Slashdot Mirror


Majority of Americans Say NSA Phone Tracking Is OK To Fight Terrorism

An anonymous reader writes "While the tech media has gone wild the past few days with the reports of the NSA tracking Verizon cell usage and creating the PRISM system to peer into our online lives, a new study by Pew Research suggests that most U.S. citizens think it's okay. 62 percent of Americans say losing some personal privacy is acceptable as long as its used to fight terrorism, and 56 percent are okay with the NSA tracking phone calls. Online tracking is fair less popular however, with only 45 percent approving of the practice. The data also shows that the youth are far more opposed to curtailing privacy to fight terror, which could mean trouble for politicians planning to continue these programs in the coming years."

51 of 584 comments (clear)

  1. Bull Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not true!

    1. Re:Bull Shit! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism." Most mindless sheep would say that it is ok to sacrifice anything, to prevent terrorism.

      That's not the problem. The problem is what the government can/will do with the information when the political climate is favorable to the party in charge. Say for example, pull every phone call and e-mail from a political opponent to conduct opposition research. Or find out who has a gun in their house, and enact nationwide confiscation. Or scan their e-mails for keywords to indicate someone's political beliefs, and investigating or auditing those people because they disagree with the political party in charge.

      That is the danger. Not terrorism from outside, from terrorism conducted by our own government.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:Bull Shit! by zwei2stein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I have nothing to hide" needs to die. And goverment actions are exactly the reason:

      Did judes have anything to hide from goverment before Nazis came to power?

      Nope. Yet they suffered greatly because of goverment knowledge of their ethnicity.

      Was being communist or friend of one crime in US before red scare?

      Nope. But then red scare came and whowledge of who is fiend with who destroyed careers and lives.

      Was Alan Turing doing anything wrong?

      Nope. But he was still brutalized and died as a result after nature of his sexuality was revealed.

      Was ownership of land of factories crime?

      Nope. But then commies came to power on many countries and people were shited to prisons, prison colonies or executed outright.

      In history, many people thought that their religion, political orientiation, sexual orientation, friendships and relationships, ownerships or opinions. ... that none of it would ever be issue because they are not doing anything wrong or illegal or even mean.

      And they were wrong. And died because of it.

      Laws change. Society changes. Rules change. People in power change. Things can be taken out of context, or put into another.

      You might be completelly fine one day, and monster another.

      And if list of "monsters" can be gotten as easily as simple database querry, it is best not to be part of it. And to not have any such database.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    3. Re:Bull Shit! by Rubinhood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I believe the poll results"

      Well I don't. The kleptocracy that can invade everyone's privacy at will can easily sway statistics as well.

      Eisenhower's nightmare has come true. The monster that was created against the foes of both World Wars has turned against the society that created it. It's become the reason for its own existence.

    4. Re:Bull Shit! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
      -- philosopher George Carlin

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Bull Shit! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to that PewResearch article, 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.

      That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for /anything else/?)

      If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.

      * presumably the remaining 3% want monitoring for some, miniature American flags for others).

    6. Re:Bull Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are slow to learn from History, a government spying on its people if allowed will be abused, governments will use patriotism against you and even get your children to spy for them as was done by Germany during WWII. Researching and storing information on people is dangerous too as Germany used their own and captured census data in invaded countries with IBM Hollerith machines to sort the Jews from the general population, round them up and send them to the death camps. These are far from the only examples.

      "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

      -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

      Why do you think they called it the "Patriot Act" and congress voted for it unread? Almost unaminously at that.

    7. Re:Bull Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      When it comes to groups with normal "bell curve" distribution, there isn't much difference between average and median. Also - given how stupid the median person is, I don't think George expected them to know what median means. Take you, for example :)

    8. Re:Bull Shit! by Hydian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That isn't even the immediate problem. Those are simply potential problems that will occur when the system is inevitably misused.

      The immediate and very real problem is the Steve Jackson Games problem. Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.

    9. Re:Bull Shit! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Carlin was right: intelligence is a left-bounded Gaussian distribution (there is a hard minimum, but no hard maximum). The mean of such a distribution is always higher than the median, so more than half of the population will have below average intelligence.

    10. Re:Bull Shit! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hope you don't 'look' gay...

      I look fabulous, thank you very much.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re:Bull Shit! by tilante · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The monster that was created against the foes of both World Wars has turned against the society that created it. It's become the reason for its own existence.

      As Orwell put it, "The object of power is power."

    12. Re:Bull Shit! by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was doing something illegal, which isn't the same thing as wrong. No amount of moral relativism will ever convince me that the actions of 2 consenting adults is "wrong" in an ethical sense.

    13. Re:Bull Shit! by cfulton · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You don't even need to go there to see how the data can be abused. Try these on for size:

      -- If you track the phone calls of the CEO of BigOlCorp and he is talking to the CEO of NewButGrowingInc a lot then purchasing NewButGrowing stock will probably be a good deal when the buyout happens.
      -- If you are, say, Walmart and you don't want to be unionized. Just have the NSA tell you which employees are calling the AFL/CIO and quietly let them go.
      -- If rival companies were working to get a contract that was at bid, knowing who called whom and when would give a competitive advantage.
      -- Hate gays. You could out every phone number that called a gay chat line.
      -- Hate porn. You could publish a list of porn watchers. (OK that would be everybody but...)

      Everyone who says that if you have done nothing illegal have nothing to fear has not thought the issue through. And as has been said here before we ALL have something to hide.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    14. Re:Bull Shit! by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree, I think the sheep willing to give up anything to prevent terrorism IS the larger issue. It ensures that politicians will always be there to make that deal with them. Getting elected by playing to people's paranoia is much easier than getting elected by leading people to actually improve the country.

      Politician A: We need to fix the budget. We are spending a ridiculous amount of money on national defense, way too much for how much we're raising in tax revenue...

      Politician B: OMG DID YOU HEAR THAT?!?! He wants to RAISE TAXES and CUT THE MILITARY! At a time when terrorists are threatening your children!!!

      Politician A should win, but politician B will. That's already going on on a massive scale, while the possibility you present doesn't seem to be happening as much right now. And our grandchildren will be paying it off.

    15. Re:Bull Shit! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's another poll that says only 26% favor the government’s secret collecting of these phone records for national security purposes regardless of whether there is any suspicion of wrongdoing. Also, 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now consider the federal government a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights. That’s up 10 points from 46% in December. So your suspicion is right, if you ask different poll questions, you get different results. (warning: those pages auto-play video with sound).

      The question in the story asks, "Are you willing to give up some personal privacy," and that question is too broad. I am willing to give up some personal privacy if it saves lives, for example, I am more than happy to tell you the color of my carpet is red and my walls are white, and my carpet is blue. I am annoyed, but willing to have my bags searched at airports if it helps. So saying 'some privacy'.......well that doesn't tell you anything about the NSA listening to phone calls.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Bull Shit! by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since they are using the overly broad data that they collect to look for connections that may or may not exist, everyone is in danger of being violated in the name of fighting terrorism just because someone they have had contact with has had contact with someone that is on a list.

      "And that's a small price to pay, as long as it it's them, not me. And it'll never be me. I'm a good American."

      It's never "me" until suddenly it is.

      The sad lesson of the past: the sad lessons of the past apply to everyone, but no one will believe it applies to them until reality proves it to them. People (rightly) complain about American exceptionalism, but exceptionalism applies to individuals and small self-identifying groups (e.g., "right-thinking patriots") as well.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    17. Re:Bull Shit! by Applekid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism."

      I suspect you're right. Poll results are notoriously sensitive to exactly how the questions are phrased. The other problem is that those polled might not understand the entire scope of the program, or have considered how it can be misused and how little protection against misuse there might be (or might not be - that's the charming thing about a secret court). Nevertheless I find the overall results very depressing. IIRC there have been polls from time to time asking people if they believed in the principles of the Bill of Rights (but phrased in such a way that it wasn't obvious they were talking about the Bill of Rights). Unfortunately what many (including me) consider the most important part of American law didn't fare well. Thank goodness the 1st Congress was filled with radicals.

      Make no mistake, this poll was engineered to show the end result. The goal of this is to make people who feel disgusted with PRISM to question why they feel disgusted. If no one else does, perhaps they should just let go and consent.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    18. Re:Bull Shit! by tragedy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two things: First, George Carlin was not a philosopher, but rather a profane leftist comedian,

      Have you ever actually listened to George Carlin? He was a philsopher. Not many qualifications are actually required to be one, and he was one. He was also a comedian, and a profane one at that (imagine that, a popular comedian who uses profanity, unheard of). Describing his as leftist is ridiculous pigeonholing, however

    19. Re:Bull Shit! by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . I do have a problem with the government publishing how many firearms I have in my house because that puts me and my neighbors at risk of home burglary or getting into the situation where I need to defend myself with said firearms.

      Sorry to derail the thread a bit, but this is truly delusional.

      Why is it only the people WITH firearms are up in arms that "criminals might know that you have guns"?

      The people without firearms are the ones who are relatively defenseless if they get robbed. But they aren't complaining. They aren't worried about it. Why aren't they worried?

      But you, the one with a bunch of guns, is worried? Why are you worried? You have a house full of guns, and presumably know how to use them. Why exactly would you be at increased risk of burglary? Particularly relative to those who don't have firearms?

      Why would criminals target you if they knew you had guns? Because they want to dramatically increase their odds of getting shot? Because they crave the adrenalin rush of a shootout?

      Or is it because they want your guns? Why wouldn't they just rob softer targets and use the cash to buy guns? They could buy them legally, or even black market... its not like the black market for guns is primarily supplied by robbing random firearms from gun owners one or two at a time. You do know all this right?

      So what exactly is your fear predicated on here?

  2. Did anyone need reminding? by liamevo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That the majority of the public are short term thinking morons?
    It doesn't matter whether or not all that has been claimed of PRISM is true, they are happy to give up privacy and freedoms if it "helps fight terrorism"

    1. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, Pew Research has denied receiving a National Security Letter demanding that they release a poll with the numbers 62%, 56% and 45%.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by nucrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter. Here we are bending over to the government action to "protect us." But then when the police and other government agencies get access to these technologies, what is to stop them? I think the best quote about this was the following:
      1960
      Government Agent 1, "Let's get everyone to wear a radio transceiver so that we can track their every move."
      Government Agent 2, "That will never work. People would never agree to such a thing"

      2010 Customer, "Can I get my second iPhone please?"

      --
      Place something witty here
    3. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That the majority of the public are short term thinking morons?

      50% of the country is happy to give up privacy and freedom if it hurts the other party. That the 50% who were against it when Bush was doing it are suddenly for it now, and the 50% that were all for it when Bush was doing it but are suddenly against it now just shows how nearsighted the whole lot are.

    4. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is also flawed because we don't know if this really "helps fight terrorism". Do they need to tap everyone's phones and internet? Or could they do just as well targeting a few specific people who might actually be involved in terrorism? Does this kind of activity actually create more terrorism by giving people, both the stereotypical Muslim enemy they want us to believe they are guarding us against, and the homegrown terrorist such as people like McVeigh who feel a need to lash out against the government/wall street/mega corporations. The question makes the assumption that this kind of surveillance makes catching terrorists before they commit their acts, and also assumes that terrorism is actually a big problem, where most likely neither of the two are correct.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question is also flawed because we don't know if this really "helps fight terrorism".

      And we're not going to find out, because the program is classified. It could be wildly successful and thwarting a dozen bomb plots a day. It could be a total failure, resulting in dozens of arrests of innocent people a day.

      The thing that baffles me is not that people are willing to give up freedom if it "helps fight terrorism," it's that they believe what the government does in the name of fighting terrorism is working, when they don't believe anything else the federal government does is working.

      I wonder how different the poll results would have been if Snowden had released the documents six months after the Boston bombing instead of six weeks after.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    6. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      your quote reminded me of this quote:

      two wolves are up on a hill, looking down at the bunch of sheep. one says to the other, lets run down there and get us a sheep! the other says, no lets WALK down there and have them all.

      for some reason, it seemed appropos.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by F.Ultra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think that if they had been wildly successful then we would hear about it, and hear about it alot. Consider all the plots that they have "caught" and how quickly that was posted to the media, and how unlikely plots they really where, to me that indicates that they are desperat to publish every success.

    8. Re:Did anyone need reminding? by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Incorrect, sir. Those who are "fine with it" are called the Baby Boomers. The Worst Generation. The Bootlicker Generation. They who looted the empire, shipped the jobs overseas, voted themselevs every entitlement and paid for none of it. They who will take everything but responsibility.

      Clinton, who can't define "is."

      Bush, whose idea of sacrifice during a war of choice is "go shopping."

      Obama and McCain, who "welcome a debate" about which rights we'd like to trade away.

      They who will label a young man of conscience who has traded his life, his fortune and his sacred honor in the name of liberty for his countrymen a "traitor."

      They who will enslave their children and their grandchildren to their debts to make sure the Social Security checks keep coming. They who will enslave their children and their grandchildren to their corporations to keep their stock values high.

      They who stood athwart history and yelled "meh." They will always go along to get along.

      The creed of the Boomer:

      "First we came for my parents, and I did not speak up because I'm sure those World War II vets will love the nursing home.

      Then we came for my children, and I did not speak up because of course they'll need two jobs to pay for my entitlements.

      Then we came for my grandchildren, because I need a barista."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  3. Majority don't understand the extent & issues by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The majority of Americans (1) don't understand the extent of the surveillance, and (2) don't understand why privacy is so important.

    I totally believe this poll.

    This article says that 70% of Americans don't know what the constitution is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368482/How-ignorant-Americans-An-alarming-number-U-S-citizens-dont-know-basic-facts-country.html

  4. Re:Well played, Slashdot by stanIyb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Click bait for the countless 14-yo libertarians who infest these boards.

    What about the 14-yo non-libertarians who whine that there are countless 14-yo libertarians on Slashdot?

    And who be just OUTRAGED, that somebody dared to point out that the government is the collective will of the people, and may actually have our interests and safety as their core mission

    Collective will or no, the government isn't supposed to violate the constitution; the majority do not and should not have absolute power, and neither should the government. Individual rights need to be protected, and I probably couldn't even be considered a libertarian.

  5. Most people are weak and prefer not to think... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people are weak and prefer not to think about "bad things", and prefer security with freedom, they would not know what to do with it if they would have some...

    This said it would be interesting to ask the same questions in the following way:

    Assuming that of the two leading parties the one you like least has the majority in senat and house of representative, and presidential powers.

    Would you agree to warrent-less investigations of phones calls, emails, instant messages, social network posting, microblogging posting, private forum messages in order to fight terrorism is:
    - a good thing
    - necessary
    - undecided
    - useless
    - bad for the society
    - where is my second amendment demonstrator !

  6. I was shocked... by belgo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the first time someone commented re: PRISM and other NSA directives, along the lines of, "Whatever, as long as it prevents another 9/11!" Now that it's been a few more days, I'm starting to break the habit of facepalming. We as a nation are affirming our commitment to the implementation of a police state, in the name of preventing something that was already about as statistically impossible as getting hit by lightning while claiming your Powerball jackpot.

    Inasmuch as this is the will of the majority and of the representatives in our Republic, you can bet I'll be claiming my winnings from within the safe confines of an OSHA-approved rubber suit.

  7. Give up freedom to fight terrorism? by fredrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fer christ sake, more people die from nose hair complications than terrorism, what have we come to?

  8. A majority want to blame someone else by Aqualung812 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most people fear things that are very unlikely to happen:
    -Death from terrorism
    -Death from oppressive government

    We rant and shout with each other over which one is the bigger threat.

    Meanwhile, most of us die from lack of proper personal health (diet, exercise, etc) or automobile wrecks, all of which are 100% within our ability to control.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  9. Hi cousins! British 'subject' here... by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just calling to see how that new-fangled "liberty" thing is working out for you?

    Oh, you don't give a shit anymore?

  10. The sampling is robust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1004 people gives an error in determining the percentage response for the larger pool of "everyone in the USA" of 3.2%. Therefore a gap of more than 9.6% is statistically significant and reliable to indicate that there IS a gap and the majority accept tracking.

    You would need to show that the sampling was biased toward those liable to accept or the wording was partisan and leading if you wish to call this study bullshit.

    1. Re:The sampling is robust. by kbolino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are other factors in determining the "robustness" of a poll besides how the questions are worded and how many people were surveyed. For example, what people were surveyed, and what population they represent. Pew surveys homes (not individuals) with landline phones (which younger people don't bother with) that are listed in the phone book. That is not even a representative sampling of households, nevertheless of individuals.

  11. land of the free, my ass by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's official then, it's not the land of the free anymore. Because if you don't want your freedom, you don't deserve it.

    Oppressed people at least know that things should be different. They might lack the resources or resolve to fight the system right here and now, but they know things aren't right and just might stand up any moment.

    The US, on the other hand - and to be honest, lots of the west - has become the worst kind of oppressive system, worse than 1984. The kind where the oppressed believe the lies they are told. Russians knew that Prawda wasn't telling them the truth. Way too many americans believe Fox does.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  12. Re:Majority don't understand the extent & issu by MalachiK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article that you link to in the Daily Mail panders to a peculiar kind of 'stupid american' stereotype that we Brits cling to when we want to feel better about the end of empire and the decline of our military and industrial might. You could replace the questions with ones of similar obscurity from British history and get a similar set of responses from a random selection of British folk. Try going out onto any street in the UK and asking the yokels about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Or get them to point to the location of the Battle of Trafalgar / Waterloo / Balaclava on a map.

    The average guy on the street is just as ignorant everywhere in the world.

  13. Congratulations! by no-body · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mission accomplished - brainwashing succeded.

  14. DID THIS SPYING PREVENT BOSTON? by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, did it?

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:DID THIS SPYING PREVENT BOSTON? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, did it?

      You have no idea what it has or has not prevented, which is the fact of the matter. For all you know the government thwarted several more 9/11s

      Except I know it was really my anti-terror rock that stopped them.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:DID THIS SPYING PREVENT BOSTON? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, did it?

      If you'll recall, several much lower-tech warning signs were already there, even without having to snoop personally into the lives of everyone on the planet.

      And they dropped the ball anyway.

  15. In the words of Sam Adams by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's rare that I quote a famous figure, as so often it's cliche to the point of deserving a cluebat-induced coma. However, I think this quote from Sam Adams accurately describes the state of America (better than the famous Franklin quote so often cited here) and how so many would sacrifice their rights to ensure their happy consumerist lifestyles:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

  16. Protect the minority from the majority by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When it comes to rights, you can't use public opinion polls. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the majority. Phone tracking is not a threat to most people. The government has no reason to be concerned with them. But the few who are a concern have the right to live their lives without unnecessary oversight from the government.

  17. U.S. of A = United Stasi of America by fonske · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the headtitle of some European editorials.
    For the younger people: Stasi (Staatssicherheit) archived "information" on *everybody* in former DDR.
    1 on 50 in former DDR was linked to Stasi as one of 90000 employees or 200000 informants.

  18. Re:Majority don't understand the extent & issu by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Half of American households make $50520 or less a year. When my household was below median income, I know we had bigger things to worry about than privacy. It may be important but it isn't pressing for most people.

  19. Another question that should have been asked by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Another question that should have been asked in this poll: Are you aware that 9/11 could have been prevented if FBI headquarters had simply paid attention to reports from their field offices, and no dragnet monitoring would have been needed?

    1. Re:Another question that should have been asked by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And followed by "Are you aware that the Russians called both the FBI and CIA to inform them the Boston terrorist was a threat. And both times regardless of the Russians concern, the U.S. agencies failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

      Here is my proof, why Americans should basically burn PRISM to the ground.

      ***

      FBI/CIA informed of a signficant potential threat. But apparently cannot be bothered to track or monitor threat. But want threat as an excuse to monitor EVERYONE in the U.S.

  20. I'm Agreeing With Bill O'Reilly by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought I'd never type the above words, but on this morning's Today Show, Bill O'Reilly was on and talking about Snowden and the NSA spying. He said that if Snowden is right and the NSA is spying on everyone then Snowden is a hero and the NSA is wrong. If Snowden is lying, then, then what he did was very wrong. O'Reilly went on to say that it is not acceptable to spy on everyone just to catch a few terrorists (if this is even effective... there's no transparency at all so we don't know) and there should be measures in place to ensure that they only collect data on people they need to spy on (e.g. suspects).

    Do you see what you've done, Obama and NSA? You've got me agreeing with Bill O'Reilly! Surely, this is one of the signs of the apocalypse!

    (In all seriousness, I'm sure O'Reilly supported programs like this under Bush and is only opposed to them now because Obama's doing it. I'm also sure that, had I listened to the interview a bit more I'd have disagreed with him on something - or he toned down his rhetoric for the Today Show audience. Still agreeing with him for as long as I did was scary.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.