bannination wrote:
Like terrorism? Really, I mean - lets put all the gobs of money they are throwing at this into cancer research (or any medical research for that matter), I bet there would be an order of a magnitude more lives saved. Also, if this program is -relatively- harmless, then why such a big deal that Snowden is leaking details that anyone paying attention, already knew!
I doubt you disagree with me about putting the money somewhere it actually counts, I guess I'm just venting.
I'd agree on moving more money into more worthwhile efforts, but I'd start with moving the cost of the fence first, then get on to moving intelligence gathering expense a bit later.
It's not - to most people paying attention from 2006 - a surprise that NSA has the phone call data or the ability to access email data. Even if it is, disclosure of the program itself wouldn't make Snowden a criminal. But disclosures of how the programs work, who is or might be targeted, etc. is not unclassified public knowledge and even if one believes in his stated cause, he's in the wrong from a security standpoint. When I worked in what once was called the Air Intelligence Agency, now called the somewhat awkward Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, it wasn't a secret that we had huge antennas that could pick up most any signal going by. One could see where all those antennas were located and make a guess at what or whom we might be listening. But disclosing details of what was being done would have gotten anybody shot. Whether one sees NSA as a curse, a necessary evil, just evil, or a necessary operation, the same "loose lips" motto that the Navy had applies.
O Really wrote:We (collectively) get all in an uproar over something relatively - relatively - harmless that we find out about, but don't spend much time agonizing over all the things people are doing that we don't know about, absent any noticeable symptoms resulting.
Why would you get upset over something you don't know about and has no symptoms?
My phrasing was awkward. Sorry.
No worries.
What I mean is, the various alphabet agencies do a lot of stuff we don't know about. When we find out about it, we tend to jump to the conclusion that since we didn't know about it, therefore it must be evil.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
What I find interesting is that every time one of these things come to light, it is greeted with shock and surprise.
Reminds me of teenagers discovering sex for the first time in human history.
Vrede wrote:
...and with the absolute faith that what they're doing is necessary, in our best interests, and won't be turned against us.
Those three are not mutually dependent. It could be necessary, in our best interests, and still have the potential to be turned against us. But if the "necessary" part is reasonably strong, and the "potential to turn against us" is reasonably small, does it get dumped? I'd say "no" but of course others differ. But then, the enjoyment I get from riding my bike on a challenging (for my age) trail in the mountains outweighs the possibility I could smack my face into a tree.
Well, the metaphor was a bit weak in a couple of ways, including that nobody could reasonably argue that mountain biking is "necessary." But here's the way I see it - I think surveillance operations and intelligence gathering are important functions for national security. Nevermind "terrorists" or chasing bin Laden's wannabes, there are many other threats actively working to cause damage to the US. Nevermind that the US may have caused part of the problem and has done things to exacerbate the animosity, the threats are still quite real. In the collection of intelligence, you never really know what is going to be useful. You can't just say "I'm going to make random guesses as to where I might find eeveel-doers and only look there." It's a search through a haystack, but you have to have the whole haystack. If there are abuses in the programs, find those responsible and sack them, prosecute them, whatever. No problem. But be sure to distinguish between abuse and acceptable use.
12 ways we should increase privacy laws. Really, to me this doesn't excuse the NSA, it just points out more areas that should be targeted.
I think the train to collective privacy has left the station and won't be back. Individuals, however, still have alternatives and choices to minimize their own exposure. But most don't bother, therefore deserving the loss of privacy they incur.
12 ways we should increase privacy laws. Really, to me this doesn't excuse the NSA, it just points out more areas that should be targeted.
I think the train to collective privacy has left the station and won't be back. Individuals, however, still have alternatives and choices to minimize their own exposure. But most don't bother, therefore deserving the loss of privacy they incur.
It's never to late too change. I certainly agree though that some people just don't care, and they really do deserve it. However, those of us that do should have a right to it.
Vrede wrote:It's a serious issue and reasonable people come down on different sides of it. Saying that opponents are Henny Pennys is as stupid and irrelevant as saying that you're a Stalinist for being so blase about it, beyond your being Stalinist for deluding yourself that folks that embarrass you on so many facts are mentally ill, of course.
But you haven't responded remotely reasonably about it.
Another statement that makes no sense, and yet you can't seem to grasp that fact. Just because people don't allow you to determine the topic, doesn't mean they are running away. And it's kind of a pathetic and cowardly response on your part. But hey, that's what you're about huh?
bannination wrote:
It's never to late too change. ....
I think it is. Or at least to late to put Jeannie back in the bottle. Maybe new tech can be developed with more controls, but the culture of what is "private" is, IMNVHO, changed forever. Sure, you don't use them and neither to I, but "sharing" icons are everywhere. In my personal case, I love my Galaxy. I know the GPS that's so helpful to me can be used in ways not helpful to me. I know apps have access to location, contact lists, yada. My choices are, in general, to give up some features of my life I really like, or give up some measure of privacy in some matters. I choose the toys, generally. Now if a geezer such as myself makes that choice, what choices do you think those who have never been alive when there wasn't a Facebook are going to make. Who's the market for major changes in privacy?
1) That I'm running away.
2) That you've embarrassed me.
3) That you've proven me incorrect.
4) That I'm a Stalinist.
5) That I'm lazy because I don't take the time to read every fucking thing you post.
6) That I'm dodging you just because I don't accept your poor logic.
7) That you're mentally sound.
I'm sure if I took the time to read through all the rest of your non-stop endless commentary I could find many more examples. Posting a list of tech companies that don't want the government monitoring their customers does not prove that tech savvy people are surprised it happens any more than the fact that you are tech ignorant proves that every tech ignorant person is surprised. I was making a general comment. Being the eternal drama queen that you are, you took it personally. Get the fuck over it and quit being such a baby.
