21–30 of 60 posts
Mass information gathering and mass classification of government information has led to, AFAICT, every accide tal breach and malicious actor scenario the "paranoid" privacy advocates said it would.
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12...
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
Yes, and it's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
The LE and intelligence agencies just go back to doing exactly what they were doing, with zero accountability as usual, and nothing really changes. Except they get a little bit better at covering their tracks.
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
Yep. Congress and the courts regularly find it an excessive abuse of power whenever they are affected by it personally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12...
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
If I were in charge of an intelligence agency, I imagine the most interesting targets of surveillance would be congresspeople and judges.
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Yes, and it's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee The LE and intelligence agencies just go back to doing exactly what they were doing, with zero accountability as usual, and nothing really changes. Except they get a little bit better at covering their tracks.
One wonders: is there ANY point at which the Congress or even the Courts will step in and say that the abuse has been excessive? Is there really any threshold, and they're just waiting to see if we reach it? I'm really starting to believe that there's no limit at all. It's the proverbial frog in hot water.
If I were in charge of an intelligence agency, I imagine the most interesting targets of surveillance would be congresspeople and judges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unsurprisingly, having the rule of law applied even in the pursuit of those who seek to end it is smeared by those who Please don't post grandiose ideological rhetoric here. It's flamebait, and we're trying to avoid what that leads to.
I've mentioned it before, but it seems that the mods only enforce this rule (and similar ones) very selectively: precisely those times that "grandiose ideological rhetoric" disagrees with groupthink. This comment is no more grandiose, ideological, or rhetorical than hundreds I've seen recently on a myriad of topics. I think the very notion of "flamebait" is an Orwellian euphemism for not agreeing with popular sentime…
Wow. Of course performing a search through such private information should be done with far more care than is taken in a typical Google search. Except to this guy.