21–30 of 67 posts
"Spy Kids" has a trademark and sells video games, I don't see why this isn't trademark infringement. Surely the CIA would be aware, could Disney have approved it? Wouldn't there be notice at the bottom then?
I would guess because it's “spy game” and not “spy kids”. Seems like there is no way those could be confused.
"Spy Kids" has a trademark and sells video games, I don't see why this isn't trademark infringement. Surely the CIA would be aware, could Disney have approved it? Wouldn't there be notice at the bottom then?
I would guess because it's “spy game” and not “spy kids”. Seems like there is no way those could be confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s ok. If you don’t want your kids to be spies in the future, just say some stuff online that the agencies will dislike but which is not illegal to say. Hopefully that will discourage them from recruiting your children in the future. After all, who would want to hire the sons and daughters of a person who raised them with views that run so obviously counter to the opinions of the agencies. Edward Snowden is a hum…
If you discovered that Snowden was actually the patsy for a limited hangout operation designed to protect the sector from declining regulatory and congressional will in a post-911 market...still a hero?
Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.
"Spy Kids" has a trademark and sells video games, I don't see why this isn't trademark infringement. Surely the CIA would be aware, could Disney have approved it? Wouldn't there be notice at the bottom then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you discovered that Snowden was actually the patsy for a limited hangout operation designed to protect the sector from declining regulatory and congressional will in a post-911 market...still a hero?
Russia and China are getting them more funding
Look at all the budgets, they dip, slightly, around that time then continue their upward or stable trends, as least publicly. Maybe the NSA really did get a budget win in the years post 2013.
Regardless, it was just too good to be true, tho, as a leak. Don't you think?
I think the most likely scenario is, it was a "false flag" "own goal"/self-inflicted wound, that then necessitated useful and remunerative healing and mending by restructuring and getting congress back on their side. Probably hastily executed in response to some looming threat: like they were going to merge NSA with some other agency, aggressively restructure, etc.
So, from one point of view, yes, Snowden is a patriot and a hero for playing the role of patsy in a scheme to save the US intelligence community from muddleheaded regulators, or whomever. But from another point of view, the conventional "public" one, if that's true, he's not.
But, the way it was designed is very clever: everybody wins! Public gets happy that they are now more safe and private. IT sector gets happy with a new shiny product "privacy". Defence and intelligence gets happy because they have to be "saved" by congress from the damage done by the leaks to vital national security.
Who knows maybe there was even an aspect of long game preparation to raise public awareness about privacy to prevent the eroding away of US internet company customer base by Chinese competitors thrown into the mix?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you discovered that Snowden was actually the patsy for a limited hangout operation designed to protect the sector from declining regulatory and congressional will in a post-911 market...still a hero?
Interesting how hypothetical we have to be for snowden to not be a hero and equally hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad guys we know they were despite zero accountability for it" Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.
Your second point tho I don't understand, 'hypothetical in degree for the CIA,NSA,FBI to be "actually no longer the bad guys we know they were despite zero accountability for it" Each of those things isn't impossible, right? It'd be nice if the latter could be made true because accountability actually existed for brazen criminality.'
Can you explain more? How are CIA, FBI related to this? Also, it seems you mean it could have been a factional thing: some faction wanted to shake things up because they weren't happy with the criminality (except the criminality was not the spying on the public type, but much worse), and this was their lever?
I think if it was factional, a more banal reason is more likely, e.g: General A didn't like that General B's division was going to get funding for Project Y instead of General A's Project X, so A organized this leak to make General B's division look like klutzes, and ensure General A would get the funds for her project.
But it just seems a bit over the top for people in the shadows to blow their whole modus operandi with a public expose for some factional thing. I think it's more likely it was very much sanctioned from the top and "whole of agency" in essence.
But maybe that's not what you mean! :)
As a country, it is important that you have smart spies and the way to recruit is to identify potential candidates when they are young and nurture them. But as a parent, it will be your most important responsibility to prevent your kids from falling into this seemingly cool traps and become a spy which will not be a good life for your kids.
This isn't about recruitment, it's about PR. If the CIA is friendly and fun and cool, then you'll keep it funded. Period.
lol what on earth are those colouring-in characters
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia and China are getting them more funding
I agree the 'whole of agency' funding thing doesn't really make sense. Look at all the budgets, they dip, slightly, around that time then continue their upward or stable trends, as least publicly. Maybe the NSA really did get a budget win in the years post 2013. Regardless, it was just too good to be true, tho, as a leak. Don't you think? I think the most likely scenario is, it was a "false flag" "own goal"/self-infl…