51–60 of 77 posts
well, yes I downloaded all those movies, but I haven't watched any of them. Really, if I decide to watch one, there is a process by which I purchase it first. Promise. It's not infringement unless I actually WATCH the movie.
Does anyone feel more reticent than usual to chime in on these threads despite this being one of the most provocative topics on HN? Asking for a friend...
Actually I think writing about the NSA in forums like this, and in email, is the only effective way I have at trying to convince the analysts and spies that they're doing the wrong thing. [You listening, analyst spy?]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said the point was to have an answer on record. The point is not to have the truth on record; that has never been useful.
So then, how is having an answer on record going to be useful?
Obviously they do. What kind of naive child would ask this question?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, for those who have missed it: Obama was being surveilled as well, before being elected: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-... Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet (if you compare his promises and reality, it sure looks like it). And that would then mean that no future President would be able to start limiting the growing corruption, with the NSA in power.
> Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet Effectively? Nobody gets the backing of a major party for his nomination, donations, etc, without being thorougly screened and vetoed that they'll "do the right thing" to continue supporting several interests (partisan, financial, political, etc). It's not like parties do all this gerrymandering and political games to then allow some loose canon President to realy chang…
Also, somewhat unrelated yet interesting: Harman authored an op-ed in the Washington Post a couple months ago.[3] It seems she primarily railed against the NSA, while simultaneously failing to disclose her obvious conflict of interest, and took a parting shot at Snowden in the process.
[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/jane-harm...
[2] http://www.salon.com/2009/04/20/harman/ (Gleen Greenwald authored this piece.)
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/security-policies-for...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness, spying of congress (and the president, judges, etc) does seem much more concerning then spying on most citizens, as it would allow them to break the checks on their power that those bodies should provide. In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.
> In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians Would? That has been standard fair at least since the days of J.E Hoover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
Congress is exempt from insider trading laws and many forms of arrest. A quick google search will reveal this.
This is brilliant. This is how we'll get legislation passed reigning in the NSA. Elected officials will wake up and ask "Wait, you mean they're spying on ME?!"
In fairness, spying of congress (and the president, judges, etc) does seem much more concerning then spying on most citizens, as it would allow them to break the checks on their power that those bodies should provide. In fact, one of the largest concerns I have heard about surveleince is that it would allow them to blackmail politicians.
Considering the NSA is recording the content of everything, let's be honest, over time they accumulate blackmail material on everyone.
This applies to elected officials, and people who haven't even decided to run yet.