111–120 of 251 posts
Why is there so little call for reform from congress and new administrations etc? Obama or Trump had no part in building the original system so why do they continue it? Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America?
You might be shocked by how many regular citizens are fine with and support systems like these.
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.
They're not going to tell you about wins or loses, it would be silly to think otherwise. I'm not saying I agree with the program in any capacity, but those of us that have worked with government have a simple saying "loose lips sink ships".
It seems a lot of people continue to be very naive about this issue and have a "trust the government by default" stance, even on a forum of more educated and more well informed people like this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intent isn't to make it softer though. "PTSD" is more accurate than "shell shock". In WWI they thought that the accumulated shockwave exposure from constant shelling caused mental issues in soldiers. Today we know that all sorts of stressful situations can cause PTSD; it doesn't require being in the trenches taking howitzer fire day and night.
I don’t think your comment has any kind of negative intent, but I feel like the idea that grouping any consequence of civilian experience with those of military combat certainly cannot be a reasonable association. I don’t think Carlin’s point was so much to comment on the accuracy of the description, but rather to say that these descriptions have become longer and longer as time has advanced and thereby lessons the g…
... even if we've since established that said consequences exist along the same cognitive spectrum? From the perspective of a clinician (whose use of the term PTSD is scientifically driven), does it matter whether the conditions that caused the disorder were military or civilian?
The title is misleading, it appears to me, since the claim "did not prevent a single terrorist attack" isn't backed up with even a grammatically correct sentence. > a judge ruled beginning of September 2020 that not [one single terrorist attack had been stopped with the help of the NSA's phone surveillance program (sic) If you trail the linked articles you end up with this 9th circuit opinion: > The panel wrote that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't give a uck about the shoes actually but I absolutely don't feel like unlocking my phone or laptop, even though there's nothing criminal.
I've never had to do that, but I haven't flown since 2016. If I was asked, I'd refuse. If they wouldn't let me though, I'd walk away and eat the cost. I'll remember this for next time though. I'll be sure to check my phone and laptop. I could always just buy a book and not have electronic devices .. or maybe take a cassette deck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intent isn't to make it softer though. "PTSD" is more accurate than "shell shock". In WWI they thought that the accumulated shockwave exposure from constant shelling caused mental issues in soldiers. Today we know that all sorts of stressful situations can cause PTSD; it doesn't require being in the trenches taking howitzer fire day and night.
The point Carlin was trying to make is that the human experience is removed from a term such as "post-traumatic stress disorder". Yes, it might be more medically accurate, but fighting for the rights of people who experienced "shell shock" might have been more impactful. When your experienced is buried underneath medical terms, you bury the humanity of it.
[1]https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/ptsd/relate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't have to take your shoes off anymore if you precheck.
I don't give a uck about the shoes actually but I absolutely don't feel like unlocking my phone or laptop, even though there's nothing criminal.
It just seems like its low cost. And maybe of some value that I don't understand since I don't really study terrorist methods.
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.
I remember a story from years ago that some lab was working on a lens for a satellite for the NSA with a resolution that would be able to discern different coins on the ground from space. They were complaining that, after all their work, the job was cancelled, and they weren't going to get paid. What it meant, of course, was that they had found a better alternative.
The fact that the NSA isn't even bothering to lie about this is telling. The linked article says they won't even be trying to get Congress to let them continue the process, and this is even more telling. But what it's telling me ISN'T that it does not work, and it's certainly not because they suddenly grew a conscience about the Constitution. It's just that they don't need this particular vector to get the sigint they're looking for now.
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.
I would think the opposite: If the program was greatly effective, I would want a blog post just like this to capture the bad guys' attention. That way they might tend to be less careful and make it easier on me.