody cared about it the Patriot Act when Bush was in office, but it's Obama's fault now, just like how the national debt is suddenly Obama's fault.

Obama could have let it expire. He chose not to. Our current crop of incompetent Senators and Congresspeople could have dropped it. But of course they wanted more. And yet, despite all of this monitoring, the Boston bombing still happened. So what exactly has all this spying on Americans accomplished?

Of course no one cared about the Patriot Act under Bush. They were too scared of the terrorist boogeyman. And understandably so. But now? Is that our nation? One nation under fear?

----------

Look at how the media times every story. The script is obviously planned in back rooms.



'What is happening' may occur naturally, but it's clearly being accelerated for some reason. If you're truly disgusted, then you're a bigger sheep than those who don't care because someone is up there playing with us. (My theory is that certain groups are trying to make the bible come true (artificially) and to transform religion. Hence I don't care, it's no big deal...)

Well, aren't you smart.

 

[DisMyMac]

This is ***just*** my opinion, but I think there are forces at work here who have been and continue to be outraged that a black man holds the highest office in the land,

This and all presidents are a part of the act. They have been colluding since the 1960s, and there hasn't been one real scandal since then worth noticing.

Even scarier than that is the fact that some of those ^^^^ people are in Congress and trying to steer things that way. I guess they never heard of "separation of church and state".

THERE IS NOTHING SCARY HAPPENING. That's the whole point: right now government is less corrupt than it's ever been, not counting the general deception.

I really don't want to believe it, but I have this really nagging feeling that, within my lifetime, this world is going to resemble something like Mad Max and that scares me.

Only God or aliens can do that. There will be no collapse, no race wars, no Mad Max, so get over it...

 

[WilliamLondon]

I completely agree. The two party system IMHO does not work. It is merely a show to keep people thinking that they're making a difference or creating some type of change in our country.

No, it doesn't, but this whole two-party system is an easy way for people to draw two circles into which everyone in life is placed, starting with putting oneself in one circle and the bad people in the other. Such a simplistic way to manage life requires simple ways to identify good and bad people, such as labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when they are meant to represent something substantial and meaningful but in reality represent nothing more than a moron's polemic. But an ignorant and knowledge eschewing public prefers sound bites, catch phrases and buzz words to inform them, and those who use them, use them intentionally to manipulate popular opinion.

Personally, I'd do away completely with all parties (including affiliations and associations) and force every candidate to explain exactly their positions on the issues *we* the public decide are the ones we want *them* to focus on. It would force the public to actually research and learn what a candidate stood for if they wanted to consider themselves "informed", rather than lazily relying on labels which mean nothing. Oh, how quickly people would realise the extent of their ignorance.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

While I am not "happy" about the NSA monitoring all communications, I think one has to consider the alternative that could happen if we fail to protect this country from more Radical Islamic attacks in the long run. Radical Islam doesn't respect your freedom of speech, your freedom of thought, your freedom of anything for that matter. It expects you to obey hardline Islamic teachings or else. And while there very well may be a lot more peaceful Muslims than radical right-wing fundamentalists, they don't seem to stand up against the radical elements very often (i.e. a desire for peace doesn't overcome violence too often in this world even when it outnumbers it or small numbers of people or even individuals like Hitler couldn't have done or do the damage they do. Might may not make right, but it makes real world problems all too often).

The NSA doesn't care about petty crimes. They don't care what you had to eat. They don't care what movie you're planning to go see. Their only function is national security so unless you're a terrorist, what they do and how they do it as no real effect on your life, other than perhaps to protect it from the radical elements that would like to destroy your freedoms, rather than uphold them. All I know is that one more major terrorist attack and the attitudes screaming about violation of their right to privacy would die down instantly out of sheer fear. And you should be afraid of those groups because they don't listen to their governments. They ARE their governments in the case of many of these Middle Eastern countries. And all those people in places like Egypt that just hated their dictator run (yet mostly secular) governments, are now going to get a taste of what it's like to have NO freedoms what-so-ever or protections.

Be careful what you wish for. All those people we sent to Iraq to die in order to oust Saddam Hussein (whether or not that was the real reason for doing it doesn't really change things at this point) could find their deaths in vain if radicals take over the country in the long run. Saddam may have been an evil tyrant, but there's a difference between selfish psychopathic behavior and the lunatic fringe that think their god ordered them to kill everyone because some cleric (that is just another dictator in disguise) told them so.

All this left/right in-fighting in this country is only making it that much easier for more radical elements to get a hold here. It may start with smaller groups like the tea party that have at least some legitimate concerns, but IMO think the answer is revolution or voting to do nothing all day long, but the bigger the divides, the easier for more and more radical groups to gain followers, particularly when the large groups spread so much BS lies and propaganda nonsense (like has been done with Obama's country of origin, etc.) that ordinary people lose all their common sense and get all angry and crazy over LIES. These types are then ready to believe just about anything and that is dangerous.

My case in point are the very lawsuits mentioned in this thread. What good does it do to sue Apple or Verizon or any other private company that is simply complying with U.S. law??? (i.e. The Patriot Act gives the NSA all the authority it needs). If these groups want to change that law, start a campaign to repeal it, but SUING is just another way to hand your money over to a bunch of lawyers that will gladly take any case (even one that is guaranteed to lose) so long as you pay them enough money. It's ridiculous and it's barking up the wrong tree (i.e. it won't change the law that allows it in the first place).

Frankly, I think I sleep better at night knowing these guys are actively trying to find terrorists and stop them BEFORE they attack. Waiting until afterwards doesn't do the people that died one bit of good and yet that's what it apparently takes in this country to get people's attention that hey, it's better to PREVENT an attack than suffer one and try to get revenge for it (Iraq) as revenge cycles tend to continue on forever and the very people we want to not hate us tend to hate us that much more and listen to radical elements they might not otherwise have listened to.

Now I might agree that there should be some oversight to these sorts of government operations. I don't think the NSA should be able to just lie to Congress as has been claimed. With all the myths surrounding things like Roswell, it's obvious that they can and do lie to protect whatever the real truth is through dis-information. A simple acknowledgement of this sort of behavior would go a long way, IMO. Yes, we do use dis-information to protect national security is better than telling everyone Area 51 doesn't exist when it clearly does.

But the idea of stopping monitoring potential links to potential terrorism is a bad idea. Having dis-interested people monitor for terrorism is no different than the TSA using a metal detector or body scanner to looks for potential weapons being brought on board a plane. Yeah, it's annoying (and I don't like the idea of x-rays being used on a regular basis), but frankly, no terrorist is going to TELL the airport he's got a weapon on him. Would you rather be inconvenienced a little or would you rather be dead when the bad guy blows up the plane because they thought frisking him might violate his right to absolute freedom? I guess people are going to have to decide which one is more important to them in the long run because I don't see these radical groups being wiped off the face of the earth any time soon. It's just not realistic.

 

[dukebound85]

The odds of a terrorist attack are so slim that I would much rather have my affairs kept away from the government and take that risk.

 

[Solomani]

The lawsuit is going to fail.... because it is too broad. It targets just about every government and business institution that dominates US society today.

Had they gone after and focused on one or two weaker entities, the lawsuit may have had a chance (small chance).

 

[corinhorn]

While I am not "happy" about the NSA monitoring all communications, I think one has to consider the alternative that could happen if we fail to protect this country from more Radical Islamic attacks in the long run. Radical Islam doesn't respect your freedom of speech, your freedom of thought, your freedom of anything for that matter. It expects you to obey hardline Islamic teachings or else.

The NSA doesn't care about petty crimes. They don't care what you had to eat. They don't care what movie you're planning to go see. Their only function is national security so unless you're a terrorist, what they do and how they do it as no real effect on your life, other than perhaps to protect it from the radical elements that would like to destroy your freedoms, rather than uphold them. All I know is that one more major terrorist attack and the attitudes screaming about violation of their right to privacy would die down instantly out of sheer fear.


Frankly, I think I sleep better at night knowing these guys are actively trying to find terrorists and stop them BEFORE they attack.

Some germans used your logic when they chose Hitler. They chose security, and look what they got.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The odds of a terrorist attack are so slim that I would much rather have my affairs kept away from the government and take that risk.

So in other words, you choose paranoia over precaution?

The odds I'll get in an automobile accident tomorrow are pretty darn slim, but I still wear my seat-belt just in case. And in fact, on two occasions in a quarter century, that practice probably saved my life. Frankly, it's hard to tell how many more terrorist incidents we my have had since 2001 if we had not ramped up security and monitoring. Your "slim" odds may be very well be slim in the first place because of the precautions taken. There are people that choose to not wear their seat-belts and I read in the newspaper all the time of them going through windshields and dying. It can and does happen to someone sooner or later if precautions are thrown to the wind. I'm sure many people used to think the same about condoms at one point until diseases like AIDS became so prevalent and commonplace that people started to take the risks seriously.

 

[Lark.Landon]

No, it doesn't, but this whole two-party system is an easy way for people to draw two circles into which everyone in life is placed, starting with putting oneself in one circle and the bad people in the other. Such a simplistic way to manage life requires simple ways to identify good and bad people, such as labels like "conservative" or "liberal" when they are meant to represent something substantial and meaningful but in reality represent nothing more than a moron's polemic. But an ignorant and knowledge eschewing public prefers sound bites, catch phrases and buzz words to inform them, and those who use them, use them intentionally to manipulate popular opinion.

Personally, I'd do away completely with all parties (including affiliations and associations) and force every candidate to explain exactly their positions on the issues *we* the public decide are the ones we want *them* to focus on. It would force the public to actually research and learn what a candidate stood for if they wanted to consider themselves "informed", rather than lazily relying on labels which mean nothing. Oh, how quickly people would realise the extent of their ignorance.

Exactly. You can go to pretty much any news article that is political in nature and see nothing but "conservatives" pitted against "liberals" and vice-versa. I wish people would just realise that they're wasting energy trying to fight and argue with one another over mundane issues and trivial differences. We all want one thing: a better America.

 

[superfunkomatic]

Sue the Obama Administration

I'm Canadian and think that is absurd. The Patriot Act that allows these sweeping powers was under George Bush - Republican. Why is everything a divisive political issue? It doesn't matter who 'big brother' is, only that laws need to be changed in your country to avoid this type of breach of trust. The scary thing is that this 'snooping' is quickly involving many other nations.

 

[0007776]

Let's hope that this lawsuit is successful

I definitely wish it would be, but I doubt it. I expect it to have the same results as lawsuits against similar behavior during the Bush administration, the government will use the state secrets act to make it go away wothout an actual trial.

 

[Swift]

A. This is Larry Klayman

His former claim to fame was to pile on during the Clinton years in support of one crazy conspiracy or the other. Gave a lot of people huge legal bills, but never won anything I can remember. But he may have a point here.

However, the ACLU has already sued the government. The feds pleaded national security and that was it. And interestingly, as far as I know, when the PRISM (or whatever it's called) program was brought in under the law -- instead of Bush just claiming wartime executive privilege -- they had to give the telcos immunity from prosecution for complying with this law.

And the infamous slideshow claims that Google, Apple, etc., are "service providers." They're not. That would be the telcos and the cables. The ISPs. Which is NOT Google, Apple, etc. So maybe the laws have changed to allow direct access and to indemnify more people, or this slide show is made by the NSA PR department, and PR departments have never been the brightest bulbs.

 

[Cavepainter]

This is ***just*** my opinion, but I think there are forces at work here who have been and continue to be outraged that a black man holds the highest office in the land, and want to get him out of office prematurely.

Well, you can add the ACLU to that list of "forces" that seem to want a black man ousted from the presidency- because the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit of their own against the Obama Administration for NSA phone surveillance.

Please, lets not bring race into this.

 

[AmpSkillz]

Any chance you have a cite for this claim? Or are you just making an assumption?

Search google for things like secret courts NSA

That's not true. Lots of us cared about the Patriot Act, but we got run over by the right wingers and the complicit democrats who were too scared to stand up and do what was right. Now we're stuck with it.

I mean comparatively. If you we're to claim the current level of outrage is not several fold higher you would be lying. Not to mention that this has been going on since Bush was in office, it never stopped, and is just suddenly an issue again. Nothing this whistle blower has claimed should really be that new or shocking to anyone.

----------

If their rulings are classified, how do you know their requests are always approved?

In light of recent news coverage and renewed interest they did reveal their process for obtaining the necessary warrants along with how many requests have been denied, which was zero.

You can search google for NSA warrants secret courts etc

 

[sam10685]

That's a lot of claims. Against some really powerful people. Hope it's a win.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Contrary to our abilities to actually read bills (something congressmen rarely do themselves) and consider the ambitions and track record of the post-WWII US Government (or any ambitious political & military leaders in recorded history), the republicans told us there was no concern over granting extraordinary powers when it the bush league in office, and the democrats repeated it when they took over. The mountain of BS is high, and both sides are equally complicit in what 35 years ago would have utterly gutted our government. Conversely, if Nixon were president today, he'd be untouchable.

After 12 years of paying attention to developments, & seeing the US doing exactly what terrorists want, imploding in a recoil of paranoia and fear, I'm glad. Glad that this is finally growing from tinfoil-hat-wearing wacko fodder to a topic of national discussion. Maybe in another 24 the US will finally get off its nostalgic arse and consider actually doing something about it. It's going to take a lot of baby boomers dying off first though.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

You probably didn't notice that Apple has already taken action - in the future, Google will not be asked about any Siri requests anymore, but Microsoft's Bing will be used instead; that should be a significant reduction of privacy risks.

Based on what exactly?