In a huge manhunt, not using high tech communications eavesdropping technology. The point is to identify and surveil these guys when they’re in the planning stages. Big fail, there. Russia even told us those guys were almost certainly radicalized and planning something and we blew it off.
They caught the guys who “did” 9/11 as well. I thought the whole point of spying on everyone and every thing at all times was to prevent terrorist attacks. If that’s not the point, what is? Is the elimination of privacy a goal in itself?
The promulgation of justice.
I know Snowden has given some interviews on this matter, but I’ve not heard a lot of them. Has he ever addressed why he didn’t go to congress with his concerns?
I’m very conflicted about this whole issue and an answer to that question might give me some help.
They failed to prevent the crime because the advance warnings they received were lost in the noise as a result of the policies you advocate. To a small but nonzero degree, you helped that happen. Please try to keep up with the class.
Get back to me on that one when Clapper and Alexander are sharing an 8x10 at the l’Hotel Crossbarre.
When Clapper is behind bars, then you will have achieved your naive aim.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
That’s right, I forgot the name. Snowden didn’t compromise the names of any informants or operatives. Snowden at least leaked information that was know widely known or believed. Manning leaked the identities of informants to tell us stuff we already knew.
Wow, I thought all this surveillance was supposed to stop terrorist attacks. Is Smapti saying it’s just supposed to help catch terrorists after they strike?* Talk about lowering the bar!
*There’s no evidence it’s done that either.
We all know that our governments are bent in one way or another, usually down to greed or the lust for power and control. However, when they do something and are caught out, people seem to accept it like ‘sheep’ and move on. Edward Snowden was watching tons of info passing his monitor on a daily basis, he reached a point where he could no longer stand it (his conscience) all those secret meetings, software that can track anyone, listen to phonecalls, record emails etc. Would you prefer it that you not know anything about your governments? Fortunately for me, I live my life without the need for government, I prefer to think of myself as an ‘entity, living on a rock in the middle of nowhere’ who really has the ‘right’ to tell you or I what we can and/or cannot do? Sod the governments of this world, it is simply ‘them or us’ they don’t give a rats arse about you or I, anyone who believes different is a liar (or dreamer) I guess the term ‘New world order’ is well known by now, but I would sooner stick pins in my eyes than see this sick, perverted order introduced. Imagine having money only in digital figures, no cash lol, those who really want it should vote and go live on an island somewhere away from decent, honest, loving people. As for Edward, a BIG THANKS MATE, keep us informed, it is, after all, the only way we can keep a step in front.
A rock with internet access. Cool.
I’m not sure how a contracting systems admin would approach “Congress”?
Now that it has conceded the fact of mass surveillance - having denied that to Congress, the NSA still maintains it did and does nothing illegal.
That’s kind of the problem.
How exactly is Smapti responsible?
Ask him; I’m just holding him to his own words:
I haven’t read through the whole thread, but Snowden and Manning are indeed heroes. The government, to the extent that it should exist at all, works for us, not the reverse. The rulers should be afraid of us, not the reverse. The leakers/whistleblowers exposed tyrannical violations of human rights, so as to speed the ending of these activities. May there be many more like them.
How does exposing the way we spy on China, Russia, or our other adversaries NOT in the United States constitute a “tyrannical violation of human rights?” If you read the first post in this thread, you’d see that is what is being debated here.
I did read the first post. First of all, “we” don’t spy on anyone. Perhaps the government does, but the government is not “we.” Secondly, there is no reason to consider either nation an adversary, for any reason. Disapproval of either government’s domestic policies does not constitute an excuse for conducting espionage. As for their foreign policies, neither state’s foreign policies constitute a danger to the United States, and the US ruling class is guilty of far more antagonistic actions- breaking a promise and extending NATO to Russia’s borders, conducting naval actions very close to China, etc. - than the governments in Moscow and Beijing.
Also, everyone involved is nuclear, and for some reason maintains missile systems aimed at one another. Good faith gestures are exactly what is needed here, not the opposite.
Nonsense.
How so? It seems like you’re agreeing with every totalitarian rationale ever.
I have no idea how you can get that from a single disagreement. But if you want to play that game, I think there’s a sound argument to be made that totalitarianism arises from the very concept that the government is an entity separate from the people that create and sustain it.
Also nonsense.