I still find it amusing people are reacting to this news as some sort of magical revelation -- governments have been doing this since the beginning of civilization.
These amazing shifts in technology can prevent the government from spying just as well as allowing them. Its not the technology, but the private corporations so willing to hand this over and the citizens of this country who really think their political party is different than the other one.
Not really when you consider the technology of the people they are listening to. Considering the last 70 years (for example) the US government ability to track us hasn't changed much at all from the ability of those who wish to evade detection.
I think I see what you mean. I guess if the govt had employed that ThinThread system Bill Binney wanted then it might be a different story. Also, what do you mean the govt can't track people who wish to evade detection? What communication methods are those people using besides face to face communication?
Well I guess I was including that into the theme of amazing technology shifts. Also, private corporations have always been willing to hand over information in the name of "national security" to the govt no matter what the political party.
There's a new one: since something has been done since the beginning of time, we shouldn't be outraged when a large bunch of info about the latest practices with the latest technologies are leaked. We shouldn't compare and differentiate between an appropriate process and an inappropriate process. Incredible.
The ability to parse and extrapolate the information is increasing on a logarithmic scale. There are also more hands in the kitchen sifting and sharing your garbage. Before agencies like the CIA and FBI would balk at sharing information or have difficulties even with direct cooperation. A simple download or linkup to another agency's database is all they need now.
Snowden broke an oath, but the superiors just did something "he didn't like". Can your bias be ANY more transparent? A contractual "oath" was broken by Snowden to highlight that someone broke an oath to 350 million Americans, and hundreds of millions of non-Americans and you actually have the gall to act like Snowden is whining about his superior being mean to him??? Give me a break, your statement is absolutely RIDICULOUS. If I swear an oath to keep the work secrets of the CEO at my work place, that oath is not valid anymore once that CEO is found to be acting illegally outside the mandate of the entire organization - because that CEO should be fired. I'm not going to argue with you about whether it's common for conservatives on this board to tell citizens to leave the country if they don't like it. That much is an established fact. As for who is or isn't conservative, there's not a definitive way to answer that so no point arguing about it. For example, ATW sees himself as slightly liberal (which I find laughable), conservatives consider Obama a liberal, etc. Doesn't mean anything, it's only convenient when referring to single issue positions. You value oaths and loyalty very highly? lol No ****, in this case it's called worshipping state ideology, and it's not new, and it has a very clear pattern >> one of little loyalty to its own citizens, and a total disregard for oaths to citizens in the pursuit of power. It is absurd that you claim to value oaths particularly highly, one man broke an oath to one entity and you're outraged, while that entity broke an oath to hundreds of millions of people and you're fine about it. How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with you about this when you have such little regard for humans??? Why would anyone care about the opinion of someone who on a spectrum of opinions about human beings, has possibly the lowest opinion of humans than most humans? You don't value loyalty and oath highly. Let's be clear that you value oaths and loyalty to things which fit your particular values. That's not just you, that's everyone. Everyone values those things highly - between themselves and what fits in to their values. Real people and even mythical fictional people. Like Osama Bin Laden and his oath to Allah. Like Hitler and his oath to the supreme race. Like Peter Pan, Saddam, Gaddhafi, Assad, Milton Friedman, Jesus, Mohammed, Adam and Eve. What about the NSA's oaths? or the department of defense? or Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.? Oh those are not oaths huh, those are just promises to do their best in difficult circumstances? I can't say that your position is surprising - if there was anyone on the board who would hold this position, it would be you. But just how far you are from the center is kind of crazy.
i am one of the most liberal people you will meet, and i have been very critical of obama's policies since he took office in 2008. he had a chance to really change things when he first came into office, with both houses being blue+ the momentum of the country on his side. but instead his election showed the sobering reality of our political system in america- that the era of political trailblazers is over. there are no more presidents who will put their foot down like jackson, teddy or LBJ. the power of interest in DC is too great now. if his election in 2008 taught us anything, it taught us that even when the people desperately want change, they wont get it. and im not talking about red or blue change, either, im talking just any change for the good of the public that does not benefit the establishment in washington who put their various agendas in front of the peoples best interest. that to me is far more scary than our massive intelligence apparatus. people need to stop bickering about red and blue and need to start voting third, fourth, fifth, sixth...party, because this two party system does not represent the will of the people. and many hard conservatives i talk to would cold heartedly agree with me.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/nsa-surveillance-perspective I don't think anyone here cares about this, but since I have on more than a few occasions talked about real libertarians as opposed to the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" types who inappropriately use the word libertarian to describe themselves - for example, everyone associated with Cato Institute - I thought I'd share. This really pisses me off. Not because of their position - I couldn't care less what these two think - but because this is one of the reasons why people so misunderstand libertarianism. Down with the Kochtopus!
http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-spying-violated-the-constituion-2013-6 Here's the letter from Senator Ron Wyden: "… on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." And we won't know the rest, because critics can't cite a single case or even appeal to USSC, because of the clusterf**k of discussing "secret" affairs, which is wrapped into this layer of governmental abuse. This is the dumbest argument anyone could have ever made. literally. It's like a saying a bully is doing a good job because he punched you in the stomach. you can't say there isn't abuse because no one can cite any cases of abuse---when part of that abuse entails the government never having to tell anyone anything!
Eight senators introduce legislation to shine a light on FISC opinions. Traitors no doubt. Right, Kojirou?
Have you considered that Obama put his foot down and his presidency to get the Affordable Care Act passed? I understand the dissapointment over this issue but it's a mistake to say that nothing has changed with Obama in office. My own view of Obama has always been more jaded than many and looking at his record he never was the liberal that many believe or portray him out to be. I think in that way I don't feel betrayed by him over things like this issue but expected this. Just to add it doesn't mean I support or fine with the amount of surveillance out there.
Bush’s NSA Director: Obama Has Been More Transparent On Surveillance Than We Were The man who served as the director of the National Security Agency under former President George W. Bush said Wednesday that President Barack Obama has been more transparent about top secret surveillance programs than his predecessor. <object width="416" height="234" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep_1620"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=us/2013/06/12/exp-str-former-nsa-director-michael-hayden-full.cnn&contentId=us/2013/06/12/exp-str-former-nsa-director-michael-hayden-full.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_embed_2x_container.swf?site=cnn&profile=desktop&context=embedwww&videoId=us/2013/06/12/exp-str-former-nsa-director-michael-hayden-full.cnn&contentId=us/2013/06/12/exp-str-former-nsa-director-michael-hayden-full.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="234"></embed></object> "Frankly, the Obama administration was more transparent about this effort than we were in the Bush administration," "I mean, they made this meta data collection activity available to all the members of Congress. Not just all the members of the intelligence committees."
