NSA collected 500M U.S. call records in 2017, a sharp rise: official report

Post by stickdogg » Sat, May 05, 2018, 3:49 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #158

aflagatopamoon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a brutish thug in your tribe/gang/Pantheon which you can count on to do dirty jobs. That's why the connection between organized crime and intelligence agencies has always been solid. Too much oversight/rule-pushing muzzles the potential of these guard dogs to act or intimidate. If you don't have these thugs in your gang, then other gangs that include them can take advantage of you. They are protecting the in…

Seeing the world in terms of who is "on top" is a big part of the problem.

Post by stickdogg » Sat, May 05, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

dpwm wrote: post #259

blitmap wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely doubt the argument that dragnet surveillance has no effect. I wish as soon as the information could be de-classified the NSA would publish about attacks it stopped. Doing so can expose sources and methods used to collect the information, so not everything would become known - but it would certainly help to benefit the agency and its credibility in the eyes of the governed. That said, I don't want to live…

> I sincerely doubt the argument that dragnet surveillance has no effect. It almost certainly does. Whilst congress makes some pretty ludicrously predictably bad decisions, there must be some reports of the NSA's effectiveness. It's just whom it benefits that's in doubt. Let's face it: the number of homicides in general absolutely dwarf the maximum potential of terrorist attacks without NSA intervention. I would argu…

Post by stickdogg » Sat, May 05, 2018, 3:59 PM UTC

blitmap wrote: post #255

pfortuny wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the benefits is the wrong way to solve a problem because it prioritizes the wrong thing: ends become an excuse for bad means.

I do agree that the negatives of dragnet surveillance disproportionately harms society - much greater than the net-positives. I just don't feel like we have enough transparency to correctly scale that bar graph.

Post by mr_spothawk » Sat, May 05, 2018, 4:08 PM UTC

DSingularity wrote: post #213

jMyles wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whom are they protecting? Cause it sure is not the average citizen. But was there ever any indication to the contrary? How did we as Americans convert to the myth that our government, let alone our "intelligence" agencies, have any inclination to protect us or advance our interests? That has never been their practice ever. Our government spent the better part of a century not only allowing 3.5 million of us to live…

I believe they behave the way they do because this is their strategy by design. I feel that during the Cold War strategists realized that being a democracy is a vulnerability. Were the soviets actually willing to go there and exploit it by manipulating the American public? Who knows. But that’s not how military strategy is created.

Post by called_it » Sat, May 05, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #284

wallace_f wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not so sure about that. Did voters ever vote on the surveillance state? Wars like Iraq, Vietnam, etc, were created by lies that would not exist without this agency. The WMD lies and Gulf of Tonkin lies have been well documented in respectable news outlets, so it is not like these are at all conspiracy theories. Yesterday was May 4th, the anniversary of when the agency in government murdered unarmed, peaceful war…

I'm sure we both know that voters vote for representatives, not laws, so that question is not applicable. But in general, there has been popular support for things like "patriot act", and wars, as measured in polls.