91–100 of 186 posts
It's only a matter of time before the question will be asked: "Are you now or have you ever been a hacker?"
"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years." This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims. The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
If you are a homosexual it is not about killing you from NSA/CIA perspective. It is rather a way to blackmail you to report on your friends if you are involved in hacktivism, OWS, devoted Muslim, etc. If they know your secrets they own you. They might not need you now, but they may in 5-10-15 years. They'll knock your door and tell you: you are married have 3 kids and are gay. If you don't want your family to find ou…
Members of the intelligence community are patient. Very very patient indeed.
They will build up a dossier of all of your dirty little secrets over a period of years; decades even. They will wait as long as it takes for you to get into a position of power; until they really need something from you, and then, why then they have a nice big fat file waiting for them in the archives, they will come to you and ask you for a "favour".
It could be to hand over some information, perhaps your organization's "red lines" in a negotiation; or the price your company is willing to pay in a takeover bid. It could be to do somebody else a favour, help them out with some insider information, or give them a job. Perhaps, they will ask you to screw somebody over, deny them a job, block them from a position, and so on. Easy for you to do, no skin off your nose; particularly in comparison to the alternative: the awkward conversations you could be having with your spouse that evening, or the IRS later in the week.
In this way, positions of influence get filled with puppets and cronies, and their network of influence and power grows and grows. Who needs money when you have all these little bits of leverage, all these people who will do things for you, individually inconsequential, but collectively ... world changing.
Indeed, the financial services sector .. so dependent on (and so vulnerable to) hard-to-trace insider information, I would not be totally surprised if that sector is completely in thrall to the organization that is dominant in the information-warfare arena.
An addiction to information? No. An addiction to power, fuelled by information. That is why they gotta collect it all.
People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question i…
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the…
When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and when do you think I had an opportunity to change that through the ballot box?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant. People…
Seems to me that those of us who worry about the likes of NSA data slurping are the "radical fringe". That uniformed Muppet certainly seems to think so. Writing off minorities as radicals is their game, not mine. You just played right in to the hands of the likes of Hayden. See how divide and rule works?
Aww come on, can't we have a little debate with our coffee? Maybe we'll eventually converge on some action that gets an optimal level of support within our cohort.
Michael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed. So, here is my response:- There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power. It is true that the internet is creating communities and…
People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question i…
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people…
The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us. Chief Exec's will give themselves massive bonuses while cutting the wages on the lower tiers. Corporations will readily use dirty tactics and lobbying to drive smaller companies out of business without any thought of the people who depend upon that business. And so on and so forth.
Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And unless you've got a direct dependence on said corporation (eg you work for them), then our interests aren't the same.
Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Particularly not on the scale that they already do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people…
Run by a tiny subset of people like you and me. The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us. Chief Exec's will give themselves massive bonuses while cutting the wages on the lower tiers. Corporations will readily use dirty tactics and lobbying to drive smaller companies out of business without any thought of the people who depend upon that business. And so on and so forth. Corporations are no…
Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us.
Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument.
>Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest.
And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to.
>Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics.
Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:
Everybody quits working at Berkshire Hathaway tomorrow. Does the company continue to contribute to the Democratic party? How would that work, exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nevertheless, as shown in the Abu Grahib scandal and the blind eye turned to sexual abuse in domestic prisons, sexual humiliation as a form of punishment is alive and well in the US.
It's alive and well in all of humanity, and likely will be for the rest of our existence as a species.
"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years." This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims. The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
I don't expect the current government to round up homosexuals or hackers, but here's the thing. Let's say we have a big economic depression, and a politically extremist party gets into office. Now we've got a complete database for them to dig through to purge their idea of "undesirables".
Think that's insane? Did you know that they put Kevin Mitnick in solitary confinement because they thought he was a Russian spy, and that he could whistle nuclear missile commands into a computer? Yes, your government is -that- fucking stupid.
We're making the machines of scary future government, all they'll have to do is turn the key. Let's destroy this data and this program before it gets really out of control.