Update to Greenwald's latest cites NYT article on Yahoo challenge to PRISM

[ProSense]

Greenwald's update:

<...>

UPDATE

The New York Times reports today that Yahoo went to court in order to vehemently resist the NSA's directive that they join the PRISM program, and joined only when the court compelled it to do so. The company specifically "argued that the order violated its users' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures."

If, as NSA (and Silicon Valley) defenders claim, PRISM is nothing more than a harmless little drop-box mechanism for delivering to the government what these companies were already providing, why would Yahoo possibly be in court so vigorously resisting it and arguing that it violates their users' Fourth Amendment rights? Similarly, how could it possibly be said - as US government officials have - that PRISM has been instrumental in stopping terrorist plots if it did not enhance the NSA's collection capabilities? The denials from the internet companies make little sense when compared to what we know about the program. At the very least, there is ample reason to demand more disclosure and transparency about exactly what this is and what data-access arrangements they have agreed to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism

So because Yahoo challenged the request, means the BS story about direct acess is true? When did the Fourth Amendment apply to foreign targets?

Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

From the NYT report:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a secret court in Washington, Yahoo’s top lawyers made their case. The government had sought help in spying on certain foreign users, without a warrant, and Yahoo had refused, saying the broad requests were unconstitutional.

The judges disagreed. That left Yahoo two choices: Hand over the data or break the law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023015163

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. You are like a great big Golden Retriever with a ball

It is mildly amusing to me that what you are posting is actually more proof that Greenwald's reporting is spot on and his defense of his allegations is thus far superb. I believe most fair minded readers will be harder to hypnotize with the dreaded blue linkies as time passes. I am also quite sure you will probably get funnier to me after every well crafted, local beer I consume this evening!

Cheers!

[ProSense]

3. You are like

You are like a great big Golden Retriever with a ball

It is mildly amusing to me that what you are posting is actually more proof that Greenwald's reporting is spot on and his defense of his allegations is thus far superb. While the Amen Corner that be here shortly to agree with you with much sound and fury, most fair minded readers will be harder to hypnotize with the dreaded blue linkies. I am also quite sure you will probably get funnier to me after every well crafted, local beer I consume this evening!

Cheers!

...predictable. Is the OP point ruining the "counter punching to great effect"? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023017364

Yeah, "fair minded readers" all agree that Greenwald is a national treasure: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3017493

[Hydra]

6. Spot on!

I was happy to hear that Yahoo was like "this isn't right!" especially since I know I'm being spied on when I use their service.

Pro has done a superb job the last few posts of accidentally backing up Greenwald and Snowden.

[ProSense]

10. "Pro has done a superb job the last few posts of accidentally backing up Greenwald and Snowden."

Yeah, what facts?

[Hydra]

12. I'm sure you wouldn't know, since you are doing such a good job

Of documenting the illegal spy program for us.

Carry on, by all means

[JaneyVee]

30. Don't shoot the messenger!

[Downwinder]

2. It is not the action that gets you, it is the cover up.

[rug]

4. If the seizure is within the U.S., the Fourth Amendment applies.

If it is outside the U.S., sovereignty applies.

Do you oppose the Fourth Amendment and sovereignty?

[ProSense]

7. If it's

"If the seizure is within the U.S., the Fourth Amendment applies. If it is outside the U.S., sovereignty applies."

...outside the U.S., does the Fourth Amendment apply?

[rug]

11. Answered.

Sovereignty applies.

If one nation-state seizes property in another nation-state, it is violating that state's sovereignty, not to mention its criminal laws.

[ProSense]

13. Did Greenwald mention "sovereignty" or did he cite the "Fourth Amendment"? n/t

[rug]

15. You did.

Regardless of who cites it, or ignores it, or rationalizes it away, law exists and applies. Nemo est supra legis.

[ProSense]

17. Do you

"You did. Regardless of who cites it, or ignores it, or rationalizes it away, law exists and applies. Nemo est supra legis."

...suppose that Yahoo would like have won the court challenge to a foreign target request by citing "sovereignty" and not the "Fourth Amendment," which you agree does not apply to foreign targets?

Yeah, "law exists and applies" where relevant, like speed limits.

[rug]

18. Give me a blue link to the brief and I'll answer you.

Interesting you compare constitutional protections and international law to traffic ordinances. Yes, they are all pieces of paper, aren't they.

[ProSense]

20. Does it have to be "blue"?

"Interesting you compare constitutional protections and international law to traffic ordinances. Yes, they are all pieces of paper, aren't they."

Interesting that you introduced "sovereignty" as a counter since neither Greenwald or Yahoo invoked it.

[rug]

23. No, but preferably it will not lead to one of your posts.

A more, ah, objective, source will suffice.

As to sovereignty, well, I consider it a tad more important than Yahoo, Greenwald or the White House Press Office.

[ProSense]

28. Maybe you can spend the time to find it on your own.

Then you don't have to worry about the color of the link or where it leads.

[rug]

29. Oh, I'm sure I could but then I'd miss your posts.

[ProSense]

31. So your interest in the issue is about me? n/t

[rug]

32. Isn't it all about you?

[ProSense]

33. Apparently, it is to you. n/t

[DesMoinesDem]

5. Great questions from Greenwald.

Pathetic spin attempt from Baghdad Bob.

[ProSense]

8. "Pathetic spin attempt from Baghdad Bob."

Name calling and denial from morons.

[DesMoinesDem]

16. I thought that was your name?

Of course you call me a moron in nearly every reply to me, including this one, so I have absolutely no problem returning the favor, moron. Now back to your propaganda! It's working so well.

[ProSense]

27. Clearly, you're a smart one. n/t

[flamingdem]

9. I'm waiting to see if Glenn has the bombshells he promised

.. so far nothing new.

[ProSense]

14. The "bombshells" are

more spin and criticizing his critics.

[flamingdem]

22. that's about it!

pixie dust

[ProSense]

21. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3012351

[Occulus]

24. So fast, it's almost like I'm on a list.

[ProSense]

25. .

[Occulus]

26. "...then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

[pintobean]

34. Remember this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022776482#post127

Good times. The self-delete was classic.

[Progressive dog]

35. Very good catch nt

[SidDithers]

36. Kick...nt

Sid