Monday, December 16, 2013

Big Fucking Deal Report

That The New York Times believes this to be a big deal, or even meaningful, says what needs to be said about said organization.
The New York Times BREAKING NEWS ALERT
NYTimes.com
BREAKING NEWSMonday, December 16, 2013 3:32 PM EST
Judge Rules Against N.S.A. Bulk Collection of Phone Data
A federal district court judge ruled on Monday that the National Security Agency program that is systematically keeping records of all Americans’ phone calls most likely violates the Constitution, and he ordered the government to stop collecting data on two plaintiffs’ personal calls and destroy the records of their calling history.

READ MORE »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?emc=edit_na_20131216
Newser please. Live in the real world for thirty seconds; nothing short of life imprisonment for all involved & complete destruction of all the hardware might stop it for a while; a piece of paper from an activist judge not worth the match it takes to light it stops nothing. How many divisions does that judge have?

And now that we've read it (The alert, not the entire item. Are you fucking kidding?) the phrase "most likely violates the Constitution" leaps at us. That's a hell of a finding. Is that legal? Or even a decision?

1 comment:

  1. Apparently it is so significant that blooger is not updating your posts in the floating blog roll...I still have


    Just Another Blog (From L. A.)™
    A Message
    1 day ago

    in mine.
    ~

    ReplyDelete

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have an attorney present while you are commenting. If you cannot afford an attorney, you are "Shit Outta Luck" (SOL). Anything you type here can & may be used against you in a court of law or in a personal "beat-down" administered by a staff member or "associate" of this "web log."

The publisher thanks Google/Bugger for denecessitating verification. (Not that we need explain anything to anyone.)