11–20 of 251 posts
Which is unsurprising given that its goal never had anything to do with terror in the first place.
What do you base that on?
Honestly I'm surprised this is even a controversial opinion at this point. This is exactly what Snowden exposed. That these programs were as if not more focused on internal spying than anything else.
>The NSA phone surveillance program was illegal and expensive: And it did not stop a single terrorist attack "Was" illegal?
Right below:
> What we do need is better trained and better equipped police officers so that they can identify potential threats faster.
If the violent offenders are already known to police then how is training cops to identify threats going to help? The threats were already known by police to be violent.
The article doesn’t really provide any new developments. The company also claims to be the next Google with private security in mind. To me it feels like marketing blog speak.
There are not any new developments about PRISM as related to Big Tech but having it in the title will make sure it reaches #1.
You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...") PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.
Only if you believe its stated purpose is its real purpose.
I suspect it's actually a huge success if you measure it against its real purpose.
Which is unsurprising given that its goal never had anything to do with terror in the first place.
What do you base that on?
Which is unsurprising given that its goal never had anything to do with terror in the first place.
What do you base that on?
You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...") PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.
Is it really possible we only have Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-week-in-life-straig...
If you want to argue against PRISM-like programs, it would behoove you to tackle their actual purpose. We shouldn't just argue that PRISM isn't good at catching terrorists, we should argue that the total value of intelligence gained from it is not worth sacrificing our privacy for.
