Yes, Actually, the NSA Says They Can Eavesdrop on Phone Calls Without Warrants (UPDATED)


Next we'll find out Siri is actually an NSA intern with a voice modulator

I've run out of interesting ways of combining humor, horror and outrage to introduce the latest National Security Agency revelations. Here you go. Read what Declan McCullagh at CNet reports:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

I'm guessing we can look forward to the "We would never use this power irresponsibly" arguments.

UPDATE: Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute worries that the statements from the briefing could be the subject of misinterpretation:

One possibility is just that Rep. Nadler is talking about analysts having discretion to get the subscriber information on a suspicious number and blurring that with content. But those are two pretty different things, and it seems unlikely he'd make that error. So let's assume for a moment that's not it.

What seems more likely is that Nadler is saying analysts sifting through metadata have the discretion to determine (on the basis of what they're seeing in the metadata) that a particular phone number or e-mail account satisfies the conditions of one of the broad authorizations for electronic surveillance under ยง702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Those authorizations allow the targeting of whole groups or "categories of intelligence targets," as the administration puts it.  Once the FISA Court approves targeting procedures, they have no further role in deciding which specific accounts can be spied on. This is, as those of us who wrote about the FAA during its recent reauthorization observed, kind of a problem.

Read his comments here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: NSA Admits It Can Listen to Domestic Calls Without Warrants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. From the 24/7 posting:
    …”contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”…

    IOWs, exactly as Snowden claimed, and as was denied by Obozo and every other damn sleaze-bag apologist.
    Hey, Obozo, where’s that ‘oversight’?

    1. I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.

      Now how do you feel about it?

      1. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:07PM |#
        “I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.”

        You miserable lying sack of shit, show me ONCE where I supported what you claim. Just ONCE, lying shitstain!
        And go fuck your daddy, since you’ll never find that.
        How stupid are are and how stupid do you wish to appear, asshole?

        1. And go fuck your daddy, since you’ll never find that.

          Finally. Somebody comes up with the perfect Fathers Day gift from PB!

      2. “Tu quoque” is not actually a valid form of logical argument. Like, even assuming your premises are true, it doesn’t lead to a valid conclusion. So why are you wasting time with it? Are you too stupid to understand that it doesn’t work, you poor son of a bitch?

        1. “Are you too stupid to understand that it doesn’t work, you poor son of a bitch?”
          Yes, that lying pile of shit is that stupid.

        2. I am not using “Tu quoque”. I am arguing that the blame should be placed on the originator of the evil law.

          It is similar to my hatred of the DH in MLB. Do I blame today’s MLB commissioner? No, I blame AL owners and commissioner from 1973.

          1. “Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:32PM |#
            “I am not using “Tu quoque”. I am arguing that the blame should be placed on the originator of the evil law.”

            You stupid shit, you don’t even know what tu quoque means.
            You are arguing *exactly* that; “my asshole is blameless since another asshole started it”.

            1. “Tu quoque” is literally “You too.” In this case he means, “Your boy too.”

              Three things about that:
              ? I didn’t vote for either Bush either time.
              ? I don’t remember anyone at the time claiming the federal government under GWB was eavesdropping warrantlessly on the US public without an actual foreign call being in progress, either actually listening or collecting “metadata.”
              ? I remember an awful lot of people here being upset over the Patriot Act, FISA ’07 and ’08 as they were being considered and passed. I know I wasn’t happy about them.

          2. Why do you even post here?

            I mean, I know you’re a troll and want to elicit a response, but outside of Sevo no one around here really gets that worked up over a one-trick retard such as yourself.

            Is it that everyone calling you Dear Leader’s court cocksucker gives you some sort of vicarious thrill?

            I am truly curious what the pathology is behind your obsession with Obama and your ersatz belief that everyone here was/is a huge Bush supporter.

            No shittin’ man, what’s your deal?

            1. Is it that everyone calling you Dear Leader’s court cocksucker gives you some sort of vicarious thrill?

              So you’re arguing that Shreeky is Chris Matthews? ๐Ÿ™‚

              1. No, that he just lives his fantasies through someone like Matthews.

                Hell, shrike’s head would probably explode in pleasure if he got to exclaim his love for Dear Leader on national television.

                1. Hell, shrike’s head would probably explode in pleasure if he got to exclaim his love for Dear Leader on national television.

                  You mean like Commander Remmick’s head?

                  1. You mean like Commander Remmick’s head?

                    Any head exploding that happens in my imagination is required to be the guy from Scanners, or Budd Dwyer if that guy is taking a smoke break.

                    1. Budd Dwyer

                      Thus the Dwyer Rule: Never give a BJ to a .357.

            2. I posted here well before Obama was a serious candidate. And I don’t really care about him – I hate the GOP.

              You see, I once really thought the GOP was the party of fiscal restraint. Man, was I ever really fooled about that. 2001-09 was the biggest escalation of spending and religious statism/warmongering in my lifetime — no question.

              I want the GOP punished with oblivion. I want them vanquished and then have a new party take their place.

              1. I posted here well before Obama was a serious candidate.

                Lie. You see, I was actually on here during that time and this place had more hatred for Bush than your pathetic soul could ever muster.

                And I don’t really care about him…

                Yeah, okay. That’s why you rush to defend him and deflect blame like a beaten woman. Christ man, if you got off of your knees every once in awhile and opened your eyes you’d see what a squirmy little sycophant you’ve been all these years.

                You see, I once really thought the GOP was the party of fiscal restraint.

                So you want to punish the people that said that all along for your stupidity?

                I want them vanquished and then have a new party take their place.

                Yes, you want them replaced by the democratic party.

                1. You’re lying – except for the part about the Bush hatred here. That was very real.

                  1. …except for the part about the Bush hatred here. That was very real.

                    Yeah, then what the fuck is your problem, dude? I think it’s about time for you to find a new blog to haunt.

                    You know, like one that is actually for republicans.

              2. More than anything else, people of you ilk NEED to belong to a political tribe; otherwise, you feel that you have no utility. You’re a goddamned follower, guy. Man up and learn to rely on your own intuition instead of blindly following a team.

                1. You’re an idiot drunk, Otis. I voted LP every year 1988-2000 until I went anti-GOP then voted LP again in 2012.

                  1. No one named Otis could ever be called a drunk.

                  2. Your bullshit voting record has fuckall to do with your unconditional defense of this administration. You really think that saying you voting LP is going to buy you any credibility among the people who post here? Are you seriously that fucking stupid after spending the last 5 years flaming these boards? You’re a statist nitwit and you are complicit in burying our civil liberties. Own it, asshole.

                    And where the fuck did the “drunk” comment come from?

                    1. I’m coming late to the Shreek-thrashing party, but I think I believe him. And I think I need to reconsider the theory that he trolls here, or that he’s an Obama apologist.

                      It’s clear to me now that he’s schizophrenic, and deserves our sympathy and support during these trying times. He doesn’t lash out to hurt us; he’s lashing out at his demons.

                    2. You’re only saying that because you’re a closet Bush fan and am trying to hide it.

                      Fucking christgfag motherfucker, bet you believe the world’s 6000 years old, christfag. Fucking bushpig motherfucker.

                    3. +2 personalities

                    4. He is mistaking your Groucho Marx name with Otis the Town Drunk from “Andy Griffith Show”.

                  3. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 10:17PM |#

                    You’re an idiot drunk, Otis. I voted LP every year 1988-2000 until I went anti-GOP then voted LP again in 2012

                    But you just said that
                    “You see, I once really thought the GOP was the party of fiscal restraint. Man, was I ever really fooled about that. 2001-09 was the biggest escalation of spending and religious statism/warmongering in my lifetime — no question.

                    So why did you vote LP if you bought into GOP bullshit and why do you hate them for betraying your non support?

            3. No shittin’ man, what’s your deal?

              Here’s his deal: he’s a “JournoList”. Coordinating talking points amongst his buddies and shilling for this scumbag Obama is his job.

          3. No, this is what you said:

            “I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.”

            One could print that in a textbook on fallacies under the heading “tu quoque,” it’s so deliciously apt.

            Also, ACLU types are now given to waving away civil liberties violations when their team is in power? That’s news to me.

          4. I am not using “Tu quoque”.

            Yes, actually you are. Obama could stop this shit today, but instead he defends it while the DOJ more than quadruples warrantless wiretaps. You’re an unprincipled piece of shit.

            1. Liar. I have never defended warrantless wiretapping. I have commented on the legality of such though.

              1. You defend it every time you chime in with “Yeah, but BOOOOOOSH!”. You’re complicit and you are an unbelievable pig fucker.

            2. Oh, and it’s your God Emperor’s signature on the latest copy of the PATRIOT Act.

          5. ALL of the blame?!? I get it. Warmonger Obama continues the warmongering policies of LBJ Nixon Clinton BOOOSH BOOOSH and when Cult-Leader Barry drone assassinates somebody it’s no more serious than Big Papi not playing first base — ain’t his fucking fault, it’s that other guy that the asswipes don’t like.

      3. I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.

        Now how do you feel about it?

        This cunt would defend a complete dismantling of the Bill of Rights with “yeah, but BOOOOOSH…” You are complicit in the erosion of our civil liberties by defending these criminal cocksuckers and I would gladly part your hair with a tire iron should our paths ever cross. Please get AIDS.

        1. Typical response from a greasy-haired Bush redneck who would never defend civil liberties until now that it is politically expedient.

          1. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:41PM |#
            “Typical response from a greasy-haired Bush redneck who would never defend civil liberties until now that it is politically expedient.”

            Got any evidence of your claim, shitstain?

            1. The nearby tire iron is a dead giveaway.

              1. I can’t imagine what this twat must whisper to his friends when he sees a black guy or a Puerto Rican woman.

              2. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:48PM |#
                “The nearby tire iron is a dead giveaway.”
                So what did your daddy do to you to make you so stupid?
                Did he tell you you couldn’t fuck your momma? Is that it?
                Did mommy and pop then lock you in the basement?
                What does it take to cause the stupidity you post here? I’m pretty sure it takes something beyond gov’t-schooling, but I could be wrong. Is that what we should presume causes your stupidity, shreek?

              3. BP, I can totally get into your hatred of Bush and the Rethuglicans, but your infantile father worship of the Demonic-Rat Barack “Jim Jones” Obama and his War Kult escapes me……

                That Kool-Aid is poison and I think you know it.

          2. I shave my head and voted for RP. What else have you got, Shreek?

        2. Please get AIDS.

          I think the president has been tested, so he’s safe unless the wookie brings home rabies, or something.

      4. Needs more Christfag.

        1. Got plenty of lying asshole.

      5. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:07PM |#

        I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.


      6. Cut paste comment straight from huffpo or salon?

    2. Actually, I’m quite happy for the Administration and its toadies to keep lying about this. The more they lie, the more rope they give Greenwald to hang them with – since Congresspeople who have been briefed are claiming that’s what been made public so far is only “the tip of the iceberg”, Greenwald claims there are more stories coming, and Snowden allegedly made off with four hard drives full of data, I don’t doubt that there’s more explosive stuff to come. If a few stories of actual (rather than just hypothetical) abuses of the powers of these programs emerge, this could turn into an Administration-destroying scandal (as it ought to).

  2. Oh, and, from the comments:
    “You can tell a lot about how things are going for presidents by the following method: The less flattering the accompanying picture, the more trouble a president is in.”
    And the lede and photo:

    1. He looks more like the Grinch with each passing year.

      However, the Obama is far more joyless than the Grinch ever was.

      1. “However, the Obama is far more joyless than the Grinch ever was.”

        Damning with faint praise, but I agree.

    2. “The less flattering the accompanying picture, the more trouble a president is in.”

      You’re right!
      His nose in this picture looks like the bottom part of an old Electrolux carpet sweeper.

  3. I’m guessing we can look forward to the “We would never use this power irresponsibly” arguments.

    By simply doing it, they already have used this power irresponsibly. It isn’t a matter of using the power to listen in on a phone call without a warrant for nefarious purposes that is the issue, because exercising that power is a nefarious purpose.

  4. Well, Obama did promise to listen to all the people…

    1. Dude’s got a point! Roll that beautiful bean footage!

      1. Needs more typo

  5. Not that I don’t believe they may be doing this, let’s remember this is the recollection of a single congressman who may be confusing some details.

    1. Possible, but given he’s a D, the incentive would be to ‘remember’ otherwise.
      Dunno if you’re old enough to remember leaks from congressional ‘briefings’ re Nixon; compare team bias to the comment.

    2. Exactly what I was thinking. It’s also a little strange that the hearing Nadler brought this up in was several days ago, but it’s only now becoming a thing. But maybe not everybody watches C-SPAN3 as obsessively as I do.

      1. But maybe not everybody watches C-SPAN3 as obsessively as I do.

        This is your problem….

    3. The recollection appears to be from just a few days ago. And, Ms. Feinstein seems to corroborate it. FTA:

      “Then I can say the following,” Nadler said. “We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that…In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

      Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency’s analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”

      1. Ugh, thanks for reminding me that Feinstein is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. A sure sign of malfeasance, that.

  6. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.15.13 @ 9:07PM |#
    “I remember when us ACLU types were complaining when Bush started these programs you Team Red jackasses were all “but Bush is keeping us safe!”.
    Now how do you feel about it?”

    BTW, you steaming pile if shit, I notice you have nothing to say about stopping it now. You’re just thrilled to lie about others supporting it in the past.
    So, in answer to you ‘ACLU type’ you’re a sleazy hypocrite.

    1. There is no stopping it now since it was all neatly made legal in 2008.

      Maybe 2016 but I doubt it will be sneak past abortion as the #1 GOP issue.

      1. General Butt Naked| 6.15.13 @ 9:44PM |#
        “Why do you even post here?
        I mean, I know you’re a troll and want to elicit a response, but outside of Sevo no one around here really gets that worked up over a one-trick retard such as yourself.”

        GBN, thanks. Enough with shitstain.

        1. GBN, thanks. Enough with shitstain.

          You have to admit that you get worked up a bit. No offense meant.

          1. See below. Suffering fools is not one of my skills. Mrs. Sevo has had comments on the issue.

            1. Mrs. Sevo is right. Chill out and let these people make asses out of themselves.

              No one in the entire universe thinks they are making good points, or are anything other than trolls. You can relax, man.

              1. Nothing makes me madder than to see a troll get the better of someone on here.

    2. Sevo, stop talking to it like it’s human. Please!

      It wil ldo wonder’s for both your blood pressure and the time spent on more worthy things.

      for example, instead of responding to shriek, you could watch a youtube clip of honey boo boo, which is far mroe intelligent and edifying than shriek’s racist arguments that Obama is Bush’s puppet and possesses no agency of his own.

      1. tarran| 6.15.13 @ 10:03PM |#
        “Sevo, stop talking to it like it’s human. Please!”

        Epi claims entirely too many socks. OTOH, I did quit responding to WI early on.
        Suffering fools isn’t easy, but responding to them may be more difficult.

  7. Missed out on the hit and run dipsomaniac role call last night, visiting folks.

    Tonight, it’s bourbon sour (fresh queried lemon juice, simple syrup, egg white), followed by mint julep.

    Really thinking gin for the next one.

    NSA: help me out here. What should I drink next?

    1. NSA: help me out here. What should I drink next?


      Wine coolers.

      1. Fresh out of both, ‘fraud it has to be bourbon or gin.

        Luckily, we’ve now identified one of the NSA agents in our midst. Narc.

        1. ‘fraud it has to be bourbon or gin.

          Yes, bourbon and gin are frauds.

          Of course, you could drink both bourbon AND gin.

          1. Fucking ipad keyboard and spell check conspiring to make me look like an idiot.

            (Nice and slow, right over the plate)

            1. You don’t need an ipad keyboard to look like an idiot. :-p

              1. but it’s like wearing a sign around your neck ๐Ÿ™‚

              2. That’s a single, with an error at first for an extra base.

    2. I’m going with the Old Fashioned. Brown sugar simple syrup, muddled cherry, bourbon, bitters, orange rind.

      I might go bourbon sour next though.

      1. That is a fine drink – vastly under recognized now too.

      2. http://oldfashioned101.com/

        I don’t necessarily approve of muddled fruit. Just the orange peel. But damn, I love an old fashioned.

        Sazerac may be my favorite cocktail (absinthe rinse, rye whiskey, peychaud’s bitters)

        1. I don’t usually approve of the muddled fruit either. I usually just do the bitters, a brown sugar cube, and a lemon peel. But I bought some fresh cherries today so I thought I’d try it that way.

          A sazarac is absolutely my favorite cocktail. I’m out of rye though.

          You could try a Kentucky Maid if you’ve got limes and cucumbers. It’s sort of a mint julip + whiskey sour.

          1. Interesting. Seems akin to a mojito, too. I really like cucumbers with Hendrick’s Gin (not tonight’s gin, though). A Hendrick’s Martini, with Lillet Blanc rather than dry vermouth, garnished with a cucumber, it’s awesome.

            And here’s an English Tart making one.

            1. That sounds good. I’ve never used Lillet but I might do thatt next time I make a martini.

              1. Lillet is pretty awesome. Lillet on the rocks with a slice of orange? Wonderful summer drink. Lillet and gin? Awesome Martini. Lillet and Soda? Damn tasty on a hot day.

            2. Screaming Viking.

        2. I like that oldfashioned101 link, BTW. I’m in sort on an ongoing argument with a friend about what should and should be in an old fashioned. She went to school in Wisconsin and they put all kinds of bullshit into a drink and still call it an old fashioned.

          1. oh, that’s right. Wisconsin is all wrong on old fashioned. Granted, in times of no whiskey, I’ve made a cognac or rum old fashioned (cognac: good; rum: not).

            But yea. No soda. God help you if I find soda.

            1. God help you if I find soda.

              Soda as in club soda or as in Coke/Pepsi?

              1. No that’s pop.

              2. I think in WI they put in Sprite.

              3. Club soda, of course. Coke or Pepsi are”pop”.

                  1. It occurs to me that the soda/pop/coke by county map doesn’t make it to Canada. Based on my Canadian cousins, I can only assume that, rather than say pop or soda in canada, they put milk in a bag, and then put ketchup on scrambled eggs.

                    Seriously, though, it’s mostly called soda, right? Been long enough since I visited said cousins that I don’t entirely remember.

                    1. POP

                    2. I’m sorry I ever doubted you, friend. You’re absolutely right.

                    3. I always called carbonated soft drinks “soda” while everyone else called it “pop”. Soda to me describes the chemical properties of the drink, while “pop” sounds like dumb shit slang.

                      Milk in bags? Canadians are fucking weird, man.

                    4. Goddamn right cannuckistanis are weird.

                      Pop. It’s pop.

                    5. I, and pretty much everyone I ever met growing up in California, call it soda. I remember being told that people in some places called it pop, but I didn’t meet anyone who called it that until college.

                    6. I grew up in Baltimore, spent most of my adult life in California. It’s soda all the way down. “Pop” is the mark of mental and social retardation.

      3. Current cocktail is an Aviation (there was a G&T and a Manhattan in between). Creme de Violette imported from Austria because FYTW.

        1. I’m back on the old fashioned now. I had a whiskey sour in between.
          I might try an aviation. I have some creme de violette because my wife likes the water lily cocktail.

          1. I think I’ll kill off my rye on a sazerac. I t should be close enough.

            1. I can’t even blame these typos on the ipad. Had enough rye for a sazerac. Damn, it’s awesome.

              Cocktails for me:

              1) Negroni
              2) Sazerac
              3) Aviation

    3. Salty dogs.

      Downshift to Miller High Life if/when necessary.

      1. High Life is never necessary.

    4. Bottle of sauv blanc, myself. I get the 750ml bottle so I won’t drink 1.5l.

      1. Everyone knows you can’t get drunk off of white wine.

        1. Drunk, no. Nasty cheap wine hangover, yes.

          1. There’s that, yes.

            Luckily, I’m on a strict diet of Rye, Bourbon, and Gin, with various mixers. Most of which have a bunch of sugar, leading to a moderate, day-long hangover.

            1. Don’t let SugarFree Live Free or Die hear that. Might be trouble.

              In all seriousness, though, I’ve been drinking my gin with aspartame tonic… the drink isn’t quite the same, but the hangovers are.

              1. I regularly blame the sugar in my drinks for the hangover.

                So, seriously, I’ve never heard of aspertame tonic, didn’t realize there was sugar in regular tonic(like Schweppe’s, Canada Dry, etc.).

                That said, I keep looking for better tonic without going to whole foods, without finding it.

                I’ve looked a few times at just making it, getting close to ordering the ingredients.

                1. Everything I know about tonic water I learned from a comic strip. That’s sadly applicable to a lot of things I know.

                  It’s all sweetened to some degree. I’m trying to eliminate the sugar from my diet as possible, and mixers are an easy target. After awhile the fake stuff doesn’t taste any different.

                  1. I already knew that, and it won’t slow my down.

                    To be fair, I actually put about the juice of half a lime in my G&T when I make it.

            2. What are these “mixers” everyone is talking about?

  8. Splendid.

      1. I wish!

      2. That was an absolute delight.

  9. It’ll make for great SNL skits.

    “Hey, Larry, get a load of *this* call! It’s the strangest one I’ve ever to decided to listen to!”
    “No, no, you listen to *this* one! It’s screamingly funny!”
    “Oh, what the heck, we’ll bring both recordings to the party tonight. Just remember to use the voice changer so the innocent are properly protected!”

    Seriously, this should goose up Rand’s lawsuit considerably.

  10. One of the largest public charter high schools in the nation allows a boy who identifies as female to use the girls locker room and bathrooms – despite protests from a female student who says she feels uncomfortable and vulnerable by his presence.
    What’s more, the female student – who just finished her sophomore year at the Los Angeles-based Granada Hills Charter High School – claims the boy in question harassed her, touched her hair, stared strangely at her, and also peeked at girls over the stalls while they used the toilet.

    1. I have it on good authority that always happens n girls’s locker rooms.

    2. “‘Identify as female.’ Yeah …, that’s the ticket!”

    3. So we know that sexual harassment < transgender identity in the order of PC piety.

      1. Someone here turned me on to tumblr in action.

        It’s awesome seeing the various progressive/feminist/social justice factions start to turn in against each other.

        1. The blogs appear to be written in English and yet I don’t understand anything they are saying. They must be from some parallel universe.

          1. Word. Perhaps *they* use decoder rings?

          2. I thought Tumblr was just for porn.

            1. “Tumblr was just for porn”

              And why did I not know about this?

        2. It’s awesome seeing the various progressive/feminist/social justice factions start to turn in against each other.

          It’s evidence of what we’ve been saying for years: positive rights conflict with each other. TRUE, “negative” rights”, do not. Now we’re finally seeing the point that their “rights as government-granted privilege” coalition is ripping at the seams. For another example, see “Obamacare”.

          1. Agreed, but I wouldn’t be shocked if they could still hold the coalition together a little longer.

        3. If you guys like that, you’ll probably like Oh Social Justice, You So Crazy.

        4. Thank you and thank whoever turned you on to that, because that is wonderful.

        5. You’re welcome (assuming it was me). You can never have too much stupid in your life.

        6. I clicked into one of the sub…threads? reddits? I’m really not sure. Anyway, I clicked something and found this. “No famous female economists”? Anna Schwartz, anyone?

          As for anyone else, you might as well say “no female bootlicking Fed apologists”. That’s empowering.

          1. No amount of feminism will ever convince me that hairy armpits are attractive.

  11. I went out for a bit and experienced some speeding car with flashers on come up behind me. I pulled over to avoid a Saturday-night, um, incident. However, I got to thinking — is there any legal requirement to do so? The car was unmarked. Can a volunteer firefighter do this with impunity?

    1. It means the last of today’s donuts were just put on sale.

      1. Something like that crossed my mind:

        “Maybe I’ll have to try driving like — never mind, don’t want to be busted for impersonating a cop.”

  12. For resident homebrewers: As I sit here with my wort slowly chilling in an ice batch for the zillionth time I’m looking for faster solutions. Problem is I’m in an apartment and have not taps that have garden hose fittings. This seems to eliminate most options including immersion and plate chillers. Any suggestions? I’ve started using my swamp cooler (that I use for fermentation temperature regulation) as the the ice bath container but that only does so much.

    1. Liquid nitrogen? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    2. I built a closed loop system with a sump pump, coiled wort chiller, and one of these. I can bring 10 gallons of wort to 70 degrees in about 9 minutes.

      7 years of engineering school finally paid off.

      1. That sounds awesome. I haven’t messed with a plate chiller at all. The wort chiller works wonders, though, but it’s probably still 25 minutes or so (really not that different whether I do 5 or 10 gallons) to chill it out.

      2. oh, now I catch a little more about it being a closed loop. Nice.

      3. My wife is an engineer so I’ll have to enlist her help. Looks like what I need to do, make a closed system.

        1. This clip should save you some time.

          I’m telling you, this set up is tits. It saves me an assload of time every time I brew. I’m working on an automated system that allow the brewer to hit it and quit it. It gonna be an expensive project but much cheaper than paying for DFH and Flying Dog over the long run.

          1. That would be perfect, it may come up against my other limitation: storage space. I’ll have to get the wife’s permission (and for the cost also).

      4. Hey, I could make a pipe out of your wort chiller.

    3. have you tried adding salt to the ice bath?

      1. Yes but I can only do so much with an ice bath. To go faster you need to pump water through the wart (immersion chiller) or pump the wart past cold water (e.g. plate chiller). I guess I need a way to do this without being able to hook up a faucet.

        1. shoot. Just get the adaptor. You can take the aerator off your faucet, there’s an adaptor that screws in to that to run the wort chiller, run the output down the drain.

          Especially awesome if you aren’t paying for water in said rental place.

          OT: you’re in SE MI, right?

          1. Never mind that OT, was thinking of someone else. What can I say, I have bourbon and gin coming out of my pores.

          2. No aerator on my bathroom sing to remove unfortunately. My kitchen sink is fancy dancy and is of no use.

            1. Shower head?

              1. I have one of those large “rain” shower heads with a lot of outlets. It looks might be able to remove the whole thing but the sump pump idea above is probably more practical and I can use the wort chiller with a garden faucet later.

    4. Get an immersion chiller. Fill your kitchen sink with ice water. Put a sump pump in the sink. Recirculate the ice water through the immersion chiller. Drain some water and add more ice if the water in the sink gets too hot.

  13. He’s got the moves like Jagr.

    1. Bonus Hockey!

    2. This should be a thing. Can we make this a thing? It’s shaping up to be a good series.

      1. It really should be a thing!

        1. Tuukka Rask needs a song too, though. How many OT periods do you think this game will run?

          1. Could be 1, could be more. Hard to say yet!
            /Bob Cole

          2. Of course he has a song, you idiot. ISKE ISKE ISKE ISKE ISKE ISKE ISKE ISKE

            1. I’d suggest you were holding kid rock hostage, but said singer is way too coherent/not-strung out.

  14. Great errors in history:

    2. Dennis Laroux, a US tattooist, angered three members of an all-girl chapter of Hell’s Angels when he tattooed Stan’s Slaves on their breasts rather than Satan’s Slaves.

    1. Well, Stan is almost just as bad.

    2. This is actually pretty funny.

      “Now, who, exactly, is Stan, again?”

      *Cold Glower*

    3. Two big errors, both regarding World War II. In World War I the Germans did some strategic bombing of England via Zeppelins and Gotha bombers. As a result, the British developed long-range bombers for the next war. The Germans, though, concluded the results weren’t worth the effort, and went into World War II without a long-range bomber force.

      The other error, hard to understand in retrospect, was the Allied decision to not target German electricity generating plants.

      Of course any war is filled with errors, but those two really struck me.

    4. This reminds me of when I was watching an episode of “True Life” or some similar type nonsense show on MTV like 7 or 8 years ago and this Jewish girl from Long Island named Julie went to get a tattoo that said “Jewelz” and the artist mistakenly (or possibly intentionally) gave her one that said “Jewlez” instead. So funny. It was somewhere that she couldn’t see it too, and her friend was afraid to tell her.

  15. Wait, I thought Snowden was lying about all that, and that we could go back to our normal routines of discussing personal and possibly incriminating information on our cell phones?

  16. /

  17. /

    1. That doesn’t even count as SF’ing a link, Pantsfan. Maybe your perverse love of pants is to blame.

      1. I didn’t even Pants it.

        1. That could *maybe* be a thing. Pantsing has many facets.

          1. Oh, it is already well defined. “Pantsing” a link means the link leads somewhere other than where it claims to lead.

            1. I did it 2 times in one night, and it’s a thing?

              1. Two times!? Really? Really?

                Dooood, it was like a gazillion times. Fuck.

                Here, watch video on cryptography. It’s basic but it’s interesting.

                  1. Watching it now…


                  2. Well, thanks. You’ve just changed the course of my evening.

                1. The “Quantum” in the title scared the crap out of me, until I figured out that there still weren’t many quantum computers out there…

                  … although, I suppose the NSA is the most likely to have them…

                  1. They’re here…

                    Even if they break encryption there is too much information out there for them to ever parse. Think about how much information a single person generates, or is needed to be described with. It’s fucking astronomical.

                    1. I tend to agree on the size, but if there are quantum computers of any degree, doesn’t that substantially effect what RSA can do? ie, make it much easier to target every reason commentor?

                    2. From what I understand, and I’m a total noob, is that Q-computing would make solving certain mathematical calculations a lot faster, like things that have to do with factoring and prime numbers. Because modern cryptology is based on how fast everyday computers can do those functions a system that could solve those problems efficiently, rendering cryptology instantly obsolete.

                      The math and the technology is not quite there, but they’re closing in.

                      So no, I don’t think it’ll make spying on a random person that much easier, as it will make protecting yourself much more difficult.

                      Like I said, I’m just getting into this, so it anyone with more knowledge would like to correct or add anything to my post, I’d appreciate it.

                    3. Nothing to add to it. Once QC is developed, all bets are off on current encryption. At one point I had some insight on how many bits on a quantum computer could deal with what level of encryptions, but I don’t recall now.

                    4. Not all “current encryption” is vulnerable to the degree that RSA is.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..yptography has some decent info on this.

                    5. It depends on what kind of encryption you’re dealing with. RSA could be broken by Shor’s algorithm (which would be a big deal). However AES, for instance, is less at risk.

                    6. I like how all the people on the libertarian website know about this stuff.

                      It’s like we’re paranoid, or something.

                    7. I can’t understand it.

                      Thane’s post above is over my head, though. The thought that RSA could fall scares the shit out of me.

                    8. The simplified version (and to a degree, the only version I can give, as I am also definitely a non-expert here) is that Shor’s algorithm, which would be used on quantum computers to factor very large numbers, poses a threat to RSA, since its security relies on the intractability of factoring very large numbers.

                      Schemes like RSA are mainly used for task like encrypting communication and digitally signing data.

                      Other schemes, such as AES, have different mathematical foundations and are not as vulnerable. AES is one of the algorithms you would typically associate with encrypting a file or hard drive.

                    9. Yea, I don’t have to worry about the encryption on my drive, but every SSL session starts with PK, doing a DH exchange.

                      Might be over-scaring myself on this one.

                    10. I wouldn’t worry about it. There’s some controversy over whether or not D-wave machine is a true quantum computer, but in any case, it’s still very limited by the q-bits and from what I understand (not an expert here on QC), it’s still very fuzzy.

                      I was reading papers on it and they mentioned very low accuracy results. It doesn’t function like a normal computer. You need to be able to verify the results using classical methods.

          2. Pantsing a link is most definitely a thing. The Duke invented it.

            It’s where you post a link but it’s the wrong link. It’s different than a SF’d link in that it’s at least a functional site.

            One night the Duke was on mescaline, I infer, and posted a bunch of wrong links and thus that action was dubbed “pantsing” a link, or leaving a “pantsed” link.

            1. One night the Duke was on mescaline, I infer

              You’re projecting

  18. OT: The origins of Socialism

    Papua New Guinea witch hunts tied to jealousy

    On a tropical island where most people live in huts, assailants armed with guns, machetes and axes stormed the wooden house by night. They set the building on fire and took away four female relatives to be tortured. Their alleged crime: witchcraft.

    Helen Rumbali was beheaded. Her older sister and two teenage nieces were repeatedly slashed with knives before being released following negotiations with police. …

    Some are arguing the recent violence is fueled not by the nation’s widespread belief in black magic but instead by economic jealousy born of a mining boom that has widened the country’s economic divide and pitted the haves against the have-nots.

    1. God damnit, HM. Buzz kill doesn’t even begin to describe you.

      I hope you’re better in the sack than this.

  19. my posts are getting stuck in the aether

  20. I have some banner ad at the top of my screen exclaiming that (2 people are spying on you). There are only two people working for the NSA?

      1. Evil bastards!

  21. BREAKING! US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt’: Report:

    London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

    A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’.

    1. I’m shocked! Shocked to find out that nefarious deeds are afoot.

    2. Didn’t Syria deny they used chemical weapons?

    3. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports. …

      According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

      Sounds legit.

      1. Not that I don’t think Obama isn’t capable of such treachery, but I’m taking it with a grain of salt for now.

        1. You’re right to do so. I posted it as soon as I saw the article, but those two sites aren’t the most reliable.

        2. Which is prudent. If it does turn out to be true and there is not universal outrage, one would have to ask what it would take for universal outrage to occur.

      2. I found physical copies of infowars (also the Onion, but I’ve seen that other places) in Austin. It’s every bit as awesome as you might expect.

        Funny enough, my first brush with libertarianism was a due to a guy who ran a local computer store (he sold me a 486-dx2-66mhz, Cyrix). He had this computer store with tons of old crap he still hoped to sell for high prices. apparently he was involved with the local LP. He ended up plastering his store windows with a crank newspaper (“The New Federalist”?) with things right out of David Van Icke.

    4. Hm. A more skeptical look at this comes from the Center for Research on Globalization. In short: they’re not convinced.

    5. Interesting. Granted, it does cite Infowars as a source, and there’s going to need to be more evidence to prove there’s a scandal here, but at this point, almost nothing would surprise me

      1. Grey/Black PSYOPS? But by whom? Russia, perhaps?

  22. Anyone know anything about our new friend in Iran?

    1. Didn’t know anything about him till today, from what I’ve heard, he seems better than Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t really say much. At least this puts an end to warmongerers pretending Ahmadinejad, who was never the most powerful guy in Iran, is the second coming of Hitler.

    2. NSA does, duh!

    3. That position is pretty much just a whipping boy in Iran though.

  23. Bilderberg Authoritarianism Destroys Humanity

    1. So how long before we realize we’ve been dead the whole movie time?

  24. US Plans $50 MILLION A DAY Syria No-Fly Zone

    1. SLD/SN-ID

      Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just break all his airplanes from the get-go?

    2. Shit, that’s like half a trip to africa. It falls out in the wash.

      Nothing left to cut.

  25. Russia slams ‘fabricated‘ info on Syria’s use of chemical weapons

  26. “UPDATE: Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute worries…”

    So Cato Institute now jumps on the bandwagon?
    Given Cato’s response to this and their ‘support’ of A-2. I’m sure they won’t miss my contribution this year.

    1. I thought he resigned when the kochs took over?

      Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions.

      1. Sanchez is a lyin’ PoS. The Koch’s woulda had to fire him to pry him out of that cushy gig.

    2. Someone correct me if I’m thinking of someone else, but I thought Sanchez was one of the better, more consistently libertarian, people at CATO?

      1. He is, AFAICT.

        A lot of people at Cato are very good for a couple issues they write about prolifically for them, but don’t necessarily have a 94% purity-test rating like shreek.

        Michael Cannon is also pretty good as a more consistent libertarian, and is a nice guy too (I met him a few years ago). Some of his blog posts can be a bit polemical compared to his peers’, though.

      2. Dear God NO

        Sanchez is a civil libertarian but not a libertarian. Kinda like Greenwald but sorta consequentialist on “market socialism”

        1. Any articles that are good examples?

          I rarely read CATO, perhaps whoever made that comment was talking merely about civil liberties

        2. Links?

    3. I don’t see where he dismisses the issues involved or indicates agreement with the program, he merely advocates caution in interpreting Nadler’s statement.

  27. The Venezuela congress is to discuss legislation next week that would prohibit bottle feeding of infants in an attempt to encourage breast feeding and reduce the use of baby formula.

    “We want to increase the love (between mother and child) because this has been lost as a result of these transnational companies selling formula,” Ms Monzon said.

  28. I don’t know how confusing this exchange was, but it seemed pretty clear to me that Nadler was asking ‘if the metadata shows a phone number to be of interest, does the NSA need a new warrant to obtain the content of phone calls to and from that number’? When the answer ‘Yes’ was given, he said he had gotten precisely the opposite answer in the classified briefing. (Actually, he asked about the ‘content’ and Mueller answered that if by ‘content’ you mean subscriber information we would need at least an NSL, if you mean actually listening in on the conversation – which Nadlers prompting led me to believe is what he meant – then we would need a warrant. In either case, however, Nadler said this is not what he was told in the classified briefing.)

    So was Nadler told in the classified briefing that the NSA did not need a warrant to listen in on phone conversations on a particlar phone once the metadata flagged this particular phone number as being of interest? I’m pretty sure that’s what Nadler said. Parsing it any other way would require believing that Nadler was engaged in some rather fine hair-splitting or technical, precise language.

    Which is not to say that Nadler won’t come out with a clarification on Monday saying that he didn’t actually say what we all thought he said based on some rather fine hair-splitting and technical, precise language, but walking this one back is going to take some ‘splaining.

  29. Hmm, and NPR went to lengths to find an expert that denied that any of this was the case.

    Someone’s lying.

  30. Happy Father’s day everyone, and go Phil in Philly this afternoon.

    1. Don’t thank me, thank your mom. She was totally worth the five bucks. But I still expect a card, Sonny.

  31. The conventional media are apparently going to completely ignore this story.

    “Nope, nothing to see here! People are bored with the NSA story! This new detail shows that the President explicitly lied, but nope, let’s talk about North Korea now!”

    1. I thought we were going to talk about whether or not Putin stole a Superbowl ring, now?

  32. “You certainly know the court much better than I do; I don’t know much more about it than what I’ve heard, from all sorts of people, of course. But they’re all in agreement that charges are never made frivolously, and that the court, once it brings a charge, is convinced of the guilt of the accused, and that it is difficult to sway them from this conviction.”

    “Difficult?” asked the painter, throwing one hand in the air. “The court can never be swayed from it! If I were to paint all the judges in a row on this canvas, and you were to plead your case before them, you would have more success than before the actual court.”

  33. Morning just to wake everybody up.


    1. the arresting officer from the Logan City Police Department, James Adkins, claims that when Jared refused to stop talking, that hindered his ability to do his job, hence, the obstruction charge

      …the fuck?

      1. This is the same thing. I hope those cops hang themselves on persecuting a 14 year old.

  34. Next revelation:

    By “low level analyst” we mean a million servers running language parsing software, and by “any phone call” we mean all of them.

  35. Welcome to the New Regime, the US is such a POlice State lol.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.