thissideup
But the the government is entitled to do whatever it wants with computers why?
> If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
Maybe that's already the case. We don't even know how many lists of this nature exist let alone why people are put on them.
This is exactly what scientists who commit war-crimes would say. I am not accusing you of anything like that but that's the logical extreme.
EDIT: Thanks for the reminder that nothing mildly humorous is tolerated on HN.
If you could justify how that's not worrisome that would be great.
They do seem to have kept their heads on straight through it all.
It's purpose is to turn an unconstitutional program into a legal system for enforcing regulatory compliance.
What I'm proposing is that regulation is one way of legitimizing the role of surveillance. The government has a reason to be involved by virtue of the fact that it's made regulations.
I did a bad job in conveying that idea above. It's certainly possible my analysis is utterly incorrect as well.
It's pretty obvious, but if no one wants to think about it I can't make them.
Taxation implies increased tracking and auditing of the good being taxed, in this context surveillance could be justifiable.
Perhaps you're unable to imagine these consequences, but your claim that they have nothing to do with one another is just ignorant.
Except that part of the government dedicated to vacuuming up and storing and analyzing every signal from every network-enabled device on the planet.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...
Pretty easy to find. What's your question?
http://www.propublica.org/special/sealing-loose-lips-chartin...
It will take a long time to undo the damage these people are doing to our society.
I wonder if any companies know/care how much this kind of behavior negatively impacts people's perception of them.
Personally, I really enjoy sports. What I don't like is the organizations (NFL, NCAA) and owners that sell advertising and broadcasting rights on top of them. There's far too much watching and not enough doing.
It's a tool for disseminating information and talking points.
How would you know what the program's being used to look for?
Every single criticism you just made could apply to your claims as well. Not that you seem particularly interested in examining your own opinions.
My point is that your opinion is unconstitutional. You're certainly free to express it. Thanks to the constitution.
Cite the exact sources the House Intelligence Committee's report was based on. If it's coming directly from the NSA what makes you think it's trustworthy? They've lied under oath.
Your conclusions are debatable.
> I'm curious if you bothered reading the three articles you cited, because the Washington Post article
Curious about your reading ability as well. The article is from the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. The very first paragraph states:
The Obama administration’s credibility on intelligence suffered another blow Wednesday as the chief of the National Security Agency admitted that officials put out numbers that vastly overstated the counterterrorism successes of the government’s warrantless bulk collection of all Americans’ phone records.
They seem to be talking about the exact same numbers you're citing as unassailable truth. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity.
> I'm guessing you've never sat in on a classified congressional intelligence committee briefing, and wouldn't have the information to back up your statement.
Sorry this doesn't make sense. Not sure how to respond.