Amazon complied and replied to 1,200 subpoena requests, 189 search warrants and 76 other court orders – for a whopping 1,465 requests they responded to ....

...such a small number of 1,465 out of the 244 million Amazon customer base?

The NSA is spying on ALL OF US! Don't you get that yet?

Look Parsons - I realize that you love Big Brother and your mantra is "if you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear", but with all due respect, those are the words of a slave.

those are the words of a slave

We're all slaves, Deckard.

Try skipping a single breath.

Fuck Amazon ...

Go ahead.

Then be sure to let hondope and Deckard know how it was.

They might just be perverted enough to also want a “piece.”

The NSA is spying on ALL OF US! Don't you get that yet?

I don’t get how you can post an article showing such a small number of 1,465 out of the 244 million can ever be construed to be “ALL OF US.

I do however understand your paranoia.

You need to understand that I asked you a specific question, one that you deflected from.

I will repeat the question:

“Why is it a bad thing for Amazon to comply with legal court orders?”

And are you suggesting Amazon ignore legal curt orders and face contempt of court proceedings?

Why is it a bad thing for Amazon to comply with legal court orders?”

And are you suggesting Amazon ignore legal curt orders and face contempt of court proceedings?

If Amazon is lying about when it collects data, why should Amazon be allowed to continue to exist?

I don’t get how you can post an article showing such a small number of 1,465 out of the 244 million can ever be construed to be “ALL OF US.

Good grief! What the hell - you think that only those who had warrants for their personal information were the only ones spied on?

I will set the question up with this:

[Amazon] provided more customer data [under court orders] to U.S. law enforcement ...

This article tries so hard to inveigle us to condemn Amazon and/or the U.S. government with superficial suggestions and through the clandestine use of omissions as a means of deception. The author does this by intentionally neglecting to specifically state what customer data was supplied in compliance with the court order and why was it needed.

Deckard – My question is: Why do you think this author OMMITTED this important information and do you think he intentionally neglected to mention this important information since it would not support his agenda if we learned all the facts and the truth?

If Amazon is lying about when it collects data, why should Amazon be allowed to continue to exist?

It has always been public knowledge that Amazon collects data.

I have seen no place where it has been shown that Amazon lies about collecting date....have you?

As to the second part of your question ...

Amazon should be allowed to continue to exist until they are charged tried, convicted and punished in a court of law that so orders they should not be allowed to continue to exist.

That is the American justice system....and you do believe in having an American justice system, right?

Or. do you want to be a Deckard....to judge using incomplete information and your personal opinion?

Surely you do not....at least I would cant to think that.

Especially Google then stolen facebook.

Antitrust baby. Break it up. Same for Facebook and Google.

Especially Google then stolen facebook.

That’s a different subject for a different time and another thread....and one we can come to some agreements on.

But right now, we are discussing the “hit piece” that Deckard posted here.

I shouldn’t have to caution you, but I will, that when reading this article and other articles posted by Deckard....you need to recognize this article for what it is.

It is a published article posted only with the full intent to sway public opinion by presenting half facts scattered throughout with omissions.

The article should be fully recognized as presenting false and biased information by omission in a way that appears to be objective and truthful.

You need to be very gullible or extremely biased to fall for this propaganda shit....and I don’t see you as being either of these.

Yes Amazon has to respond to subpoenas.

They can be useful but they are most likely being abused and always listening. I think someone demonstrated that before.

Echo and Google assist and are deep state spying devices.. directly or indirectly.

Have you seen this?

If HAL9000 Were Amazon.com’s Alexa

I don’t get how you can post an article showing such a small number of 1,465 out of the 244 million can ever be construed to be “ALL OF US.

Good grief! What the hell - you think that only those who had warrants for their personal information were the only ones spied on?

Good grief” What the Hell – I do know that “thinking” ain’t “doing” or “believing.”

And just because YOU want to think something means diddly squat to me. You show me some verifiable facts if you want me to agree with you.

What I think is that you are biased with your anarchist attitude and want everyone to see things only as you see them.

There is not ONE IOTA of proof anywhere in this article that either Amazon, the CIIA or the U.S. LEOs did anything wrong. Had they done anything wrong, then the author would have made that his headline.

Furthermore, you DAMNED WELL know that they did nothing wrong here....while you continue to undertake your agenda intent of seeding biased information to try and sway public opinion.

Echo and Google assist and are deep state spying devices.. directly or indirectly.

Yes Amazon has to respond to subpoenas. They can be useful but they are most likely being abused and always listening. I think someone demonstrated that before.

I partially agree on Point #1 in that they are data collecting devices....and should never be used by anyone who expects privacy. I could be convinced about the “deep state” part when presented with evidence and not speculation.

In fact, anyone who expects privacy should never even be anywhere near a computer connected to the Web. That has been demonstrated here and many other places before. There is NO SUCH thing as PRIVACY on the Web.

Have you ...

Have you decided to directly answer the questions I posed to you?

Have you decided to directly answer the questions I posed to you?

Obviously not....and it’s because you can not.

Therefore, I will close with this ...

The author stated that Amazon responded to the requests of a “whopping”1,465 subpoenas. search warrants and other official court orders from their 244,000,000 customers. For the purpose of our discussion here, I will stipulate that number is accurate.

Now, both the author and you have insinuated this is overstepping the judicial procedures and implied these actions were improper and in violation of the laws.

While you are adamant in your accusation, you have failed to show where either Amazon, the CIA, the U.S. government or any LEO did ANYTHING wrong here....because you CAN’T.

Yet you whine and piss all over yourself while yelling fowl about a violation of the right to privacy using mere conjectures and pure wishful speculation....because you simply just want to believe it.

Show me proof of any violations anywhere, on anything and we will continue this discussion.

In the meantime, I will no longer waste time on this thread and check off this article posting as yet another one of the many yellow journalism articles you continue to post daily.

While you are adamant in your accusation, you have failed to show where either Amazon, the CIA, the U.S. government or any LEO did ANYTHING wrong here....because you CAN’T.

Do you honestly believe they would just tell us that?

Do you honestly believe they would just tell us that?

So, since that didn’t happen....then those numbers had to come from somewhere. And I do believe the numbers are accurate because they can easily be checked by those who know how to gain access to the reports as he did. The author had to have read the full reports wherein those numbers were contained. Those numbers could never have been published as stand alone numbers. The reasons and actions taken had to be in the report he got those numbers from and if there were VIOLATIONS anywhere, then the author would have been all over them like stink on shit....to show how the big bad government did something wrong.

I honestly believe that since the author could not in any way show anything was done wrong here, he therefore merely posted partially accurate information in order to mislead the “gullible” or try to kindle the reaffirmation of the already “believers.”

I am speculating of course, which I don’t like to do.....but the speculation is well founded since he posted only partial information for which there would have been no purpose in merely releasing the numbers.

I trust I have answered your question and now I have a questions for you. It does call for speculation.

The question is: Since the author could show absolutely no wrong doing in any way by anyone....why do you think he merely extracted only numbers from a report, posted those numbers andthen left the rest up to people’s imagination?

Read the article again for the sole purpose of finding factually documented and substantially verifiable charges of misconduct by anyone. I find none....please let me know if you do when you get back to me and me and tell me that all you found were generalizations and innuendos.

I don’t pass judgment based on reading mere generalizations and sneaky innuendos....and I don’t believe that you don‘t either.

Edit Add:
That 1,465 requests were lawfully responded to by Amazon on 244,000,000 Amazon customers when presented by the author as a stand alone fact, in no way verifies that either Amazon or the government did anything wrong. It does show that the author merely uses those numbers and a bunch of fancy suggestive wording to try and make people believe they did something wrong and to hate Amazon and the government. That was the author’s purpose and that was also the purpose for which Deckard posted this article.

And are you suggesting Amazon ignore legal curt orders and face contempt of court proceedings?

Roe vs Wade was a legal court order to kill babies. How many have you killed, or are you in contempt of court?

How many gay wedding cakes have you baked per court order?

I honestly believe the author had access to that information and chose not to share that information with us by including it in his article. The reason I believe this is that I am sure God just didn’t open up Heaven and say: Here, Aaron, I have some numbers for you....but I am only giving you numbers and nothing else.

Just read the first sentence of the article and it says where the numbers come from. So your speculation is incorrect.

Amazon’s fifth transparency report has revealed that the company provided more customer data to U.S. law enforcement

So your speculation is incorrect.

Just read the first sentence of the article and it says where the numbers come from. [Underline Added].

I of course read the same thing as you did and I googled: “Amazon Transparency Report.”

This showed up:

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/tag/transparency- report/

At the bottom of that information post, I found:

Amazon’s bi- annual information request report, available here, provides additional information on the types and volume of information requests we receive.

Aaron Kesel is presenting himself as a professional journalist. As a professional journalist and following the Code of Journalist Ethics....he must know, or surely should know, that he is to provide a link(s) to his source information. Since he provided links in three other places, I can only surmise that he INTENTIONALLY omitted sourcing his data. And for what reason....only Aaron Kesel knows.

All of this of course, is what led to my speculation and I will retract my speculation as I continue to search for the source he used. If and when I do find some type of source....I will once again have to speculate that may be the one he used since he never provided a source for his information.

Sad, very sad....the poor journalistic practices used by this biased pseudo journalist.

All said and done, the first 10 lines of his article are probably correct. After that he starts to spin in an attempt to mislead readers as he tries to get them to hate Amazon and the government.

There are no doubt many reasons to hate Amazon and many more reasons to hate the government....but Aaron has not provided a SINGLE REASON in his yellow journalism article to do so.

Again, nowhere....NOWHERE...does the author show that Amazon or anyone else did anything wrong and he in a cunning, deceitful and manipulative manner tried to make it appear someone did.

Therefore, and without any reservation, I still stand firmly behind my call: This is a YELLOW JOURNALISM hit piece. However, I also stand to be corrected and apologize if it is verifiably shown that I am wrong ...

Even FaceBook will deny any law enforcement request for info unless there is a warrant.

Due to upcoming technology, expect LE to use it to their investigative benefit. You have choices... you can opt to not shop at Amazon, use smart phones or even drive down public access roadways with traffic cams... but be warned, the millennial sheep are VERY much interested in giving up their freedoms to feel safer... and those WEAK snowflake fuckers are getting elected, teaching our children and running LameStream Media. We are fucked.

This sounds like the government is on fishing expedit ions.

I am merely interested in why you are seeing....what you are seeing.

I say....with that extremely low percentage ratio, it sounds to me like the government targeted exactly the right small number of individuals to get the specific information needed that may have saved American lives.

He took their information at face value and parroted it.....then added his own spin.

Amazon has largely resisted efforts by police to obtain data ...

Amazon knows customers care deeply about privacy and data security, and we optimize our work to get these issues right for customers. With this post I’d like to provide a number of observations on our policies and positions:

• Amazon does not disclose customer information unless we’re required to do so to comply with a legally valid and binding order. Unless prohibited from doing so or there is clear indication of illegal conduct in connection with the use of Amazon products or services, Amazon notifies customers before disclosing content information.
• Where we need to act publicly to protect customers, we do. Amazon never participated in the NSA’s PRISM program. We have repeatedly challenged government subpoenas for customer information that we believed were overbroad, winning decisions that have helped to set the legal standards for protecting customer speech and privacy interests. We also advocate in Congress to modernize outdated privacy laws to require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant from a court to get the content of customer communications. That’s the appropriate standard, and it’s the standard we follow.
• While we recognize the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies to investigate criminal and terrorist activity, and cooperate with them when they observe legal safeguards for conducting such investigations, we oppose legislation mandating or prohibiting security or encryption technologies that would have the effect of weakening the security of products, systems, or services our customers use, whether they be individual consumers or business customers. We offer AWS clients strong encryption as one of many standard security features, and we provide them the option to manage their own encryption keys. We publish security best practices documents on our website and encourage our clients to use these measures to protect sensitive content.
• We are certified under the Safe Harbor Framework and are members of numerous associations focused on protecting privacy and security, and AWS has achieved a number of internationally recognized certifications and accreditations demonstrating compliance with third-party assurance frameworks. AWS clients have control over their content and where it resides.

  https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/privacy-and-data-security/

DickTard loves Agitate propaganda. lol

Have you decided to directly answer the questions I posed to you?

Obviously not....and it’s because you can not.

GFY Parsons - take your arrogant demands and piss off.

If you want to remain a tool for the establishment and condemn others for posting facts, that's your choice you Stasi mofo.

Getting most anyone (these days) to help LE without a warrant is non existent.

Why in the hell would anyone provide police with information WITHOUT a warrant?

Have you decided to directly answer the questions I posed to you?

GFY Parsons - take your arrogant demands and piss off.

I guess I can take that as a “NO.”

Getting most anyone (these days) to help LE without a warrant is non existent. Why in the hell would anyone provide police with information WITHOUT a warrant?

You may be surprised to learn that thirty-three states have no binding authority or explicitly allow for law enforcement to access this data without a warrant.

That is more than half of US states that permit LEOs to access this information without a warrant.

Only six states currently require a warrant for all cell-site location information.

Does that answer your question?

You may be surprised to learn that thirty-three states have no binding authority or explicitly allow for law enforcement to access this data without a warrant.

That is more than half of US states that permit LEOs to access this information without a warrant.

And there are those who still claim that Amerika is not a police state.

And there are those who still claim that Amerika is not a police state.

There are those who will personally decide which laws they will obey and the ones they will not. When they find a law which they disagree with or goes against their agend....they will then make a ridiculous outburst and label “Amerika as a police state.”

Sad ...

Why in the hell would anyone provide police with information WITHOUT a warrant?

Because a lot of people have been victimized by those you DEFEND. You dumb shit.

Why does it sound to you “like the government is on fishing expedit ions” when the government specifically requested information on ONLY 1,465 Amazon customers out of the 244,000,000 Amazon customer base?

Why would they even need to request info on any of those customers in the first place? Because they want to set a precedent to override the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Why would they even need to request info on any of those customers in the first place?

Amazon now carries a title of “the terrorist’s best friend” after selling all the parts required to build a deadly nail bomb — without proper security checks. A title I am sure that Amazon is not proud of.

When I just read your response, this is what came to my mind:

USA: Did Obama just admit to training ISIS!?

At least 115 killed.

20 killed – 50 wounded.

56 killed – 177 injured.

2 killed – 7 wounded.

6 dead – 26 hurt.