Are there literally no limits worldwide to their power at this point?
It is my current assumption that everything now is being logged.
491–500 of 614 posts
Are there literally no limits worldwide to their power at this point?
It is my current assumption that everything now is being logged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> imply that he thought the US was doing something unique But the US is doing something unique. No other country has the global reach and the sheer military budget that the US has. It's debatable that other countries are "above" it in moral terms, but the US certainly has taken it to a whole new level. Edit: I also don't see where "But he's building his whole argument on ... US was deserving of special disdain". Desp…
> It's debatable that other countries are "above" it in moral terms It's really not, since many of the releases of information about what the US is doing -- including the current one -- have other countries also neck deep in it. I mean, the actual spying in the article that this comment thread is attached to is done by the UK's GCHQ, NSA is just a consumer of the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet if ESPN and shows like American Idol, etc. were knocked offline until we got our government back on track things would get done pretty fast.
The contempt you guys show for millions and millions of people because they prioritize privacy differently from you is really distasteful.
Meanwhile, most of your neighbors are focused on their own lives, and the lives of the people they'd rather watch on TV.
That roof IS going to collapse. Its just a matter of when. Would you too not have contempt for the priorities of your neighbors?
As of 1:41pm PST, there is no mention of this news anywhere on the front page of the NY Times website. There have been similar ...time lags... in the past when covering Snowden related news at the NYT. It's a shame one of the most important news sources in the US is so slow in their coverage, either intentionally or not.
The NY Times is not Reddit. They will check the story through their own sources before publishing. They're not just going to repost the Washington Post story. They're slow on Snowden stores because they do not have direct access to the Snowden documents, like the Guardian and WashPo do.
The AP, Fox News, NPR, PBS, CNN, LA Times, ... all have reported on the story in the Washington Post. The NY Times has not, and that's unfortunate. It's a major news event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I can not remember when something similar made me that angry as the current conduct of the US does. If I would not know better that this would negatively affect the whole world and innocent US citizens and that emotional reactions are usually not…
I'm a US citizen. Born and bred. And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you. I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a President is no longer enough. My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government. And appear unassailable. I doubt very much that we, the American People, could even IDENTIFY the people setting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Sorry. The President does bear full responsibility. That's the nature of the job. If he wants to claim he wasn't aware, OK. But he is now and it's his responsibility to fix it. Again, that's the nature of the job. If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. It would require the exercise of political will, but it absolutely could be done. The problem, actually, is right here, when p…
> If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. Just like Guantanamo Bay, right?
If Obama believed these programs (and Guantanamo Bay) were "wrong" with the same conviction Snowden believes – he'd do what it takes to shut them down, with the same career/livelihood risks that Snowden accepted.
It's precisely the sort of moral compromises that Obama has made to allow Guantanamo Bay to stay operating, that have allowed the NSA to grab so much extraordinary power amd avoid any sort of reasonable oversight.
I understand that "just closing Guantanamo" isn't as simple as it sounds - but letting things like that slide because they're complicated, and doing so for 40 odd years, has allowed a situation where people like Clipper think lying to congress is his job. Where intelligent people somehow perform the sort of mental gymnastics that allow them to claim collecting and storing personal communication isn't "collection" unless a person listens to the collected information.
If the president wanted it to stop - he'd stop it. If he's not stopping it, it's because there's something he considers more important.
He _might_ even be right. There might be a real and provable public interest reason why Guantanamo and the NSA have to be the way they are. There's no obvious or easy explanation along those lines – and it's super easy to cynically attribute it all to personal(and corporate) wealth and power motives which _are_ pretty obvious.
By tapping those links, the agency has positioned itself to collect at will from hundreds of millions of user accounts, many of them belonging to Americans. The NSA does not keep everything it collects, but it keeps a lot.
There's a problem with this. The Post goes into a good amount of detail regarding how the NSA/GCHQ is collecting, but leaves nothing but speculation as to who they're targeting or why. It even goes so far as to suggest that NSA/GCHQ is targeting millions upon millions of ordinary citizens without giving evidence to back up that assertion. I would argue that these media outlets are doing us a disservice by not providing this information. All they're doing is generating hype and fear. I'm scrolling through the comments here and seeing calls for the imprisonment (or worse) of Obama administration officials and NSA personnel based not on solid evidence that the public at large is being spied upon, but based on our fear that the public is being spied upon. Some hypothetical headlines as an analogy:
A: "SWAT team guns down local residents"
B: "SWAT team guns down unarmed retirement home residents"
C: "SWAT team guns down pair of local gunmen; ends killing spree"
Headline A is vague and misleading. If that was the entirety of the information put out, the public would be outraged. If the actual story was closer to headline B, they'd be rightfully outraged, and all trust in the police force would be rightfully gone. The outrage wouldn't be justified if the actual story was closer to headline C. With regards to today's story, I don't want see something like "NSA spies on Google traffic" - there's not enough context. I want to see evidence showing who they're targeting and why. If it turns out that they're spying on US Congressmen, major business executives or just ordinary Americans with the intent to blackmail/bribe/manipulate/etc. - that's the reason to call for these people to stand trial. If it turns out that they're spying on the unencrypted internet traffic of valid intelligence targets like foreign government officials/foreign spies/terrorists/etc., what has the public gained by telling us all how they're doing it?
The media needs to show us that there's a good reason to be afraid/outraged of a vast, covert Orwellian apparatus, then show us how to protect ourselves against it. Show us that the NSA is determined to undermine the public good for its own benefit. Unless there is no vast, hidden Orwellian state. Every Snowden document that gets released without showing evidence that the NSA is pursuing anyone besides those it has been tasked to pursue leads me to believe more and more that there is no such evidence, and the media is riding high on all of this fear and outrage to gather advertising dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States? Since, say, France has _at least_ the same position with regard to the rest of the world vs. French citizens, are you angry at France too? Will you cut all french,…
The US is reportedly spying on the phone calls of 35 world leaders. How many countries are spying on the phone calls of President Obama? Does France have access to the phone calls of Obama? Some countries would love to spy on the U.S. It's true. But how many actually successfully do? And at what scale?
I know I feel a bad gut reaction to the mass collection of data, but when you think about it that is exactly what a country wants from its spy agency, to know others' secrets. Hence they're doing the most optimal thing from the countries point of view. Therefore it is just the brazen scale, the automation of the whole operation, and the fact that it is now officially public that gives me (and us in general) the sick feeling.
Like the breakdown of forgetting (anything on the Internet is there forever), and the rapid dissemination of information through the social network (Facebook status etc), an adjustment needs to be made either in us or the system.