NSA triples metadata collection numbers, sucking up over 500 million call records in 2017

[jbluhm86]

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/04/nsa-triples-metadata-collection-numbers-sucking-up-over-500-million-call-records-in-2017/

[Westside Steve]

Oh my God!

I especially hope they recorded the one when the Indian chick named Peggy called me and asked about my car warranty.

WSS

[jbluhm86]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

Oh my God!

I especially hope they recorded the one when the Indian chick named Peggy called me and asked about my car warranty.

WSS

So, do you believe that the government should be able to record and store your cellphone and email data, without a warrant? 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

MAGA!

[Canton Dawg]

7 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

So, do you believe that the government should be able to record and store your cellphone and email data, without a warrant? 

The Obozo administration took data collection to a whole ‘nother Level.

[MLD Woody]

37 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

The Obozo administration took data collection to a whole ‘nother Level.

I'm happy Trump shut the whole thing down

[calfoxwc]

I hope they track all of woodywoodpeckerhead's one liner bitchy retorts.... and I hope they all end up

in a looney birdcage.

[Canton Dawg]

28 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm happy Trump shut the whole thing down

Me too.

[LogicIsForSquares]

1 hour ago, Canton Dawg said:

The Obozo administration took data collection to a whole ‘nother Level.

And Trump continued that policy. But I don’t think anyone gives a Sheet about it in Washington outside of Rand Paul. 

[Canton Dawg]

27 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

And Trump continued that policy. But I don’t think anyone gives a Sheet about it in Washington outside of Rand Paul. 

He sure did, and I believe there will be a continuation into the foreseeable future regardless of which political party is in office.

However, DC doesn’t hold a candle to the data harvested by the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others.

I attended a company sponsored seminar this past week, which also included a representative from the FBI.

The FBI is concerned with the data collection from multiple foreign companies that manufacture home wireless routers, smart tv’s, cameras, and home assistance devices.

Apparently these home network devices are listening, an that will be another source of data harvesting.

[LogicIsForSquares]

7 hours ago, Canton Dawg said:

He sure did, and I believe there will be a continuation into the foreseeable future regardless of which political party is in office.

However, DC doesn’t hold a candle to the data harvested by the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others.

I attended a company sponsored seminar this past week, which also included a representative from the FBI.

The FBI is concerned with the data collection from multiple foreign companies that manufacture home wireless routers, smart tv’s, cameras, and home assistance devices.

Apparently these home network devices are listening, an that will be another source of data harvesting.

I can choose to use any of those private companies’ services. If I don’t like that they collect my information, I won’t use them. The Feds monitoring everything we do is unconstitutional. Huge difference.

[Canton Dawg]

Maxine Waters on Obama’s database. . .

Well, you know, I don’t know. And I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28439/flashback-maxine-waters-brags-about-obamas-james-barrett

 

[MLD Woody]

But luckily Trump took care of it

Cuz he's a real American

[Canton Dawg]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

But luckily Trump took care of it

Cuz he's a real American

About time you started to catch on.

MAGA!

[Westside Steve]

20 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

So, do you believe that the government should be able to record and store your cellphone and email data, without a warrant? 

Actually, and I'm being completely honest, I really don't care very much one way or the other. I guess it would have to depend on for what purpose?

I assume in any instanced that it matters they are already doing it with impunity

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

If the Government wanted you do 'disappear' it wouldn't be hard for them to do it.  Just saying.

[calfoxwc]

watched the third part of the Jason Bourne series...it occured to me that our gov

is now actually resembling those dirtbags in the cia etc...in the movie.

that is very bad.

Real life, they are now trying to character assassinate anybody close to the president, to get the president.

 

[MLD Woody]

8 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

If the Government wanted you do 'disappear' it wouldn't be hard for them to do it.  Just saying.

But at the same time you feel the 2nd Amendment gives you a legitimate chance of defending the company from this type of government? (At least, I thought that was your stance, I kind of forget. This just seemed like a good comment to jump in on).

[calfoxwc]

24 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

But at the same time you feel the 2nd Amendment gives you a legitimate chance of defending the company from this type of government? (At least, I thought that was your stance, I kind of forget. This just seemed like a good comment to jump in on).

defending the company? maybe you should slow your beakness down and stop trying to look like a smartass birdbrain, woodpecker.

you are, typical woodpecker, being really stupid. One person having a gun isn't going to fight the gov. A hundred million gun owners, in an extreme scenario - of course they could, given some far-fetched civil war kind of scenario.

You ever watch a Jason Bourne movie? I'd say obamao, holder, lynch, comey, mueller, rosenstein, mccabe, etc could hire a small army of assassins like in the jb movie, and they wouldn't have a chance vs 100 million Americans with their guns.

   It sounds silly - but on principle, it is very serious. Countries around the world have fallen into fascim/genocide because they let themselves be unarmed. You don't know history, you don't know principles, and you don't know how to respond intelligently to any subject. You don't know your beak from a hole in the ground. Molt much, feathers4brains?

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

defending the company? maybe you should slow your beakness down and stop trying to look like a smartass birdbrain, woodpecker.

you are, typical woodpecker, being really stupid. One person having a gun isn't going to fight the gov. A hundred million gun owners, in an extreme scenario - of course they could, given some far-fetched civil war kind of scenario.

You ever watch a Jason Bourne movie? I'd say obamao, holder, lynch, comey, mueller, rosenstein, mccabe, etc could hire a small army of assassins like in the jb movie, and they wouldn't have a chance vs 100 million Americans with their guns.

   It sounds silly - but on principle, it is very serious. Countries around the world have fallen into fascim/genocide because they let themselves be unarmed. You don't know history, you don't know principles, and you don't know how to respond intelligently to any subject. You don't know your beak from a hole in the ground. Molt much, feathers4brains?

 

Ignoring the very mature name-calling...

Where did you get the 100 million number?

Please expand of your... Ummm... Jason Bourne argument

[calfoxwc]

wow. three lines.

1. A picture is worth a thousand words. I picture you as a woodpecker. it fits.

2. That is a general estimate. Far too low - nobody knows, because they aren't registered, never will be and it's nonya.

Basically, from what they DO know from polls, whatever - in this case, it's about 130 million. My opinion, it can easily be twice that.

3. Go watch the movies.

[MLD Woody]

Where is the source for your general estimate?

No, explain your "Jason Bourne" argument. Please. How does this movie reflect reality here?

[calfoxwc]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

So, there are roughly 325 million people in the US. Let's say conservatively, that 1/3 own guns, not going with the 37% for simplicity...that is over is 100 million.

Which, is just a rough estimate. The true number of Americans who own guns - don't say they do for their stupid polls - is going to be far, far higher. I would never tell a poll I have guns. none of their business.

That is why most Americans will never register their guns. The actual number could easily be 200 million. I just picked 100 million to be in the general guesstimate ballpark.

  You could look it up yourself, but you are a woodpecker. I'll explain after you go watch the movies. You aren't smart enough to understand even after that, but I would try to explain it then.

 

[MLD Woody]

 

Except you cant just "say 1/3 own guns", because you have nothing to back that up. That 37% number is saying they own a gun OR someone in the household does. That's not 37% own guns. 

Also, I believe that number refers to adults. Your 325 million number is everyone in the US. Different populations.

You can't just say "well really it's much high, because... real America!" You don't get to just make up statistics as fact because you feel like they're true. 

According to a quick Google, there are about 245 million adults in the US, and you're claiming,based on feelings, 200 million own guns. Really? You think about 80% of adults own guns? ......

I can do numbers all day Cal

 

Your refusal to expand on your genius "Jason Bourne" argument means you never had one to begin with or you're realizing how stupid it was to begin with...

[calfoxwc]

It's an estimate. If you really want to know a better justification, go research it yourself, woodpecker buttbeak.

If 1/3 says they own a gun, or somebody in the house does. I account for that a bit - I lowered the 37% to 1/3, and lowered the 325 million to 300 million. I SAID it's an estimate, and not a good one, because the actual numbers are going to be far, far more than that.

  Most Americans will not registered their guns, will not say they have guns to the gov, won't say they do in polls. The more the

left tries to fight the 2nd Amendment for political purposes, the more it's true - the "nobody is trying to take your guns" is way discredited and proven to be a lie.

That is why this is true:

https://www.uslawshield.com/connecticut-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-ar-15s/

   I can't explain the Jason Bourne thing until you get off your sissy cowardly birdbrain butt and go watch the movies, or you won't get it.

You will never know how many Americans own guns because you can STFU and it's none of the left's and government's business.

https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/08/gun-ownership-is-up-in-america-so-why-isnt-media-telling-about-it.html

I imagine the number of gun owners dwarfs the number of most estimates

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining

 

[calfoxwc]

Furthermore:

It's an estimate. A very conservative estimate. Nobody knows, because most Americans won't up and tell you on the left, or tell the gov, they have guns.

Stop being stupid - you don't like my estimate - go do your research, have someone teach you how, and come up with your own number.

I think you "do numbers all day at work" like Forrest Gump can do numbers. You have no common sense, you don't understand

much of anything else but numbers, and you are a coward to think for yourself. All you do is attack other's opinions.

Is there something wrong with you?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18251416

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/woodpeckers-brain-damage-good-thing-boston-university-a8193771.html

woodpecker is the forum fungus among us.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040212090015.htm

[calfoxwc]

Woodpeckers Carry Fungus In Beaks That Promotes Tree Decay

Date:

February 12, 2004

Source:

Wildlife Conservation Society

Summary:

A new study in the journal Condor by the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Arkansas State University suggests that a woodpecker's beak is a virtual petri dish of fungal spores that play a key role in the decay of dead trees, or "snags."

[MLD Woody]

Well, you very clearly know you have nothing to stand on, based on your outraged induced vomiting of links that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. But just for fun, or my own stubbornness, I'll try this again.

 

You provided your "estimate" originally. I explained why it was incorrect, or at the very least baseless. You then rebutted that the exact same info you posted before, which was just explained away for you. I guess I'll do it again, but try to break it down  more....

Your 1st link about AR-15's in Conn only matters if those individuals ONLY own AR-15's. Even if they did, you would then need to take that same behavior and assume it happens across the entire country. You're taking a small population in the US, with unique laws, and then assuming that behavior is true everywhere because you think it helps your argument. That's very clearly flawed.

Your 2nd link refers back to the Pew article, so we can focus on that separately later.

Your 3rd link also refers back to the Pew article. Fox then goes on to make a bunch of pro gun agenda points that have no real relevance here. All just different ways of presenting the same data to show what you want. But what we're after is the # of Americans that own guns.

The 4th link, The Blaze article, briefly touches on % ownership at the end, referencing Gallop and looking at it by region. We're concerned about the entire US. (Interestingly  enough, the Blaze article says that ownership is declining, though Fox was trying to say the opposite).

Finally, your graphic is from the same Pew article we'll  get to soon.

 

Now, an important  point to note. No matter how much you *feel* like its true, you can't just pull numbers out of your butt for gun ownership. Besides that fact that your 200 millions number is clearly insane (which would be about 80% of all adults....), you can't just claim "it's definitely higher" and then have no data to back it up.

 

Alright, now the Pew articles:   

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/

An important thing to note, you need to ask yourself, what population was surveyed? In many cases like this, it is only the ADULT population in the US. When you took your  1/3, you multiplied it by the TOTAL US population. So unless you think 1/3 of 4 year olds own guns, that won't be very helpful. Instead, you need to look at the total ADULT population in the US. 

A quick googling says the % of persons under 18 in the US is 24%. So 76% of  the US population are adults. So 76% of 325 million is 247 million. That is our adult population to work with.

Let's look at the different polls referenced in those links. Looking only at questions along the lines of "Do you personally own a gun", because that's what we're looking for, gun owners.

General Social Survey - 22% = ~ 55 Million

Gallup - 29% = ~ 71 Million

Pew  (1) - 24% = ~59 Million

Pew (2) - 30% = ~74  Million

 

So even in the highest poll, we're around 75 million. No 100 million. No 200 million. 

So again, the numbers say one thing, your feelings say another. I know your thoughts on feelings and emotions, so  I have to imagine you'll go with the numbers. I know you'll just respond to this with insults and woodpecker links, because you have nothing else. It's alright. I made my point. If someone with half a brain wants to respond we can discuss. I may have my numbers wrong somewhere.

 

Also, you very clearly have no point with the Jason Bourne thing. Or you're realizing that referencing a movie to prove a point about a real life gun / political issue is a very stupid thing to do. I have to think its that, so you're just flapping about all over the place and hoping no one notices. 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

 You don't read links well, and you never get points. It's an estimate - I have seen the estimate made, and I went with it.

Don't the places I saw it - doesn't matter - there really is no way of telling. You have to understand, but won't, about gun owners.

AGAIN - there is no way of knowing - we gun owning Americans are going to let the gov know. There will never be gun registration.

It's been tried, and in NY they published the names and addresses of registered gun owners in the newspaper. even policemen.

   All we can do is go by polls - 1/3 of American households. Often more than one member in a household.

"This graph shows the number of households in the United States from 1960 to 2017. In 2017, there were about 126.22 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit."

using that 37%, that is about 46 million gun owners. Let's say only 1/2 of those households have two gun owners in residence. Husband and wife. and/or son or daughter. that adding about 23 million more, and we are at 69  million. No many people get polled, but let me tell you - most gun owners aren't out there waving signs for the gov to know they own guns, how many, etc etc etc.

The vast majority of gun owners are unknowable. Guns get handed down from generation to generation. How many  apartment complexes are there? townhouses? all over this entire country?

" There are, of course, properties with more than one building—nearly 100,000 properties have 20 or more. On average, multifamily rental properties turn out to have 2.5 buildings, so the total number of multifamily rental buildings in the U.S. works out to 5.6 million. "

so, maybe 1/3 of apartment DWELLERS own guns. All I would need would be 31 million gun owners out of 5.6 million apartment complexes.

   Best estimate - about 100 million. Nobody really knows.

  You just admitted one poll referenced 75 million. I'd only need to figure 25 million gun owners living in apartment, apartment complexes.

   There is also trailer parks. Not sure if they are counted in as households. Most people living off the grid have guns , maybe they are never considered into the census if they are out there.

   I don't see anything wrong with my 130 million estimate at all. But that you were asking, only to attack it facetiously is typical ignorant woodpecker. The point is, if it were true that 260 million owned guns, the gov would never know, never have any freaking idea. I was only making a point about that.

  Just stop your birdbrain bitching. Congrats on an extended post, but seriously? go research on your own, post YOUR own links,

and come up with YOUR OWN estimate, and stop sitting back and attacking others you disagree with. Grow a pair of...feathers and do your own work, and come up with your own conclusions, typical woodpecker.

[MLD Woody]

Pretty much what I expected. A lot of if's and maybe's and assumptions. A lot of you pulling numbers out of your butt that make you feel good. All you can do is assume all of these numbers are wrong because the majority of gun owners lie to polling agencies about just that. 

There's no need for you to do your household breakdown. Where you're getting that percentage, there's also a percentage that is literally calling out % of gun owners. I already broke that down in my post, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. 

 

Why the Shmuck would I need to post my "own links'. I can use the same ones you did to support my argument. 

I posted 4 estimates. You think it's more accurate and better to manufacture your own "estimate" out of thin air? Why? I used actual data by reputable polls to get to 4 estimates, but you think the one your emotions got you to is better?

 

I honestly can't comprehend how you're so dense. I read all of your links, probably more than you. I did my own research, probably more than you. I walked you through all of the numbers step by step. But the end result doesn't feel right to you so you go off. 

 

 

You have nothing here, on both counts. I figured that's how you'd respond, but went through making that post anyway. I need to just back out before I waste more time with you. 

You have no idea what you're doing. I'm confident I've made the most sense here. I'd be more than happy to engage another sensible poster, but I'm done with you. Go take the last word