Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 251 posts

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#181

Post by fsflover »

zepto wrote: post #172
fsflover wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practically everything that Snowden leaked turned out to be true. I would not call that bullshit.

I am not calling Snowden’s leaks bullshit either. Nothing Snowden leaked actually corroborates DocPangloss’s claims. Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined. That’s the point.

> Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined.

Not true. Snowden showed that Apple and Google were "commercial partners" with PRISM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure....

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#182

Post by pirocks »

bleepblorp wrote: post #168
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.

'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.

Not OP, but probably because the patriot act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 when the understood meaning of terrorist attack was 9/11 scale not a dozen people max.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#183

Post by snypher »

UncleEntity wrote: post #155
macintux wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger .

> One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot... Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.

This is a hero fantasy, and allows you to be legally killed by pretty much anyone. Don't do this.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#184

Post by [deleted] »

nobleach wrote: post #27
beagle3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not asking in an accusatory manor, I'm generally curious. What do you think it's real purpose is?

[deleted]

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#185

Post by fsflover »

nobleach wrote: post #27
beagle3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not asking in an accusatory manor, I'm generally curious. What do you think it's real purpose is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#186

Post by Grimm1 »

slg wrote: post #149
ianbutler wrote: post #5

No one should be surprised by this. This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. Much like the patriot act and our secret warrants, founded on a dubious premise that over the last 20 years have largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. This is a system designed to protect the larger system from any civs who may be getti…

>largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. If we actually want to convince people that this needs change, we need to hold both sides of the debate to the same standard. We searched for any concrete evidence of these measures adding safety, found none, and then concluded it didn't add safety. The next step is to look for concrete examples of how this erodes fre…

The act of secretly (or I guess not so secretly now) monitoring civilian information is a loss of a freedom in and of itself. Freedom from undue government interference in an otherwise normal citizen's life. It's existence is confirmation in and of itself, another overreach.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#187

Post by dragonwriter »

bleepblorp wrote: post #168
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.

'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism. I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.

> Politically-motivated violence waged in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism.

It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".)

Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#189

Post by djsumdog »

macintux wrote: post #101
djsumdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them. Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sl…

You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger .

Well in her case, she knew the gun wouldn't fire. It turned out the firing pin was assembled backwards for it to be used in a play. (The police took apart the gun and put to back together to charge her; it's in the evidence documents)

But I agree, she should have treated the gun like it was armed and ready. She flagged the back of her husband's head several times.

BUT, that isn't in and of itself criminal. In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.

The law they're charged with says they were in violation of "brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner," but nowhere in the law do they define "threatening" .. it's ambiguous, it's a badly written law and it conflicts with federal laws and the 2nd amendment.

Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are two lawyers who have done some incredible breakdowns on this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRN-Xrcf8Co

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#190

Post by djsumdog »

ShamelessC wrote: post #106
djsumdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them. Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sl…

I don't have a response for you because you're probably dug in, but anyone reading this please consider that it's riddled with misinformation.

Could you consider maybe you're believing the misinformation?

I never finished my video on Portland, but I do have one up on CHAZ, and I use to live and have friends in that area. I suggest you watch it:

https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...

Post reply on HN