It was an opportunity, but let’s not forget that having to make lots of new friends every time you started at a new school also kind of sucked.
Sort of true, but it’s also true that we get over these collective hissy fits pretty fast. And most of the poor unfortunate victims of these self-inflicted wounds are able to start over with a higher profile, which means they can make more money.
Like, to expand on this, the STASI had information-gathering of an at least comparable scale. But when they found out you said something they didn’t like, they could throw you in jail indefinitely with no charges, trial, or sentence. What can the NSA do? Well, if they find out that you did something which is actually illegal, they can pass that information on to other authorities.
…Huh, I’m not that bothered. What am I missing?
All countries spy on the other’s, Snowden Isn’t interested in the USA; as I see it , if he were, he would have talked to the People of the uSA and not go to former enemies to make his spiel, He hasn’t helped to bring peace but a sword, causing more problems than were there before.
The Constitution puts limits on the authorities to prevent the kind of abuse you’re talking about, and some of the NSA’s actions circumvent those limits. See the problem?
That doesn’t mean they spy on each other without limit and for every conceivable purpose.
“Former enemy.” I like that. It sounds serious and completely falls apart on examination. And he is talking to the people of the USA through the press.
Yeah: before Snowden acted, the NSA was abusing its authority and that was our only problem. Now the NSA is abusing its authority and we know about it, so people keep arguing about it. What an inconvenience!
Do they, though? Have there been lawsuits? Has it been taken to court?
A week and a half ago a judge said the collection of telephone metadata without a warrant was probably unconstitutional. Since this stuff only came to light recently, any litigation is in the early stages. Just for fun, here’s a cute NSA trick that isn’t even Snowden-related: earlier this year it came out that the NSA and the DEA were working together in secret and hiding the sources of their work.
When you collect EVERYTHING, fucking with the system becomes trivially easy.
Okay, but what are those actions? Are they putting people in jail for thought crimes? Are they trumping up charges? Are people disappearing in the middle of the night? Are people finding it impossible to get employment in their chosen field because of selectively applied pressure? How, precisely, are the NSA’s actions impacting the lives of the Americans they’re spying on?
Again, I think they’ve abused their authority, and I think they need to be reined in. But I take this position primarily on principle, because I think people have a right to an assumption of privacy. I’m genuinely unaware of cases in which their spying has had a directly deleterious effect on any American beyond the sense of violation you get from being spied on.
I very well may be ignorant of other harms they’re causing, and would appreciate education if I am.
I’m not aware of anything beyond the broader Constitutional violations. That may well be it as far as U.S. residents are concerned, not that we would know otherwise at this early stage. The comparison to the Stasi is overblown. The NSA isn’t the secret police. But I read Budget Player Cadet’s first post as suggesting this isn’t such a huge deal because the NSA can’t do anything with the information it’s compiling. Even if that’s true I think it’s trivial because they can easily share that information with the FBI or the DEA or other agencies.
I would be less worried about what they are doing now and more worried about what they might do in the future. These capabilities are not going away and I doubt the NSA is going to use them to remind citizens that their milk in the fridge is about to go bad. These vast powers need some checks and balances.
Nice to see the old “if you’re not a criminal you have nothing to hide” fallacies are flying in this thread like we’re not a bunch of educated adults who should know better.
Pervasive surveillance chills speech for one. Another is that we all commit harmless crimes. This means every American’s freedom is held hostage by a stranger at the NSA and whatever selective enforcement they’d like to apply. And if “selective enforcement” doesn’t do the trick, “blackmail” often will. As Bruce Schneier says: it’s not about privacy versus security, it’s liberty versus control. This level of pervasive surveillance is only necessary if your goal is pervasive control.
Fair enough. Is that an agreement that they’ve not done anything with the information worse than the real and unacceptable harm of violating privacy?
Certainly the potential for abuse is a real thing. I think it speaks well to our system that abuses like this meet with such serious pushback, even as it speaks ill of our system that such abuses can occur.
Worse; it’s panicky ass-covering and super budget-justifying.
Cites for the NSA “chilling speech”, “seeking pervasive control”, or engaging in “blackmail”?
Who’s making that argument? Certainly not me.
Hmm…this seems plausible. Do we have any evidence of this occurring?
Of this, I’m unaware of any cases in which selective enforcement has been applied using NSA’s data, much less of any blackmail that has occurred. Are you thinking of specific cases?
Again, I’m certainly willing to be educated. I don’t think what the NSA has done is all right, and I think this is the latest in a long list of our nation’s leaders conducting inappropriate surveillance of its citizens (Hiya, NYC cops spying on mosques! How’s it hanging, COINTELPRO?) But I want to separate legitimate concerns from scaremongering, and if you have legitimate concerns about blackmail and selective enforcement of laws using NSA data, please give us specifics.
Selective enforcement: DEA and “parallel construction”.
Chilled speech by definition usually doesn’t leave much evidence, but nevertheless: Chilled speech.
I’m going to have to leave “pervasive control”. It may simply be a power grab for budget and political reasons now, as Marley23 suggests. But where do you think it will end up? I’m not going to offer motives for people I don’t know. But I can see where this is heading. Eventually the government stops paying for things that it doesn’t use. So this data will (continue to) be used, or the NSA will stop collecting it. That’s the choice, and I know which one I as a voter choose.
This sounds like paranoid nonsense, and it’s based on a single source who didn’t provide any proof.
Fair enough. Someone asked for evidence, and I provided some. It may not be compelling or airtight, but someone who was in a position to know better than us said it is happening. It is enough to cause concern, without being an open and shut case.
Indeed, the fact that it is possible is enough. Now every politician who defends the NSA or spying on Americans is suspect. Do they really believe that, or does the NSA have dirt on them? Every call to action for a war, every “foiled terrorist plot”, every “independent review” of surveillance, every argument for budget increase is suspect because they might be an NSA puppet.
Nobody has to actually have been blackmailed for the possibility of blackmail to erode society’s trust in our political leaders. The NSA simply possessing that information is enough to weaken our society. This is yet another reason why collecting this information is wrong, even if it is never used.
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. 1924-1776=148, so as long as you grant the Palenstinians citizenship before 2096, you’re ahead of us.
I don’t know what part of you is “broken”, Briton. You seem intact and in very good form, from where I’m standing.
Good response. 