DOJ Wants to Know Who's Rejecting Your Friend Requests, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 24-1-2012 @ 11:14 PM by mother1138

DOJ Wants to Know Who's Rejecting Your Friend Requests


www.eff.org...
In the latest turn in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records related to the government’s use of social networking websites, the Department of Justice finally agreed to release almost 100 pages of new records. These include draft search warrants and affidavits for Facebook and MySpace and several PowerPoint presentations and articles on how to use social networking sites for investigations.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 24-1-2012 by mother1138 because: Link got garbled. Sorry.



reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 12:11 AM by webpirate
reply to post by Manhater



Oh...I'm sure they do. At least here one thing they don't have that a lot of other sites do is pics of me or whoever I associate with. Well...they might..but they're just avatars!

Personally I'm surprised I haven't made the no fly list yet..lol. Since my mouth often gets me in trouble. I also have to watch what I say more here too than other sites or one of our good mods will be all over me!

I'd rather have to behave because of a mod than worry about posting something that get's the government even more interested in me!

We may have to sign up with our real names, but those are kept hidden. SO it doesn't really matter who I "poke" or tick off....I prolly don't have a clue in RL who they even are.




edit on 25-1-2012 by webpirate because: additional thoughts



reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 12:43 AM by LongbottomLeaf
reply to post by mother1138



So basically if you have nothing to hide this means nothing. Basically the government want's to know what everyone else already knows about me. I'm a burn out, I like guns and weapons and alot of music.
edit on 25-1-2012 by LongbottomLeaf because: wertyuiop



reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 12:44 AM by rebellender
reply to post by mother1138



well I very well better conduct myself in a law abiding fashion. Then I will not be subject to any further "poke" People FACEBOOK IS NOT PRIVATE...IT IS ALL PUBLIC.
here is a news flash. Conduct your private life like the world is watching ....because it IS.
Nothing is private. Nothing is personal. Its all out there. Ones own actions can hang or promote, is this such a secret?
Or do we get all getto or gangsta and say " nobody gonna mess wit me cause I will git dem good like dey got it comin or sompton...see wat im sayin" "Dont mess wit da bull baby cause you will git da bull baby"

be a good citizen. The reward is great consequences.


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 12:58 AM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by EyesWideShut
This is nothing new, It requires a subpoena or warrant just like cell phone records. The cops don't just call and have access to everything. It better be pretty damn important for the court to order a subpoena. Subpoena's aren't handed out all willy nilly...lol
Before the patriot act that may have been true.

secure.wikimedia.org...
Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, they were criticized by many parties.[217][218][219][220] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions".[221] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[123] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.


"the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses"?? All without any court order or warrant.


reply posted on 25-1-2012 @ 01:36 AM by EyesWideShut
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by EyesWideShut
This is nothing new, It requires a subpoena or warrant just like cell phone records. The cops don't just call and have access to everything. It better be pretty damn important for the court to order a subpoena. Subpoena's aren't handed out all willy nilly...lol
Before the patriot act that may have been true.

secure.wikimedia.org...
Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSLs by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, they were criticized by many parties.[217][218][219][220] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions".[221] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[123] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.


"the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses"?? All without any court order or warrant.



NSL's have been around since before I was born, only the Fed's can use them. Once again it's nothing new. it surprises me how people (Not you) think that the intelligence services are JUST now doing this. They have always operated under "The ends justify the means".
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Iranian sailors chase off pirates attacking U.S. ship
  Posted 5 days ago with 95 member flags
BBC Caught In Syria Massacre Propaganda Hoax
  Posted 1 days ago with 74 member flags
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags
Man Loses $22,000 In New \'Policing For Profit\' Case
  Posted 7 days ago with 63 member flags
Bin Laden died of natural causes: Former CIA agent
  Posted 9 days ago with 58 member flags