are you doing another one of your character attacks? No one really cares if he's a Libertarian if he's reporting factual information.

Hardly sounds like a free-for-all to me. It's just so easy to get people riled these days. All it takes is a few buzz words to start the salivating.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

we have S4P being the authority on this guy and his political views. It's truly amazing, because I'll be damned if I can find anything about his political affiliations.

It's barely been a month since we had a swarm of posts on a different Declan McCullagh article that was debunked again and again -- not that any of the hair-on-fire crowd paid the slightest attention to the fact that Declan was just blowing smoke-rings from his butt

There are a few links to last month's DU discussions in my #27

According to them he wrote

Yes, I know. "Look at what we already know they've done! I wouldn't put anything past them! Damn right guilty until proven innocent!"

Have you already decided that I couldn't possibly be questioning any of this unless I were claiming the diametric opposite? Are you just itching the denounce me as naively defending the indefensible, even though I haven't defended a single thing?

Did you automatically interpret the headline "turn over user account passwords" to mean "passwords of every single user" rather than possibly meaning passwords of very specific users?

Either could be the meaning, and I'm not saying it's not the more extreme case, but I don't know what it exactly means, I don't even know that the general accusation is false or true.

And neither do you.

have some facts and proof to back up S4P's accusations. If you do put them up and I will be the first to apologize.

Quite automatically.

see #27

If you want to bring up Jerry Nadler again, if he comments on this particular story, again it's him saying something against what the other guy is saying. One of them is lying, and unless you have special skills to read their minds, you don't know which one until there is an investigation, something that probably will never happen in our corrupt government.

to tell everybody how terribly terribly upset I am and how disappointed in President!"

Just because a Congressman says otherwise, doesn't mean he's telling the truth either. Nadler may think he's telling the truth, but it doesn't mean he knows for sure. He may be being lied to. We just don't know right now and for you to run around doing ad hominem attacks against anyone you disagree with is really not professional if that is what you are trying to be.

that's gullibility.

You're pulling a Cheney on us!

OMG, I can't believe you did that!

NO ONE owes you an apology!

one to a DU post from 15 June linking Declan McCullagh's bullshit cnet story; a second
one to a DU post from 16 June linking to an Atlantic wire story that contains a more extensive fragment of the hearing transcript, showing that McCullagh misrepresented the exchange; and a third
one to a DU post from 16 June linking to the parent website znet saying "We're pulling the plug on this story, following Rep. Nadler's latest comments casting doubt on CNET's story"

None of those are my posts; all provide relevant links. And I haven't asked for an apology from anyone

Duh. Sorry.

Also, Jerry Nadler says NSA doesn't do this in another instance is not proof he lied then or now. It's only that Jerry Nadler said so. Jerry Nadler has said nothing about this latest story the OP posted. You have no proof of your allegations. Frankly, your last source I would use as bird cage liner if I had a bird.

You do not believe that ZDNet pulled their CNET story? Or do you not believe the OP, who quoted ZDNet pulling the CNET story?

Just for the record, of course.

solid statements about the NSA's spying. Things he learned in briefings.

7 minutes after this was posted, how, exactly? I've looked all over the web and I have found nothing on his political affiliations. He was, however, a chief correspondent for CBS News' website and worked for Wired. He lives in San Francisco. I can find NOTHING on him being either a liberterian or a liar.

Can you back this up with facts, or can we just assume this is a knee-jerk response attempting to smear him?

I'm having trouble finding it.

What I am finding is that he is the one that DEBUNKED a WaPo article.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

he selectively misquoted a hearing transcript to make it look like Nadler was saying something different than he actually said, until the Congressman himself was forced to repudiate Declan's misrepresentation?

Congressman denies report claiming NSA can listen to calls without warrants
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014510665

that the Congressman and the witness have had a miscommunication, which was cleared up the next day, resulting in the Congressman's subsequent statement. McCullagh simply misrepresented the exchange, and the parent website retracted

on this story"

Guess we'll have to wait and see if someone besides CNET corroborates it.

Not that that means he's lying here, but it certainly is instructive.

And calling someone a libertarian doesnt mean they are lying. You hate libertarians, but that doesnt justify your rude post.

And Post #27 doesnt show he is a liar.

And your use of Sid's rude emoticon is not becoming of a "politically liberal" person.

they might strip progressive voters from the Dems, and convince them to vote 3rd party, or not vote at all, by pushing the line "Obama has a worse record on civil liberties than any previous President" -- and since then we've had a barrage of pseudo-leftists taking every bogus opportunity shrieking along

Declan McCullagh is an ideologue, of the libertarian variety, and he's not too interested in the facts, if he can contribute to the noisy outrage-fest

I happen to think very little of such people: YMMV, of course

of making ad hominem comments about the author? Do you have evidence that this story is false? Or do you just want to disparage the author?

I take these articles with a grain of salt until they are corroborated. But I think it's rude to jump into a thread and start attacking the author of the article.

I'm so sick of it.

Reagan, or Nixon, despite all the dishonest libertarian trolling we're seeing

talking points? Double tap drone kills has got to rank up there with the worse. He embraces the Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention, has prosecuted more whistle-blowers, used Homeland Security to help local police beat the crap out of Occupy protestors, force feeding prisoners is torture, etc.

His record isnt good.

Who exactly are you calling a libertarian? You just cant hold back the ad hominem attacks, can you.

You said he's a liar and a libertarian. Big deal! You can't seem to figure out what he lied about or show proof that he did.

provide more facts by way of refutation: it produces mere denial. I don't mind much if people disagree with me, provided I learn something factual from their disagreement -- such conversations can be informative and productive -- but you in response simply shout your opinion more loudly

If a reporter has a history of lying, as McCullagh did recently regarding Nadler, that greatly reduces the reporter's credibility with me. If the reporter has a certain ideological tendency, and I'm aware that persons of that tendency are currently engaged in a certain strategic pattern of misrepresentation, I'm also going to take that into account. When the reporter misrepresents an event, in a fashion that conveniently fits the strategic pattern of misrepresentation others of the same ideological tendency are currently engaged in, that's going to color my views of his reporting

I've generally regarded libertarians as somewhat naive, but when they're acting in concert to push a certain propaganda line that I regard as beneficial only to the wingnuts at this particular moment in history, I'm not particularly inclined to be overly-nice about it

Libertarian-liar in this case is a short-hand for my political analysis of McCullagh and the game I think he is playing. If you want to wander into the swamp where McCullagh and his fellows sit, crying out their siren-song, be my guest! But don't expect me to encourage everyone else to muck into the quagmire with you

You just can't stop pasting labels on people can you? You just called me an ideologue. If you want to argue with me about a position I have taken, fine. But don't call me names.

You don't get it. The thing most people object to about you are the character attacks and the character assassinations you bring up. All your lengthy posts and sources don't prove a single attack you make against anyone. When you start posting fcts about what can be proven or disproven, then you might get some respect.

...we should believe what we read on the web, which means...I'm very confused.

Maybe I'll just look at evidence and make up my own mind from now on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

but I had the impression they take the information without asking.

Our "Constitutional Scholar" is looking more and more like he printed that qualification from Punk University, EW (Erehwon )

The authorities need to GET A FUCKING WARRANT like the 4th amendment tells them to. Their secret court is not going to help them if they use anything obtained as fruit of the poisonous tree, and every lawyer worth anything should be able to knock down any evidence obtained without the correct paperwork obtained in advance.

This story is bogus. It will appear nowhere else but conspiracy-laden sites.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

on info gleaned as a result of stolen passwords. If ANYONE else has access to your computer/online accounts, then YOU can't be held responsible for what goes on in them.

It will make it easy to find prosecutable offenses like buying sex online.

whole case will have to be dismissed with prejudice.

I'm really not willing to give them that much credit for honesty.

Aren't they supposed to get law-enforcement back-doors, so they can get at the data without need for the password?

At least that's the theory, though that has the annoying tendency of leaving traces in log files, requiring inconvenient paperwork like warrants, approval from multiple branches of government (that whole checks-and-balances think is such a nuisance!) and *GASP* preventing abuse.

I've done system administration work - normally, even the admin doesn't know the users' passwords - the administrator/root account can get at the users's data.

The correct response to feds demanding passwords is "Go get a warrant!"

The word "demands" is used in the title because the word "requests" doesn't generate sufficient fear or outrage.

Is there no 4th Amendment violation that the Admin won't stoop to?

nt.

but it's become clear that Declan McCullagh is even worse at his "profession" than Glenn Greenwald. That has to defy some law of physics or something.

Relying on a handful of anonymous "sources" he makes a patently ridiculous claim. Industry spokespeople, OTOH, refute the claim, most quite vociferously. And the only individual actually quoted - Opera's Richard Lovejoy - says nope, never happens. Nonetheless, the lie is the lede.

This is the stuff of sub-hack journalism. It's delightful, BTW, to see the Usual Suspects lapping it up.

Saying that the government makes "legal requests" for passwords doesn't create much outrage ...

Saying that the government "demands" passwords is far more effective at getting the "usual suspects" to freak.

a growing anger against these policies. Now is the time for them to go public, ask the people what should they do, should they hand over their personal data to the Government or not? I think we all know what the answer would be.

Polls now showing this week, 56% against the Surveillance programs.

The headline makes it seem like theyre trying to get everyones passwords but the article is completely vague on that. Say someone has kiddie porn, I'd expect the Feds to request the PW.

created the internet story.
He doesn't sensationalize, particularly if it would hurt Democrats.

As the article says, the Fed could just decrypt whatever password they wanted WITHOUT 'requests'. This shit is all full of maybe's, could be's, might be's, and so on. Teabaggery.

{Insert smug smilie here, please.}
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]