Slashdot Mirror


Senator Dianne Feinstein: NSA Metadata Program Here To Stay

cold fjord writes "The Hill reports, 'Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that lawmakers who favored shutting down the bulk collection of telephone metadata would not be successful in their efforts as Congress weighs potential reforms to the nation's controversial intelligence programs. "I don't believe so," Feinstein said during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press (video). "The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability So I think we would agree with him. I know a dominant majority of the — everybody, virtually, except two or three, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree with that." ... "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."'"

510 comments

  1. The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    will never go away citizen, we need to spy on you to keep you safe. Now pick up that can.

    1. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder why this person even lives in the land of the 'free' when she so clearly despises freedom. She's obviously not brave, either. What is her purpose here, other than to sacrifice all of our principles in order to make idiots feel safe?

      The only people convinced by idiots like her are those who believe the government is composed of perfect angels and would never abuse this information. In other words, people willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for security; people who have forgotten the millions upon millions of people throughout history who have been murdered or abused by governments around the world, including the US government.

      She makes me want to vomit.

    2. Re:The unseen enemy by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared."

      No, you evil totalitarian bitch, we understand perfectly well. We just don't care because we're not sniveling cowards and realize that civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better question is why do people in California keep re-electing her over and over. She's been there for over 20 years.

    4. Re: The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because she's a democrat? Still we should write in another name for the primary every election. Anyone know Lofgren's take on this & net neutrality?

    5. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why this person even lives in the land of the 'free' when she so clearly despises freedom. She's obviously not brave, either. What is her purpose here, other than to sacrifice all of our principles in order to make idiots feel safe?

      Did anyone else feel absolutely no surprise at all that she represents California?

    6. Re:The unseen enemy by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!

      They are, but this is besides the point. We are not even "more safe" in any way. I think the best they could actually show is one guy convicted for sending $8.5K to some terrorist organization (that's after years and years of surveillance).
      Other dozens (or is it hundreds?) of terrorist operations are stopped by regular police work or are made up.

    7. Re: The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lofgren is against it. She voted to support Justin Amash's attempt to defund these programs.

    8. Re:The unseen enemy by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? She in no way represents the voters of California. She represents herself.

    9. Re: The unseen enemy by Elros · · Score: 0

      -1 SPAM

    10. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like that have made it clear to me that emigrating from the US two years ago was a very good move.

    11. Re:The unseen enemy by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      You were surprised that the senator from California, the one who has been in office for the past two decades, represents California?

      Oh wait, I see, you were trying to affirm your stereotype for the most populated state in the union as being all freedom hating cowards. Sorry, missed the joke there.

    12. Re:The unseen enemy by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't it feel kind of like fear is winning when people are willing to give up liberties for the illusion of safety.

      It kind of makes me think of a bully going "look I made you flinch". Until one day he's trying to make the kid flinch and the kid says "You know what? Win or loose if you want fight, I'll make you wish you never tried."

      Only when it's policies and laws it's a lot harder to go back from the scared kid to being the kid that doesn't flinch.

    13. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political positions need to have an eight year maximum term without the ability to move into a different position. Basically once they put in their eight years, that's it, they can never hold another office again and must go get a real job.

    14. Re: The unseen enemy by Talderas · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am so glad I had to scroll through 10 stupidly long posts to continue reading comments.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re:The unseen enemy by Cigarra · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't have a sig.
    16. Re:The unseen enemy by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Wow this probably is the worst place you could possibly advertise your stupid shit service. Enjoy getting DDoSd by the lurking blackhats that are most assuredly here.

      Also why is slashdot's filtering so, so bad. First the hosts guy and now this.

    17. Re:The unseen enemy by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Peoples Republic of California"

      That little gem was taught to me by a programmer in LA. The guy was a German. At that point, you really have to wonder just how bad it is.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:The unseen enemy by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That condescension is standard Feinstein bullshit. Anytime someone objects to her desire to usurp ever more power, the cunt will claim that we "don't understand" what she and her cronies are trying to do.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the built-in aspirational complex that seems to be very American.

      In this case, it is by people who would of COURSE handle this kind of power (dominion) with the utmost in ethics, if they had it. Some of these people are the same who put key-logging software on their kids' (and spouses') computers and cell phones, etc., for a variety of good-sounding justifications. Or, they just inherently loathe wherever they perceive their station in society, wanting to be up closer to the top of the ladder, as they feel or perceive their current lot to be. So, if these tools are in place, then they have the aspiration to get access to them. If not, then the aspiration that people like them will have these tools, and use them the way that they aspire them to be used.

      It is kind of like the realization by people that the town switchboard operator was the nexus of the information (gossip) flow in the town, and if they couldn't be the operator, they could at least have a good relationship with the operators, thus ensuring they were getting fresh information, er, dirt, all the time, and could also maintain a finger on the dirt flowing with their names on it as well.

      Diane Feinstein (and Peter King, et al), have achieved a much higher level of actualization for these tools (wow, I slipped a Scientology reference into it too) than most of us. Some of them (Feinstein) seem to have a latent conflict-of-interest for the development and adoption of these tools as well.

    20. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Id like to tell the bitch to fuck off , I lived in Belfast during the 80's I know what terrorism is thanks to her and her ilk who sponsored it. You either lived perpetually in fear or you dusted yourself off , got back on your feet and carried on as a fuck you to the terrorists.

    21. Re: The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: Click on the post's title to hide it. Still annoying, but better than scrolling past them.

    22. Re: The unseen enemy by nschubach · · Score: 2

      They're just padding metadata.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    23. Re:The unseen enemy by nschubach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some politicians do go get real jobs... after they boost markets where the company they are about to go work for is the benefactor.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    24. Re:The unseen enemy by cusco · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a deliberate attempt to kill this discussion thread, not actually advertising. This loser has just picked up a piece of spam that some moron actually posted here a couple of years ago and is filling the thread with it because he knows that most people won't scroll past it.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    25. Re:The unseen enemy by akinliat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!

      They are, but this is besides the point. We are not even "more safe" in any way. I think the best they could actually show is one guy convicted for sending $8.5K to some terrorist organization (that's after years and years of surveillance). Other dozens (or is it hundreds?) of terrorist operations are stopped by regular police work or are made up.

      More importantly, the whole point of terrorism is not to make the victims more or less safe, but to acheive a poltical goal. In this case, the goal (well, at least one of the goals) was to prove that the U.S. doesn't actually support freedom. Giving up those freedoms is essentially surrendering without even putting up a fight. It's also simple cowardice.

      Every week, we sacrifice several times the number of lives lost to terrorism for the convenience of driving large boxes of metal at ridiculous speeds, but we run and hide under the bed and call in the drones the second anyone breathes the word "terrorist."

    26. Re:The unseen enemy by mbkennel · · Score: 1


      The disadvantages of capitalism combined with the disadvantages of socialism.

    27. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared."

      No, you evil totalitarian bitch, we understand perfectly well. We just don't care because we're not sniveling cowards and realize that civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!

      That's the stance to get out of this trap. But it's still worth noting what Feinstein says here: "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan." If the U.S.A. wants to get out of occupying the rule of the Great Satan rather than killing everybody who is not comfortable with a Great Satan being in full charge, respecting civil rights and liberties would be a good start.

    28. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it feel kind of like fear is winning when people are willing to give up liberties for the illusion of safety.

      Well dummy, that's the whole point of terrorism. We are paying the NSA a million times more than what the terrorists work with, so one should hope that they would be competitive in the key disciplines.

    29. Re: The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would someone please sic 4chan on this nimrod ?

    30. Re:The unseen enemy by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      She is one of the reasons why I argue to limit Congress to 2 terms.

    31. Re:The unseen enemy by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      I felt more free in Thailand during the 2010 uprising than I do in America today. As a side note: To the NSA agent reading this, would you email me and tell me where I put my Stargate DVD set? I can't find it anywhere.

    32. Re:The unseen enemy by mrbluze · · Score: 2

      A better question is why do people in California keep re-electing her over and over. She's been there for over 20 years.

      Because it doesn't matter who you vote for.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    33. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is her purpose here, other than to sacrifice all of our principles in order to make idiots feel safe?

      2 reasons.
      1. To maintain power that she has accumulated via her elected position; power that she never could have gained through any other means, except possibly for outright violence by her own hand.
      2. To maintain wealth that she and her husband have accumulated through the above-described power and access to information that otherwise (meaning you and me) would be consider illegal insider information.

      I also have no doubt that this describes members of both parties, including the one to which I belong.

    34. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because she was friends with Harvey Milk when he was killed. Therefore this woman gets free license to trample the constitution, promote inequality, and never lose more than 15% of the vote.

    35. Re:The unseen enemy by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 0

      "We" voted for her because the alternative was...well...less savory. You can be sure that her support of NSA will be an issue the next time she comes up for re-election, and hopefully, a real Democrat challenger will emerge. But know this--if she withstands the challenge, "we" will be hard-pressed to vote for her Republican challenger...

      Does that answer your rocks-glass-houses question?

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    36. Re: The unseen enemy by SumDog · · Score: 1

      Exactly. People think being a democrat or republican still means something. There is only one party. The Demolicans and the Repubcrats

    37. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't beside the point, it IS the point. The moment you've started debating about the efficacy is the moment the government wins, because it means you've tacitly accepted the premise that the programs should exist at all. If we're only using success rate to judge the merit of programs, then why not kill off every citizen... it would prevent 100% of crime!

    38. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the modern surveillance state has anything to do with terrorism. If it was we'd be getting a lot of propaganda about stopped attacks to keep the illusion up. In reality it has just become another tool of the political elite. To your point, the terrorists have struck a major victory in that they forced the United States to an even more powerful central government. It's a lot easier to defeat an opponent that has graciously consolidated all of it's influence and power into a single spot. They only need to sway a few political elite to their whims now. This is the central fear of a strong Federal government and the basis for growing dissent against it.

    39. Re:The unseen enemy by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      As a resident of california, I'm deeply sorry for the crap we're inflicting on the rest of the country due to constantly re-electing her.

      Though in our defense, the districts are so jerrymandered and the politicians have special interest and underhanded politics (redistricting bill has a hope of passing? quick! introduce a fake one that lets us control the redistricting and confuse people with it!) down to such a science that most people have just given up.

    40. Re:The unseen enemy by lostmongoose · · Score: 1

      Well. California *does* keep voting for her...

    41. Re:The unseen enemy by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Hopefully she'll be voted out of office. Frankly, I'm sure she keeps these policies running due to some financial benefit, either in terms of lobby dollars or in economic business investments or flat out bribery.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    42. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You either lived perpetually in fear or you dusted yourself off , got back on your feet and carried on as a fuck you to the terrorists.

      The average American parent is far too comfortable and hysterical to do anything but the former.

    43. Re:The unseen enemy by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      And that is the problem with Keynesian economic. If the government can manipulates the economy, those in government can manipulate it to their advantage.

    44. Re:The unseen enemy by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the people in authority that favor left tend to become condescending and patronizing when confronted for their misbehavior. The people that favor the right tend to become overtly accusatory and belligerent. Passive aggressive and plain old aggressive are both still aggressive. And, generally, I find people that become hostile when confronted with their misbehavior meant to screw you over to begin with and are just upset that you did not quietly let them.

      Honest mistakes are usually met with understanding and explanations, if not outright apologies, even if the mistake is yours. Even in the case of a false, inflammatory accusation, the initial response is usually more of confusion than aggression. The difference seems to stem from the level of entitlement over others.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    45. Re:The unseen enemy by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2

      Ahhh, so you're willing to vote for evil just so "your team" wins. Except that you haven't figured out there's only one team -- Team Status Quo -- and you're not on it.

      You're a coward, and absolutely deserve every nasty thing Feinstein inflicts on your state. You have no principles -- only a tribe. People like you are why this country is fucked.

    46. Re:The unseen enemy by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      She's a Senator . . . what does gerrymandering have to do with re-electing her? The plain fact is that the majority of California voters want her to continue on as their Senator -- otherwise they'd elect someone else and she'd be out of a job.

    47. Re:The unseen enemy by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      > "We" voted for her because the alternative was...well...less savory.

      Less savory than Feinstein's husband, who is involved with $600 million questionable defense contracts, post office, and FDIC real estate deals? The Feinstein family sure makes a lot of money off the government.

    48. Re:The unseen enemy by rthille · · Score: 1

      As opposed to just letting the rich do that...at least if enough people get pissed, the pols can be voted out. That can happen with the rich as well, but well violent revolution is so disruptive...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    49. Re:The unseen enemy by rthille · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is the "other side" is -even-more-evil...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    50. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for making sure evil prevails. You could suck it up and vote for someone who isn't evil to send a message, but no, you're dead set on evil winning, and you pretend to be rational.

    51. Re:The unseen enemy by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      The rich can be kept in check by regulation. The alternative to Keynesian economics is not complete lawlessness (although it can be if you refuse to look at any other options).

    52. Re:The unseen enemy by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2

      What could possibly be any more evil than what this old bat has done, for decades now? Yet you still blindly pull the lever for her, knowing full well that she's a piece of shit hellbent on destroying the Constitution, just because she has a "D" next to her name. It's lazy, irrational, stupid, and pathetic. You -- and the other people like you on both sides -- *absolutely* are the problem.

    53. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

    54. Re:The unseen enemy by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      at least if enough people get pissed, the pols can be voted out.

      That's true in theory, but re-election rates versus Congressional approval ratings seem to disprove it in practice.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    55. Re:The unseen enemy by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like she is an enemy of the people who has violated her oath of office in regards to upholding the Constitution of the United States. As such, she should be removed from office and locked away, where she can do no more harm to We the People.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    56. Re:The unseen enemy by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Please do the world a big favor, and kill yourself, spammer.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    57. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the people in authority that favor left ...

      The Democrats aren't a left wing party. They're a right wing party.

    58. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone with mod points please mod the parent post up?

      I'll reiterate the point(s) again, here:

      The Democratic party is not a left wing party. It's a right wing party. The Republican party is a slightly more right wing party. Both main US parties are vastly more right wing than most right wing parties of the rest of the world.

      In most other countries both main US parties are considered extreme right wing. There is no actual left wing in the mainstream politics of the US. There are fringe movements, but none in the mainstream.

      I hope this helps at least some people to get a better perspective.

    59. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really really really hope this was a Half Life reference.

    60. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understood that reference.

    61. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ultimately most people are uninformed about the dangers of surveillance, somehow, very short memories when it comes to history.

    62. Re:The unseen enemy by Quila · · Score: 2

      She doesn't need to leave to benefit. Her husband is an investment banker, and she's been doing many things in government to make him more money. She even got a government property foreclosure contract steered to a company he has a part in.

    63. Re: The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those parties are still at war. They are entrenched in politics and if you want to get something done (like today) you have to work with this system.

    64. Re:The unseen enemy by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Also, the only real factor in winning elections in California seems to be name recognition.

      I reached this conclusion a couple elections ago, when the average approval rating of Calif politicians was a pathetic 13%, yet 100% of those who ran were re-elected. (I checked, on the SOS site.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    65. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear! Hear!

    66. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We understand just fine. It's just that we think maybe the solution here is not to continue rapid deterioration into a nation of cowards and bullies, and instead start living up to our stated principles. You know, like freedom and justice, as opposed to meaningless authoritarian legislation ostensibly preventing minor risks, coupled by clumsily sticking our dick in other nations' tea whenever it suits our short-term interests.

    67. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read but cannot confirm that her husband makes money from her efforts to take away our constitutional right to privacy

    68. Re:The unseen enemy by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      There are some rather funny statistics on terrorism. Like, IIRC, you are more likely to be killed by a piece of furniture falling on you than a terrorist. There's a psychological thing at work though, of course, where we rationalize and mentally minimize familiar dangers, but sensationalize and freak out over new, exotic health or safety risks. A classic example is that many times more people have died because they decided to drive rather than fly (in the years following 9/11) than the people who died on the actual planes. Because terrorists and planes are weird, but cars are normal and every day, so they're basically safe.

    69. Re: The unseen enemy by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      It is called the Duopoly. Its reality is revealed when the national committees of the two parties publish the list of their biggest donors at election time. For many years it has been the same small group of super wealthy individuals and corporations, the stake holders in the status quo.

    70. Re:The unseen enemy by bbsalem · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. California has a serious problem it is ultra conservatives in Southern California and the Central Valley and now in Silicon Valley. Feinstein is far from ideal, but she is better than the nut cases that come from L.A or Orange Counties. I am including Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon in that list. RR won election to the governor by demagoggery in 1966. He ran against the radicals at U.C. Berkeley and we know what he did as Pres., he turned the country into the Entrapanocracy it is today, but I don't give him the power to do that, he is but an effect, a response to the economic forces that took over after he left office. He was financed by South Western Bankers and Energy people and probably Venture Capitalists who knew that the digital revolution would empower them and take power away from most of the rest of the people leading to the lopsided distribution of income and power we have today. Politicians, but more GOP than Democrats but not by much, are prostitutes. The pimps are financial and business people. They run things, and through their shortsightedness we will all fail.

    71. Re:The unseen enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a Senator. Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it.

  2. Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone that thinks this wouldn't stay around in some form isn't dealing with reality. It's far to useful to someone somewhere.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also think politicians have to be required to qualify their statements.

      Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."'"

      She probably wouldn't be able to name a single thing that was done to respect our rights. Nor is she suggesting any new amendments to do so... So why is she allowed to parrot this?

    2. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should be far more useful than it has been. So far, it's been useless, according to all of the Snowden documents. No benefit has been gained from it. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It's worthless.

      Riddle me this, Batman: Why didn't the NSA stop the Target data breach? They surely could've seen it coming. They surely should've seen its traffic while it was in action. Why haven't they tracked down the perpetrator and thrown his ass in Gitmo? He's cost the economy something far more than a few billion dollars. He cost it confidence. That's a threat to national security and stability. Where is the NSA? Somewhere in a datacenter, doing fuck-all about the real security issues facing the nation, that's where.

      "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein" needs to address that before she starts parroting back crap the Ayatollah said 35 years ago. He's an old fart, and obviously incapable of rational thought. He's also been ineffective in reaching most of his goals for the last 35 years. Unfortunately, those same things can be said about Sen. Feinstein. It seems the old adage "physician, heal thyself" applies here.

    3. Re:Well, at least they are honest by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      What do you mean allowed? Who is going to stop her?

    4. Re: Well, at least they are honest by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget the Target breach, how about the Boston Marathon bombing? That was exactly the kind of attack this program is being sold as preventing. And it didn't. Yet we still have it and it still hurts us.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    5. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should be far more useful than it has been. So far, it's been useless, according to all of the Snowden documents.

      You seem to be confusing the actual purpose of this program with the snake oil sold to people (which they are increasingly reluctant to buy). I do not doubt that this program has been immensely useful for its actual purpose.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    6. Re:Well, at least they are honest by MissNoItAll · · Score: 0

      How many negative commentors on this forum are US citizens? For those of you who aren't US citizens, I would suggest that when your country quits spying on the U.S., then the US should quit spying on your country (and certainly vice-versa if you think your country is so noble). IF you are a US citizen concerned about your privacy, then get off your butt and figure out who to sue (and for what) or who to press criminal charges against (and for what), go do one or both, but in any case, quit this paranoid posturing everytime this subject comes up.

    7. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be far more useful than it has been. So far, it's been useless, according to all of the Snowden documents. No benefit has been gained from it. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It's worthless.

      Nonsense. No benefit for the tax payers and national security has been gained. But quite a few people have derived a lot of benefits from it (including Feinstein, by the way). Why do you think that nobody dares calling the NSA officials (and a few others) on their repeated blatant perjury, equivocating, and other forms of evading accountability?

    8. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and another authoritarian non-thinker (or bot) is outed...

      FOAD, scumbot: out of the 200+ countries on the planet, please tell me how many have splitter rooms at the locus of transnational trunk lines ? ? ?
      oh, just the one ? and who would that be ? ? ?

      now, STFU, royalist...

      oh, did i mention how mycleanpc is great ?
      (evidently a requirement in this thread: you're on the ball slushdat!)

    9. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      How many negative commentors on this forum are US citizens?

      I'm one.

      But the country one resides in has nothing to do with whether or not your argument has any validity.

      For those of you who aren't US citizens, I would suggest that when your country quits spying on the U.S., then the US should quit spying on your country (and certainly vice-versa if you think your country is so noble).

      "Everybody else is doing it!" is no excuse. Nice try.

      IF you are a US citizen concerned about your privacy, then get off your butt and figure out who to sue (and for what) or who to press criminal charges against (and for what), go do one or both

      How do you know they aren't? A number of people are already doing so.

      but in any case, quit this paranoid posturing everytime this subject comes up.

      It's far from paranoid.

    10. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the reality is that that the Government is terrible at everything it does except lying and spending money. What will protect us from Big Brother? It's that Big Brother has an IQ of 15.

    11. Re:Well, at least they are honest by operagost · · Score: 1

      Riddle me this, Batman: Why didn't the NSA stop the Target data breach?

      For most of the same reasons police ignore people who warn about suspicious activity, and just show up after the crime's been committed to document the tragedy and blame the victims.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re: Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget the Target breach, how about the Boston Marathon bombing? That was exactly the kind of attack this program is being sold as preventing. And it didn't.

      Not enough funding, you see...

    13. Re:Well, at least they are honest by MissNoItAll · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your response....spying is 'information gathering for knowledge/interest/situational awareness' or whatever you want to call it. We are all guilty of 'spying' for one reason or another in pursuit of our own self interests and it appears to me to be a pretty mild form of miss-behavin'.. IMHO, it is very much a necessity for my country to spy and I fully support their continued efforts to conduct information gathering activities 'pusuent to the laws of our country'. In this context I grant all countries a right to 'spy' and we will just have to agree to disagree on that point (I clearly distinquish information gathering from meddling in other countries affairs and have totally different opinions about that). Furthermore, I am in complete agreement with you that all legal aspects of this issue need to be examined and, contrary to your sugestion, fully support such efforts. My money is on the bet that no U.S. laws were broken, no civil cases will be filed and nothing will come of it..(which will not please most people on this forum). Why waste so much energy on this issue when there are so many REAL privacy issues that actually do effect us little people that need to be discussed (like stealing my fricken credit card data!).

    14. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      We are all guilty of 'spying' for one reason or another in pursuit of our own self interests and it appears to me to be a pretty mild form of miss-behavin'

      A government spying on innocent citizens is an egregious violation of civil liberties.

      My money is on the bet that no U.S. laws were broken

      Since the US constitution is the highest law of the land, US laws were undoubtedly broken.

      no civil cases will be filed and nothing will come of it

      There are already court cases going on.

      Why waste so much energy on this issue when there are so many REAL privacy issues

      The government collecting data on all of its citizens and other innocent people is a real privacy issue; this is something that affects you in much worse ways than having your credit card data copied: It affects your rights, and it opens you up to be abused by the government in the future if you do something that they disapprove of.

    15. Re:Well, at least they are honest by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      But the country one resides in has nothing to do with whether or not your argument has any validity.

      Actually, it does in this case because the article is about the US government and what it is doing to the US citizens. So if you are complaining about what someone does to a foreigner, then you are off topic.

      "Everybody else is doing it!" is no excuse. Nice try.

      You are absolutely right. Now excuse me, I have to light one up and tell the young'ns not to smoke ever- because it's bad for you. While I'm at it, I think I'll chug a 6 pack and have the talk about alcohol being bad too.

      I'm not sure his point was that everyone was doing it so it was ok, I think it was more to clean up your own backyard first, then bitch about mine.

    16. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does in this case because the article is about the US government and what it is doing to the US citizens. So if you are complaining about what someone does to a foreigner, then you are off topic.

      In that case, that person is off topic, too. But it's not really off topic, as this mentions the NSA metadata program.

      You are absolutely right. Now excuse me, I have to light one up and tell the young'ns not to smoke ever- because it's bad for you. While I'm at it, I think I'll chug a 6 pack and have the talk about alcohol being bad too.

      I'm not sure his point was that everyone was doing it so it was ok, I think it was more to clean up your own backyard first, then bitch about mine.

      Tu quoque is a fallacy, so it doesn't make much of a difference. People's arguments aren't invalid even if they appear to be hypocrites.

    17. Re:Well, at least they are honest by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      In that case, that person is off topic, too. But it's not really off topic, as this mentions the NSA metadata program.

      It's possible we are all off topic. However, the NSA metadata program in the story was dealing specifically with the US on US citizens. That's where the references to the 4th amendment and privacy come into play.

      Tu quoque is a fallacy, so it doesn't make much of a difference. People's arguments aren't invalid even if they appear to be hypocrites.

      I do not think the claim was the argument is invalid, it was I don't want to hear it until you practice it yourself. A bit of a big difference if you look at it.

    18. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      I do not think the claim was the argument is invalid, it was I don't want to hear it until you practice it yourself. A bit of a big difference if you look at it.

      Which often is intended as a tu quoque argument, even if not in this case. Still an irrelevant point, though.

    19. Re: Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their solution to the Boston Marathon bombing was to terrorize whole neighborhoods at gunpoint telling them to get out of their homes.

    20. Re: Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you stop things successfully, it becomes 'good enough'. But good enough requires far less than what will give you complete control of all those now beneath you.
      Only as long as these methods fail (whether intentionally or through being of no use for such a purpose) do you have an easy excuse for expanding upon the program.

    21. Re:Well, at least they are honest by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Funny thing - if you read the wikipedia page that covers the NSA, it's mind boggling how much money has been poured into that agency, and what little return we've seen on that investment. The headqurters look like someone's science fiction wet dream.

      Feinstein recently commented something to the effect that the reason they collect all this information is because "immediacy is imperative" in order to foil terrorist plots. It's a hilarious statement, because it's something her little pet agency has yet to do. That being the case, how could she possibly know this? Her reasoning defies everything we've ever seen with respect to information and terrorism.

    22. Re: Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the Boston Marathon bombing wasn't stopped then obviously not enough money is being spent on invading privacy to prevent that from happening.

      Duh.

    23. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but the Government has collected data on its citizens since the beginning of Government. Most U.S. gun owners clearly see the day when the "the Government is overthrown and in one night, the rebels use Government registration data to take away every gun from every citizen". The distrust extends to IRS data, medical data, registration and license data of every kind from not just the Feds but down to all forms of regional governance, so on and on. But distrust is totally different than abuse or prosecutable offenses. I remain convinced that the legal case for NSA abuses is still in the distrust phase and yet to be migrated any further. With respect to the highest law in the land, while I am not sure about phone metadata, I do know there is a very precise definition of treason contained therein. Simple history says that the chances of your privacy being compromised by corporate folly remains 1000:1 times as high.

    24. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the Government has collected data on its citizens since the beginning of Government.

      You know what they didn't do, though? They didn't collect exploitable metadata by monitoring just about everyone's communications; they couldn't. You're confusing ordinary data with private data.

      I remain convinced that the legal case for NSA abuses is still in the distrust phase and yet to be migrated any further.

      Time for you to sit down and read the constitution. People can be damaged by having their rights infringed. Physical damage is not the only kind of damage.

      While you sit here and wait for the inevitable conclusion of the government actually taking action against their targets by using the data, rights organizations like the ACLU and EFF are actually doing something.

      Simple history says that the chances of your privacy being compromised by corporate folly remains 1000:1 times as high.

      My privacy *is* being compromised by the government. This is not up for debate, as we already know they're collecting a massive amount of data.

      And "X is worse than Y" is a meaningless statement. Having your privacy violated by corporations is bad, just like having your privacy violated by the government is bad. Additionally, any information corporations hold will be surrendered to the government, so distinguishing between the two has become quite difficult.

    25. Re:Well, at least they are honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have merely been stating that (a) the legal issues here have not yet been decided and (b) why is this privacy issue so overblown here as apposed to the more 'real and present dangers' that exist...wrt to (a) " A federal judge in December 2013 ruled that the government had "almost certainly" violated the US Constitution by collecting metadata on nearly every phone call within or to the United States. Ten days later, a different federal judge ruled the surveillance program was legal, raising the likelihood that the constitutionality of the program would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court" Somehow you have concluded from this that "laws have been undoubtedly broken". We need to let this issue play itself out instead of conducting court on the internet.

    26. Re:Well, at least they are honest by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      (b) why is this privacy issue so overblown here as apposed to the more 'real and present dangers' that exist

      Because this literally affects the fundamental liberties of hundreds of millions of people.

      Somehow you have concluded from this that "laws have been undoubtedly broken

      I don't think you understand. What some judges think or don't think is irrelevant to me; I have a mind of my own. Regardless of what they think, I know it's unconstitutional (goes against the principles and rules spelled out in the constitution).

    27. Re: Well, at least they are honest by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      "For the children."

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  3. Of course it is here to stay by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, what federal government program has ever been rolled back?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Of course it is here to stay by arbiterxero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The useful ones.

    2. Re:Of course it is here to stay by ToadProphet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social programs

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    3. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      School funding.

    4. Re:Of course it is here to stay by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NASA.

    5. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Social programs

      Really, when? And don't bother telling me about the *temporary* SNAP increase being allowed to expire.

    6. Re:Of course it is here to stay by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unemployment benefits? Medicare cuts? Vouchers for healthcare instead of actual health care? School funding?

      If the GOP had it's way LOTS of social programs would be gone entirely..or haven't you been listening to what they actually say?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    7. Re:Of course it is here to stay by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Banking regulations, Works Progress Administration (WPA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), National Recovery Administration (NRA)... to name a few

      This is a post 9/11 world, didn't anyone get the memo?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Citation Needed. School funding generally comes from the states. If you mean the federal government giving grants to school districts for administrators to buy the latest model Mercedes, that's different.

    9. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reagan repealed mental health aid for the mentally ill. He also repealed housing assistance for the same groups. Suddnely faced with the choice between paying their rent and buing their meds, they came off their meds, lost their jobs due to the behaviors caused by being off their meds, then lost their house to no income (and no support). There's a *huge* jump in the homeless population in the US starting in the early 80s as a direct result.

      He also repealed some SS benefits. As the son of a deceased sailor, I had been entitled to SS benefits until I turned 21 (if I went to college), but they were pulled back to 18.

      There have been legions of cuts over the years to everything from the FDA to the ACoE. Happens all the time.

    10. Re:Of course it is here to stay by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      NASA, Scientific research, climate research - you know, the unimportant ones..

    11. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cold+fjord · · Score: 3
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regan repealed mental health aid for the mentally ill. He also repealed housing assistance for the same groups. Suddnely faced with the choice between paying their rent and buing their meds, they came off their meds, lost their jobs due to the behaviors caused by being off their meds, then lost their house to no income (and no support). There's a *huge* jump in the homeless population in the US starting in the early 80s as a direct result.

      He also repealed some SS benefits. As the son of a deceased sailor, I had been entitled to SS benefits until I turned 21 (if I went to college), but they were pulled back to 18.

      There have been legions of cuts over the years to everything from the FDA to the ACoE. Happens all the time.

    13. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do keep in mind the cuts are down at the soldiering level, NOT at the multi-billion-contract-for-a-million-dollar-piece-of-hardware-because-my-friend/boss-owns-that-company level.
      Those are getting bigger.

    14. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No, there have been cuts to procurement too.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, the overall money out go has ALWAYS gone up.
      The programs are ALWAYS growing.
      Reagan repealed mental health because a lot of very liberal dogooders thought is was against peoples rights to lock them up against their will.
      Liberalism and revisionist history. What a good combo.

    16. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      the GOP had it's way LOTS of social programs would be gone entirely..or haven't you been listening to what they actually say?

      Maybe you don't listen to what they actually say, but simply what their opponents claim they say. There is a difference.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what federal government program has ever been rolled back?

      Hundreds, in fact:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_agencies_of_the_United_States_government

    18. Re:Of course it is here to stay by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      > Citation Needed. School funding generally comes from the states.

      Yes, and the same kind of jerks in the GOP pull the same kind of crap at the state level that they do at the federal level.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teachers buying everyday classroom supplies themselves. 'nuff said. Citations are for claims not trivially verified or obvious. (Obvious rarely is, but this is one that affects virtually every person in the US due to scope.)

    20. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've listened to Rand Paul and Ron Paul talk about removing whole social programs (i.e. education, welfare) and social medicine entirely.. or are they not in the GOP when it's not convenient. I've listened to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and others talk about repealing Obamacare and they haven't said what they want to replace it with. I've listened to presidential candidates talk the same sort of talk. From what I can tell, the GOP seems to have a clear future in mind for the American public, but they're only clear about what they don't want in it. I'm an Independent, but I'm forced away from the GOP because of these sorts of issues. I'm really not a fan of the other side either, but they're the lesser of two evils here.

    21. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the GOP had it's way LOTS of social programs would be gone entirely..or haven't you been listening to what they actually say?

      Maybe you don't listen to what they actually say, but simply what their opponents claim they say. There is a difference.

      You mean like how Mitt Romney wanted to cut funding for PBS, and by extension Big Bird, because the Federal government borrows money from China?

      From his mouth to my ears.

    22. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, the overall money out go has ALWAYS gone up.
      The programs are ALWAYS growing.

      Still waiting to meet a Social Darwinist that isn't a dumbass. The population keeps increasing so the overall dollar amount goes up - but the amount per capita, and more importantly per person who needs the help keeps going down.

    23. Re:Of course it is here to stay by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2

      Voting for the lesser of two evils only ensures that evil will continue to reign. Suck it up and try to find someone who isn't evil; at least you'll send a message.

    24. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the GOP had it's way

      The GOP has had no shortage of opportunities to "have its way".

      Note how those programs are all still there.

      So, I'll ask nurb432's question again: What Federal government program has ever been rolled back?

    25. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuff that benefits actual people instead of the police, the powerful, and the wealthy gets cut and rolled back, in other words.

      Post 9/11 fascism? Check.

    26. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Civilian Conservation Corps is a nice example of something that served a useful function when it existed, and would be highly useful now.

    27. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EPA. FDA. Meat inspections. Potable water inspections. IRS auditing of multimillionaires. OSHA. FERC. Customs inspections. Port security. VA psychological benefits. Pretty much any program that doesn't aid the PTB or the mega-corps.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    28. Re:Of course it is here to stay by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And I'll answer it for you, again. Welfare was significantly rolled back in the 90s. Plus everything else the GOP says they want to rollback.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    29. Re:Of course it is here to stay by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So you're arguing the GOP hasn't proposed cutting social programs?

      How about cutting food stamps? Do you think it's the Dems' pushing that?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    30. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Don't you really mean Tom Foley? Reagan just signed a law passed by a Democratic house and senate.

    31. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So you're arguing the GOP hasn't proposed cutting social programs?

      You're trying to change the argument. Do you remember this?

      LOTS of social programs would be gone entirely

      Reducing the rate of growth is not elimination. Changing eligibility is not elimination.

      The Democrats are quite happy to promise more than there is budget for. Democrats make trade-offs too, including cuts to existing benefits.

      With Election Over, Obama Announces Medicare Cuts to Fund ObamaCare

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    32. Re:Of course it is here to stay by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Ron and Rand Paul are essentially Libertarians that want to get elected, hence their membership in the Republican party. They don't necessarily represent mainstream Republican views or policies any more than various Democrats that I could pick represent the mainstream of the Democratic party. As to the repeal of Obamacare, there have been proposals. Even going back to the status quo would probably have been preferable since I believe we are currently at a significant net loss of coverage due to all the cancellations that have occurred and the limited enrollment. For the people that have enrolled, many of them are seeing significant increases in their prices.

      If all you want is more, more, more, from government, then you probably are going to prefer the Democrats. But realize that means more control, more taxes, more regulation, in order to provide more programs. When the programs are not successful, the answer will be even more programs, control, taxes, and regulation. That control and regulation may not be changed even if heading for a cliff and certain failure. The Bush administration tried to reform the mortgage problem, but the Democrats blocked it, and Democrats in Congress clapped wildly during a State of the Union address over that blockage. The results of the crash are well known, and still with us. Social welfare spending is likewise heading for enormous problems, and is the majority of money spent by the US. But instead of making them sustainable, the US just keeps adding more programs that will become more expensive in the future while at the same time gumming up the economy. Things that can't continue, won't. Something is certain to change, the only question is what, when, and what form?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    33. Re:Of course it is here to stay by fnj · · Score: 0

      Regan repealed mental health aid for the mentally ill. He also repealed housing assistance for the same groups. Suddnely faced with the choice between paying their rent and buing their meds, they came off their meds, lost their jobs due to the behaviors caused by being off their meds, then lost their house to no income (and no support). There's a *huge* jump in the homeless population in the US starting in the early 80s as a direct result.

      He also repealed some SS benefits. As the son of a deceased sailor, I had been entitled to SS benefits until I turned 21 (if I went to college), but they were pulled back to 18.

      There have been legions of cuts over the years to everything from the FDA to the ACoE. Happens all the time.

      Citations with specific dates, specific figures and specific names - or it DIDN'T HAPPEN. Who is this "Regan" you are talking about?

    34. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know given the current administration this might be confusing, but the President is not a King. He cannot repeal anything. Congress does that. At the time, the House of Representatives was firmly under Democrat control.

      If you actually learned what happened, you'd know that. You'd also know that Reagan made SS solvent again and did so largely by raising taxes. *gasp*

      There was a huge increase in homeless because the post-war economy started collapsing in the 70s. Turns out an shrinking export economy based on durable goods isn't enough to sustain yourself once all your trading partners bough enough tractors and washing machines. The USSR learned that lesson too.

    35. Re:Of course it is here to stay by fnj · · Score: 1

      The rap is that "in 1981 the Reagan administration orchestrated the repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act, consolidated the categorical mental health programs into a block grant, and cut spending on those programs about 25 percent". Of course it was part of an effort to rescue the economy from the dump worse than at any time since the Great Depression. The merits on both sides can certainly be argued.

      But one thing that CANNOT be argued is that "the Reagan administration did it". Note the weasel word "orchestrated", in which the writer attempts to sidestep the absurdity of the claim. No President and no "administration" can repeal anything. Repeal of a federal law takes an agreement between a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and the President.

      Maybe the people of the USA, through their elected representatives, did the "orchestrating".

    36. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that flies when you look decade over decade. There may be short term cuts to such programs but overall the spending on all those things has vastly increased. The US spends more on education than anyone, unemployment benefits are YEARS longer than they were just 10 years ago, Medicare was just gutted and largely replaced by ACA (overall spending increase)... I think the original question was rhetorical but you are playing silly politics. I think the question meant to say, when does the government ever return power that it seized?

    37. Re:Of course it is here to stay by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how the *temporary* tax cuts expired... oh, wait...

    38. Re:Of course it is here to stay by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 0

      The US spends more on education than anyone

      Yes, we should be dumb and stupid...great way to plan for the future.

      unemployment benefits are YEARS longer than they were just 10 years ago

      Perhaps because we're experiencing the worst recession in a generation? You know, people actually need unemployment benefits right now because they can't find jobs? And after starting off with 'decade over decade' you cherry pick one decade with a VASTLY different economic environment? well played sir troll, well played.

      Medicare was just gutted and largely replaced by ACA (overall spending increase)

      And 30-40 MILLION more people have health insurance available to them. Overall spending DECREASE since once it's fully in force and people are enrolled the number of ER visits goes way way down. Again, 'decade over decade' and you compare to just 'now'.

      I think the question meant to say, when does the government ever return power that it seized?

      I think the proper question is why aren't you getting off your lazy AC ass and actually doing something about it? If you don't like the government, you're quite free to persuade your neighbors to join you in replacing your representatives.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    39. Re:Of course it is here to stay by operagost · · Score: 1

      Unemployment benefits have been extended from 26 weeks to 99 weeks. You have a funny idea of "rolled back".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Of course it is here to stay by operagost · · Score: 1

      Cuz Clinton was a Republican.

      Welfare needed reforming. He was smart enough to cut something, instead of just raising taxes. Regardless, it was remarkable and unusual.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Of course it is here to stay by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      According to the wikipedia page you linked to, it was gotten rid of not because of the GOP but because the economy improved and most of the people who would participate was drafted into the army- all while under the same democrat president that started it.

      Are you sure you understood the question?

    42. Re:Of course it is here to stay by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should be dumb and stupid...great way to plan for the future.

      Repeat after me, throwing money at something does not make it better, it just makes it more expensive. WE are constantly under-performing in test scores compared to other countries that spend a fraction of what we do on education. Not spending more does not equate to being dumb and stupid. Spending more with no or negative results could equal dumb and stupid though.

      And 30-40 MILLION more people have health insurance available to them. Overall spending DECREASE since once it's fully in force and people are enrolled the number of ER visits goes way way down. Again, 'decade over decade' and you compare to just 'now'.

      No they do not. Right now, the number of people who do not have health insurance available is actually greater then before as policies were canceled and some increased in costs to the point people claim they cannot afford them any more.

      Even the government claims less then 6 million people signed up for the exchanges. The CBO claims that after Obamacare is fully implemented, 30 to 40 million people will not have coverage. Before the ACA, it was only 50 million who were uninsured. But right now, we have seen over 80 million policies canceled because of the ACA. So unless you are counting a large amount of people who had their policies canceled as the ones who are going to be getting insurance, the best you can claim is that 10-20 million will have access to insurance. But currently, it seems like only 6 million or so is able to be claimed if you discount anyone who was canceled from the number of people signing up for the exchanges. But that isn't the case in reality.

      I know, that is not what you have been told by your handlers. But it actually is the cold hard truth of the matter.

      I think the proper question is why aren't you getting off your lazy AC ass and actually doing something about it? If you don't like the government, you're quite free to persuade your neighbors to join you in replacing your representatives.

      I think you will find this to be a common theme over the next several elections. Whether the politicians will stand and deliver is another story, but we can expect to see some different talking heads in the mix.

    43. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what federal government program has ever been rolled back?

      How about the recent, so called "farm bill" where they are going to divert 9 billion dollars over ten years from the food stamp program and give it (in the form of tax breaks and subsidies) to the rich corporations that run the huge factory farms? After all, Congress has determined that rich corporations deserve that money ever much more than poor people do.

    44. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unemployment benefits were temporarily increased, and for once, allowed to expired on the date set in the law; instead of getting renewed forever. Medicare cuts have not happened, decreases in the rate of increase is not a cut, it is still a raise in funding. Entitlement programs make up a full 60% of the federal budget, and the CBOs numbers show increased spending and unfunded liabilities into the hundreds of trillions of dollars in the next 50 years. I'm all for helping people improve their position and taking care of the elderly, but the current model is broken and unsustainable. In 2012, the government boasted about the number of people it had enrolled on food stamps -- seems that would something to grieve, not to praise. We should not be making people depended on federal government when they prove day by day to less and less trust worthy. We need programs that help people get back on their feet not allow poverty and a spirit of defeat to be passed down from one generation to the next as it does in the inner cities of this country. Do I know the solution? No. But I know what we are doing isn't working, and we should testing new models in the places that have the greatest need. (heaven forbid we test things on the small scale, allow innovation, keep what is proven to work, and kill what doesn't.)

      School funding has not been cut -- we spend more on education each year, with worse results each year. Throwing money at the existing system doesn't fix the system. Washington should not set curriculum, the local school districts should work with community they serve and teachers they hire, rather than teaching to tests dreamed up by bureaucrats at the Department of Education.

      The GOP has no real interest in ending social programs, they know the democrats do. The more people dependent on the government the less likely real change will occur. They just need to make noise that they will make a smaller government to make it look like they are more different than than their political "adversaries".

    45. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK?

    46. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to spin and deflect.
      Both sides want more more more, just more for them and less for the other side.
      You Americans should try for useful or better government instead of arguing over more or less all the time.

    47. Re:Of course it is here to stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homestead Act

  4. She is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    deluded.

  5. Being a Californian by jmd · · Score: 1

    It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here....

    1. Re:Being a Californian by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here....

      I'm not sure any state would want her

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here....

      I'm not sure any state would want her

      Obviously, California wants her .. they keep electing her.

    3. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She could come to Arizona. We'd be happy to teach her what liberty looks like, while of course not giving her a senate seat.

    4. Re:Being a Californian by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here...."

      1) Why would you wish something so evil upon your neighbors?
      2) Feinstein is business as usual for California, you keep electing her despite years of uninterrupted hypocrisy and disdain for the common citizen from her

    5. Re:Being a Californian by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arizona knows something of Liberty? Papers please because you look 'foreign'...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    6. Re:Being a Californian by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      she would be a good start, but then you need to get rid of pelosi and a few others who seem to just never ever go away. As someone stuck living in NY, I feel for you out there

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you primary the evil troll out of office? Don't force her one another state.

    8. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Feinstein was re-elected in 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2012. In 2012, Feinstein claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes.

      - Wikipedia (ref. Politico)

      I'm not sure any state would want her.

      - Slashdot

    9. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arizona law enforcement frightened me and I'm from Texas.

    10. Re: Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As someone also stuck in NY, I completely agree. All we have are professional politicians. Schumer now supports all the programs he objected to under Bush. Gillibrand never does anything substantial besides working on women's rights issues - the rest of the time she votes Schumer. In the house, my representative is Tom Reed, a member of the Tea Party only when it suits him. Everyone in my area loves him because he objects to New York's SAFE act... never mind that he voted to continued to fund an NSA program that the NRA is(or was... haven't seen if it was resolved) the government over.

    11. Re:Being a Californian by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Sometimes there are "clues". Besides, what is "foreign" looking? Arizona is a multicultural state.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus their answer will be "This tells us everyone is foreign and therefore fair game"

    13. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, what is "foreign" looking?

      Well, you can either harass everyone for their papers (including grandmas and little kids, just like getting on the plane) or you profile the brown skinned ones.

    14. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha where Maricopa County? hahahahaha "I'm sorry but your papers aren't in order" Mod this one funny.

    15. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republican law enforcement started making a lot more sense to me when I realized they don't give a damn about truth or justice. The Republicans came to town to see a hangin' and by golly, a hangin' they're gonna git.

    16. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed along with McCain, Lindsey Grayham, and quite a few others include Cruz who has worn out his welcome.

    17. Re:Being a Californian by msk · · Score: 1

      Why does California keep electing her? She's obviously so hostile to the Constitution that her pants should catch fire every time she takes the oath of office.

    18. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, California wants her .. they keep electing her.

      You might think that, but actually it's just a ploy to keep her in D.C., the other side of the country from California.

    19. Re:Being a Californian by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Dude. I'm from NY which is pretty blue last I checked, and even *we* don't want her. Nope, buddy you can keep that noise..

      --
      C|N>K
    20. Re:Being a Californian by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does a democrat in ca who basically votes republican when possible, stay in office? I know how it works elsewhere, but those rules don't seem to apply. So how does she spin this at election time?
      Or is she just the incumbent and that's good enough?

    21. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I complain about our freedoms being eroded here in America and about how much police easily get away with my parents, uncles and other Arabs all tell me we are very spoiled here and that the Arab governments are far worse. At least here you can criticize the government, try doing that there. You have no room to think, no opportunity to invent and innovate or try to be a scientist, no opportunity to succeed. When foreigners come here many of them see opportunity vs oppression from their homeland. They say we have things easy. My dad came here at age twelve. By the time he was in high school he won spelling contests. He spells very well and his vocabulary is stronger than the overwhelming majority of natives. He even used to be an Italian to Arabic translator (he was raised in an Italian boarding school). He complains our educational system is too easy. My mom came here at twenty something. Her second language was actually Italian as well. She got her AS degree at a community college here with honors while working (she worked for the city and she even had to pass a Spanish proficiency test to get that job). I know many middle eastern people that speak multiple languages very well, even to proficiency, and their English is more proficient than most native speakers and they spell better than most natives. I can give you all kinds of incredible success stories. Many got degrees with very good scores and their complaint is that we have it much too easy and we are spoiled here in America, our educational system is too easy and we don't know what oppression really is.

      Where my mom grew up the teacher would pick on students to answer questions in class. If a student got the wrong answer the teacher would hit you with the side of a ruler. One day a teacher knocked my uncle's tooth out. When my grandma complained to the school the school sided with the teacher. You had no choice but to get the right answer and to memorize what was expected of you through repetition and whatnot. and it worked. So when they come here they find our colleges easy compared to what they are used to even though English is not their native language.

      While I agree that our political system is corrupt when a foreigner comes here and disagrees it's probably because they come from a far worse system.

    22. Re:Being a Californian by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I'd wish her dead, but I'd hate to burden poor Satan.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    23. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point that pixelpusher220 was trying to make!

    24. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back and look at the link.

    25. Re:Being a Californian by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That isn't quite the flavor of the point he was trying to make.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did... and?

      Oh, I see, they let all 70 go because them dirty "liberal" hippies kept the cops from demanding their papers. Missed that the first time I read through the article.

    27. Re:Being a Californian by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      While I don't doubt things are worse in other places, that's not the standard I'm holding the US too.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    28. Re:Being a Californian by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you DO understand that none of them are from cali right???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re:Being a Californian by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Meh, being brown is enough to make you a "Mexican". I have a friend who moved to AZ and has to deal with occasionally being called a wet back or Mexican due to his Haitian and Puerto Rican heritage. He even had some fat redneck d-bag point a gun at him while he was riding his motorcycle because the d-bag didn't like how slow he was riding. He had witnesses and took the case to court but the d-bag got off scott free as he said he was holding his wallet, not a gun. Judge and jury bought the line of bullshit and the case was tossed. So being brown in AZ certainly makes you second class to a lot of dick headed people.

    30. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She doesn't vote Republican, she votes authoritarian which is a government philosophy embraced by most Californians.

    31. Re:Being a Californian by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a defect in your attempt at "reading" the article.

      One of the people in the truck was a Guatemalan national; the others were all from Mexico, officials said.

      The driver is in federal custody on smuggling charges.

      Agents say this arrest is part of a wave of smuggling attempts using semi tractor-trailers. On March 6, agents reported finding 25 Mexican nationals. On April 29, agents reported arresting 11 Mexican national inside another tractor-trailer.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    32. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we could fix that by enforcing some immigration law and tightening up the border. Then if you saw a brown person you would have less doubt about whether he's a criminal or a legit citizen.

    33. Re:Being a Californian by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      The Republicans came to town to see a hangin' and by golly, a hangin' they're gonna git.

      Great horny toads! What are ya doin' down there upside-downy?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    34. Re:Being a Californian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dead don't care about hypocrisy or disdain for the common citizen. That's why they always vote Democrat.

  6. Your fired..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Your fired...and thats how you get control of it.....

    start firing all the dweeby idiots and don't do any business with americans until they prove they are not spaying peeping toms

    1. Re:Your fired..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe we should start spaying/neutering these peeping toms, start squeezing out their bloodlines.

    2. Re:Your fired..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'd love to have a vote of no confidence...

  7. "A lot of the privacy people... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."

    On the contrary, I think they understand that very well.

    1. Re: "A lot of the privacy people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah that got me too. Is it a misquote? freudian slip? I can't think of any way to interpret that other than her admitting that congress is evil (and implying that it should be for some reason)

    2. Re: "A lot of the privacy people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we still occupy

      When occupying places like the role of the Great Satan, one might consider that the locals will get get annoyed if only for patriotic reasons. Would the tables be turned, I know I might be preparing my or the targets of somebody else already.
      (It is annoying when the potential joke works multiple ways and has to be mixed actual opinions)

    3. Re: "A lot of the privacy people... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The "we" in "we still occupy the role of the Great Satan" refers to the United States as a whole. The "Great Satan" is specifically a term used by the Iranian theocratic government to denounce the US on a regular basis. "Great Satan" is being used to represent the antipathy towards the US by Islamist extremists in general, and no doubt both Iran and al Qaida specifically.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re: "A lot of the privacy people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and would like to move away from that role a bit by shutting down programs like this one.

  8. Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't put the cat back in the bag...now that they know what the NSA is capable of they will use untraceable methods.

    This will only monitor the rest of us.

    1. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.

    2. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.

      That you know of. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of collecting against citizens w/o a warrant.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by residents_parking · · Score: 0

      Well they will NOW.

      Thanks a bunch Snowden.

    4. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.

      That you know of. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of collecting against citizens w/o a warrant.

      I am certain that should one of those programs (NSA or TSA) ever stop a terrorist plot, even by accident, such success would be trumpeted for years to come. The vague and general references to hundreds of terrorist plots is an indication that there is nothing real to talk about.

    5. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by citizenr · · Score: 2

      Oh they stopped plenty. For example a plot to do internal audit of CIA by Petraeus.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    6. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.

      That you know of.

      Senators Patrick Leahy, Ron Wyden, and Mark Udall have all claimed that the 702 (PRISM) program, which collects email and other internet content, has been instrumental in disrupting a single plot against the territorial US and a minor contributor to 53 international investigations. They claim that the 215 (metadata) program has contributed nothing.

      The efficacy of these programs is not germane to the question of their legitimacy. If it were, then we should be interested not only in the true positives, but also in the false positives. That is, how many people were targeted for investigation by these programs and ultimately dismissed? We might consider Boston a false negative.

      No, the efficacy is not relevant, although if it were a very effective program, then one might argue for making a purposeful exception to our principles. Like when I violate my belief in honesty to tell my wife she doesn't look fat. That's not what's happening: what's happening is that NSA are telling us these programs do not violate our principles of privacy and freedom, then using efficacy to derail any further discussion. The government needs to stop tracking (215 program) and recording (702 program) my conversations: it is surveillance without cause.

    7. Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.

      That you know of. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of collecting against citizens w/o a warrant.

      I am certain that should one of those programs (NSA or TSA) ever stop a terrorist plot, even by accident, such success would be trumpeted for years to come. The vague and general references to hundreds of terrorist plots is an indication that there is nothing real to talk about.

      Not if it's going to reveal something about their methods. When you know the methods, it becomes much less of a problem to avoid being collected.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  9. Rape, burn, pillage, rape... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was in Basic Training (for the military), the infantry recruits had a tongue in cheek saying, "Rape, burn, pillage, rape. We rape twice because it's more fun." In that instance, those making the remark knew it was an inappropriate thing to say. It's too bad the US Senate doesn't know it's inappropriate to rape and pillage its citizens.

    1. Re:Rape, burn, pillage, rape... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Rape, burn, pillage, rape. We rape twice because it's more fun."

      No,no, no! You pillage BEFORE you burn!

      Amazing the number of people who get that wrong and do them out of order....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Rape, burn, pillage, rape... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Rape, burn, pillage, rape. We rape twice because it's more fun."

      No,no, no! You pillage BEFORE you burn!

      Unless you are in a hurry.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Rape, burn, pillage, rape... by ACE209 · · Score: 2

      And if it burns after the rape you better visit a doctor.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    4. Re:Rape, burn, pillage, rape... by crath · · Score: 1

      But, "Rape, burn, pillage, rape" is so much more alliterative than the correct form.

  10. Relevant Quote by macromorgan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A matter of [internal] security... the age old cry of the oppressor!" - Captain Picard

    1. Re:Relevant Quote by TangoMargarine · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bold words from a show where humanity suddenly and magically solved most of its societal problems with very little in the way of explanation, unfortunately.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Relevant Quote by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

      bullshit. between "today" and the federation a lot of Big Bad Shit happened.

      --
      -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    3. Re:Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After a nuclear war.

    4. Re:Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fully interactive VR + replicators

      " the day you can fuck pamela anderson for 5.95$ its gonna make the crack epidemic look tame"=some comic
        It would be the ultimate circus for the masses.

      Replicator, 2 1 pound bars of gold please.
      Ending of scarcity?

    5. Re:Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magically and Suddenly being over a century following total economic and societal collapse when automation and post-energy-scarcity resulted in World War III.

    6. Re:Relevant Quote by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      End of the gold having any value, sure.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    7. Re:Relevant Quote by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      End of the gold having any value, sure.

      From what I have seen, the most valuable thing in society in Star Trek's Federation is a position within Star Fleet. Specifically, an officer position in Star Fleet who gets to mate with exotic life forms, make casual references to the law (Prime Directive) while ignoring it, and get multiple movie contracts. You don't wanna be a red shirt, oh no.

      Spock died saving the ship? We need another movie to revive him, casualties be damned, including the ship. All the red shirts who died for the ship over its 5 year and ongoing mission? Meh

    9. Re:Relevant Quote by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      I take it you haven't watched the shows then? Because I seem to recall the Eugenics Wars, which led to the outlawing of genetic manipulation; the Bell Riots, which led to the US government beginning to address the serious social problems facing the country; and World War III and the post-atomic horror, followed shortly thereafter by first contact, which acted as a catalyst for the unification of humanity which took about another 100 years to achieve after first contact.

      There was nothing magical about it. From the mid-1900s (i.e. when the franchise first hit the airwaves) to when the United Federation of Planets is formed, you have nearly 200 years of history riddled with serious conflicts that led to societal changes after societal change. And even after things are allegedly "magically solved", you have internal conflicts going on, such as the Maquis Insurrection. Nothing was solved quickly or easily. Enterprise is all about this sort of stuff, in fact, since it pre-dates the formation of the Federation and deals with how fragile the United Earth government is and how the Vulcans mistrust the humans, since the humans were still pulling themselves out of the aftermath of the third world war.

      And before you keep suggesting that there wasn't much in the way of explanation, those links tie back to information that was presented in each and every one of the series (I specifically recall the Eugenics Wars being mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT; Bell Riots were in DS9; WW3 was in the very first and last episodes of TNG; post-atomic horror was mentioned in TNG and VOY; United Earth was all over the place in ENT; and I'm still making my way through TAS, but I know some of those are brought up in episodes I haven't seen yet), so no matter which one(s) you watched, you should have gotten some idea of the history of their fictional universe.

    10. Re:Relevant Quote by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I did see the episodes with the Bell Riots and Q talking about the Post-Atomic Horror. I guess my complaint is that these just demonstrate that humanity continued to have severe problems, up until the point where they were all fixed. So is the implication that humans just decided one issue at a time to stop dicking around and do it properly? Nobody will ever accuse Roddenberry of not being optimistic...

      Enterprise did do a decent job at showing some societal problems in the last season, I would agree. The Maquis was more about international relations with an alien power than human society in isolation, was my impression.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:Relevant Quote by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Although to be fair, I suppose DS9 as a whole was rather a rebuttal to the whole "Star Trek is too idealistic and perfect" argument.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Relevant Quote by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I can see where you're coming from, and that's a fair point. If you look at it in that light, then we're effectively just talking about the 100 years or so prior to when Enterprise was set, since that's the time that takes us from first contact to the Federation of Planets. And if you look at that time, you're right, there isn't much there. It's basically some hand-waving that turns into starvation and poverty getting fixed. To be fair, first contact would act as a decent catalyst for getting your stuff together, and those other conflicts I mentioned did address various issues, but there would definitely still be a lot of ground to cover in a short period of time. It's doable, but definitely something you'd need to be optimistic to believe.

      And the Maquis were definitely not about humans in isolation, but they were about dealing with the people in your society who were less fortunate. They were, after all, Federation renegades who were fighting against all sides in order to declare their independence as a result of their having been neglected by the Federation.

    13. Re:Relevant Quote by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      True. I guess that's what happens at the frontier, and that's where the frontier was at that point in the timeline.

    14. Re:Relevant Quote by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      From what I have seen, the most valuable thing in society in Star Trek's Federation is a position within Star Fleet.

      But the lefties keep telling us that Star Trek is a post-scarcity society. So I'll just have my own Starship Enterprise, won't I? Who needs Star Fleet?

    15. Re:Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the lefties keep telling us that Star Trek is a post-scarcity society. So I'll just have my own Starship Enterprise, won't I? Who needs Star Fleet?

      Missing the trees for the forest friend. What the lefties mean is that Star Trek supports socialism. And they're right. The Federation is a one-party large central government, with Star Fleet being its military arm (but of course they say all those phasers and torpedoes are only for defense and peaceful purposes)

      All members of the The Party... er I mean The Federation could get their own Starship Enterprise. They just have to have appropriate standing within The Party (that is, Star Fleet or the Federation government proper)

      So again, at minimum you should be a Star Fleet officer (again, not red shirts). What with all the inherent corruption in socialism, it's no surprise that Star Fleet captains often disregard the rules they set for themselves, and go down on away missions, which opens up opportunity for officers to take control of the ship, even if when under your command, you grant special favors to your girlfriend/future wife, telling her to take the helm and she crashes the ship onto a planet

    16. Re:Relevant Quote by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Is it actually stated to be a one-party legislature? There are a lot of episodes I haven't seen (probably watched like 35-45% of all series combined) but I don't remember seeing any actual description of how the Federation makes its decisions, other than being representative.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  11. Great Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ""A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan.'" ... and we're not about to give it up without a fight!

    1. Re:Great Satan by Randym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ' "New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said.'

      Ah, yes -- that small vicious group that call themselves "The Congress". Vile bastards, those... Claiming to 'represent the people', yet imposing insult after insult upon the very people they claim to represent.

      --
      DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
    2. Re:Great Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a great business model. Ask the public to pay for weapons to defend them against an enemy created by those very weapons. Perfect little feedback loop. Lots of gravy on that train.

  12. Great Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We" are not the Great Satan, Dianne. That would be you and the rest of your despicable brood of self-righteous overbearing pax americana terrorists.

  13. Let's just stick our heads in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dismantle the NSA. But if any 9/11 type attack hits, then we'll unload on the government for being incompetent muckety mucks who can't blow their nose with a box of kleenexes in front of them. Because, you know we're just way smarter than anyone in government here on Slashdot - can they cut shell scripts, perl scripts? The answer is no.

    1. Re:Let's just stick our heads in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      9/11 happened because they needed the entire Nation to embrace the Patriotic Act and all of their neofascist arsenal. They let it happen, and immediately got a bunch of rednecks screaming "USA! USA! USA!" at the top of their lungs in front of the White House. Face it guys, you are becoming the fourth Reich. You just traded Hebrew for Muslim in the tale of the Unholy People Hitler used to get the Germans in line behind him.

    2. Re:Let's just stick our heads in the sand by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2

      But if any 9/11 type attack hits, then we'll unload on the government for being incompetent muckety mucks who can't blow their nose with a box of kleenexes in front of them.

      When did that happen? When 9/11 happened, I was criticizing the actions of the government for taking advantage of people's stupidity and curtailing our civil liberties.

      You authoritarians seem to think it's even remotely acceptable to toss out principles and fundamental liberties in the name of safety, but that is simply not the case.

    3. Re:Let's just stick our heads in the sand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the fact that the US remains a democracy, isn't engaging in political oppression, isn't conquering foreign lands for "living space," and neither Muslims nor Jews are being arrested for extermination. You didn't get much of any of that right.

      9/11 happened due to a plot by a terrorist group started by Arabs to spread their version of Islam.

  14. Sop questioning your betters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously people in Washington, D.C. know better than us our national security needs and how to run our own lives. Stop questioning your betters just because their actions disagree with some 227 year old piece of paper written by old white men who never saw a computer.

    1. Re:Sop questioning your betters! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Pssh, yeah--inalienable human rights are so passe.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  15. For reals??? by stink_eye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this woman for real? She seems very protective of our Great Satan role. There are new vicious terrorists popping up everywhere, especially right here in our own back yard she seems to infer... And what the hell, the president thinks it's a good idea, so those of us in the congressional branch ought to jump right behind him on that, because, you know, he's a politician, we're politicians and we all just roll like that... Everyone knows that the American people don't need/want privacy anyhow... They will all feel so much better once we remove those annoying constitutional freedoms that are such a distraction in their day to day lives. Just like castrating a dog! How does that silly putz stay in office anyhow?

    1. Re:For reals??? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      see Military Industrial complex, specifically Truman's warnings...that's why she's protective of it.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:For reals??? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      see Military Industrial complex, specifically Truman's warnings

      Eisenhower's warning.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:For reals??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "infer" /= "imply"

    4. Re:For reals??? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Whoops!

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:For reals??? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yes, it took a former general and Supreme Allied Commander to have the balls to say what was happening, although I don't recall him actually doing anything to prevent it or even slow the process down.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:For reals??? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Eisenhower was a pre-war soldier.

      Traditionally, after the fighting is over, the US Army scales back to its usual peacetime levels (tiny, for the size of the country), and I think that Eisenhower expected that after 1945.

      Note that we actually tried that, to some extent, up till the Korean War (which caught us with our pants down, with next to no troops available to send to Korea to stop the North Korean attack - a lot of reservists found themselves suddenly called up).

      After Korea, there was basically no chance that the Army would scale back to pre-war levels. Though it should be noted that the entire Army today is smaller than the fraction of the Army that staged the breakout from Normandy in 1944.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  16. Stop that by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."

    Maybe we shouldn't occupy that role?

    1. Re:Stop that by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It's designated, not occupied.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Stop that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, the Soviet had a good run for almost 50 years - as the sole remaining super power it's your god damn responsibility now!

    3. Re:Stop that by nausicaa · · Score: 1

      "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."

      Maybe we shouldn't occupy that role?

      Sanest comment ever! Seriously, so true!

    4. Re:Stop that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So the actual headline should have been "US government finally recognizes own evilness, joins Iran, North Korea in Axis of Evil."?

    5. Re:Stop that by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      the US is earning that title through a lot of its actions.

    6. Re: Stop that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Please keep your remaining good Superpower clear of the cutting blade.

    7. Re:Stop that by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The US is unlikely to be truly popular with either the hard left or extreme Islamists any time soon.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Stop that by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Puh-lease, like the US would ever join an "Axis of Evil."

      We have way too many marketroids for that. We'd refuse to sign the charter unless they agreed to change the name to something suitably badass, like "The Bad Wolfpack."

    9. Re:Stop that by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Mr. President, we must not allow a Satan gap!

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    10. Re:Stop that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..."The Bad Wolfpack."

      Sounds like you need a Doctor.

  17. Separation of powers by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good thing that the Legislative and Executive branches of government are set up to balance each other.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  18. Feinstein to go by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If she says the metadata program needs to stay, then she needs to go. It's as simple as that.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Feinstein to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear!

  19. She forgot to end with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Glory to Arstotzka!

  20. Basically, Fuck You! by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What she is really saying is, "Fuck you Citizen! We are the Government and will do as we like. We are not concerned that nearly all Americans and 100% of foreign nationals are appalled by our actions. Go back to playing with your iPhones while us grownups take care of business".
     

    1. Re:Basically, Fuck You! by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Agreed but as long as people play the "less of two evils" card this isn't going to go away. Partisan politics fuels an ugly beast. Any fool can see that.

      And I'd like to point out that part of this idea that they have floating around their heads that they're the ones who know best comes from citizens crying to the government for solutions anytime there is a problem... a lot of the time there isn't even a real problem. We live in a nanny state because we've demanded a nanny state.

      We've sold ourselves down river in about a thousand ways. Most of it comes down to laziness and mistaking inconvenience for oppression. Most people have more information, intelligence, insight and stronger opinions on the upcoming Super Blow than they do about their position in society and how it relates to government.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Basically, Fuck You! by mrbester · · Score: 1

      That or she thinks that Obama is Spock where the needs (and wants) of the one outweigh the needs of the many...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Basically, Fuck You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What she is really saying is, "Fuck you Citizen! We are the Government and will do as we like. We are not concerned that nearly all Americans and 100% of foreign nationals are appalled by our actions. Go back to playing with your iPhones while us grownups take care of business".

      I'm on a short lunch break so I don't have time to google sources for you, but actually there have been several polls from a variety of sources that show that most Americans and even foreigners are ok with these actions. I know it's easy to think otherwise on slashdot where there is a like minded crowd... However, like most political issues, the slashdot view is a minority view.

    4. Re:Basically, Fuck You! by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      All that means is that most Americans and foreigners are idiots, not that these things are okay or constitutional. If those polls exist and are accurate, that is.

    5. Re: Basically, Fuck You! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      She doesn't give a shit about the 'many'! She only cares about pure raw political power. It's an insatiable appetite. A real fascist!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Basically, Fuck You! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Agreed but as long as people play the "less of two evils" card this isn't going to go away.

      When you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil, and each time they win we get increasing evil.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re: Basically, Fuck You! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      She cares about the 'many' dollars that will go into her hubby's pocket due to something Eisenhower warned about...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  21. No Shit?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to keep the program that lets them collect information on everybody, and legality be damned. Which would only be a problem if anybody actually stood up and said it was illegal, admittedly.

    In other news, water continues to be wet, the sky continues to be blue, and people in the Middle East continue to kill each other.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  22. Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not terribly fond of some of the nuts that infiltrate the Senate from the right. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mitch the Chinless Wonder...

    Feinstein is just about the only "crazy left-winger" that I dislike just as much as the Teabaggers and their enablers. She's got that wonderful combination of stupid opinions and willingness to get vocal about them.

    1. Re:Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein is just about the only "crazy left-winger" that I dislike just as much as the Teabaggers and their enablers. She's got that wonderful combination of stupid opinions and willingness to get vocal about them.

      I'm curious. What are your thoughts on Barney Frank?

  23. Doesn't get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."
      Yes Senator Feinstein, that's why we want to stop the collection. I would rather the US wasn't known as "the Great Satan" by other countries.

  24. "...we still occupy the role of the Great Satan" by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    Thanks for confirming that, Diane!

  25. Terrorist on the loose by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, there is a very dangerous terrorist on the loose: her name is Dianne Feinstein.

  26. She's nuts by PPH · · Score: 1

    The people that keep voting her into office are nuts. Give California back to Mexico.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:She's nuts by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She's not crazy, she's evil.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:She's nuts by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is that her opponents are worse. In 2012 Elizabeth Emken had exactly one issue-- autism awareness. Nothing else. Mountjoy might have been viable in 2006, but not a realistic time for democrats to cross over.

    3. Re:She's nuts by Rhyas · · Score: 1

      At some point, people are going to have to get pissed off enough to take the risk on a new candidate. "Look, I know I might suck sometimes, but look at the alternative! You have no idea what that person will do, at least you know me!" FUD at it's finest is what keeps our congress ineffective.

    4. Re:She's nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't mutually exclusive.

  27. I don't think she understands "preparation" by naasking · · Score: 2

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."

    A critical requirement of preparation is evidence of the effectiveness of your preparation. Where's the evidence that dragnet surveillance is effective?

  28. In other words by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

    They don't give a shit what we, the people, their boss, want. They're going to continue doing it anyway.

    1. Re:In other words by Kunax · · Score: 1

      maybe because the people is not the boss. it's nice to think that we are but really do we have any say in the end?

  29. A more Relevant Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can.

    -Mel Gicson's character in "The Patriot"

  30. Exemptions? by dk20 · · Score: 1

    Dont worry, the Senate will pass a law prohibiting the NSA from spying on them.

    1. Re:Exemptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      as long as they are in the ruling party

  31. So what's the NSA got on her? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    It's really really hard to avoid the conclusion that they've got some killer blackmail data that's keeping her dancing this oppressors' line. The alternative is that she really believes these lies. Given that the GOP isn't winning California in the foreseeable future, the only realistic prospect for her removal is a primary challenge, which, of course, is the easiest thing to pre-empt with convenient revelations. Sadly however, given that she was reelected in 2012, we're not getting rid of her soon unless the grim reaper gets her - she is 80.

    1. Re:So what's the NSA got on her? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      What do they have on her?

      A husband that makes a fortune through her legislation and owns companies which profit from defense contracts?

      They don't need anything on her.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:So what's the NSA got on her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried looking up defense companies owned by blum capital or affiliates, but I didn't turn up anything. I would very much appreciate examples if you have any.

    3. Re:So what's the NSA got on her? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      More to the point, it doesn't matter if the NSA had high definition video of Feinstein fornicating with Osama bin Laden's corpse while worshiping Adolf Hitler and singing patriotic Soviet hymns. The people of California would still re-elect her, and she would still sponsor the Feinstein Sanctity of Remains Act that prescribes death for mishandling the body of a deceased U.S. Senator.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    4. Re:So what's the NSA got on her? by Guest316 · · Score: 1

      Believing in lies isn't necessary for telling them.

    5. Re:So what's the NSA got on her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, CA switched to a top-two election system recently. She'll likely face another Democrat next time around in the real election rather than just in the primary. Admittedly she faced a Republican last time around (2012), but that's mostly because nobody with a chance bothered and who was second was pretty random.

      California_Proposition_14_(2010)

  32. Just another organisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody does it. The Dominion have the Obsidian Order, the Israelis have Mossad, the Federation have Section 31, the Russians have the FSB, the Culture have Special Circumstances, the USUK have NSA/GCHQ. They may all deplore the tactics when caught (actually, not so much the Israelis but YKWIM) but they all use them.... Surprised? Not so much.

  33. Voyeurism by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I wonder, when I am having sex or pooping, if my relatives in heaven can see what I am doing. I mean if there is an after life and we really do go to heaven to watch over our loved ones, what's to stop them from seeing me doing the nasty? Would that be considered metadata? Between the NSA and my dead relatives, all of this watching is really disturbing.

    1. Re:Voyeurism by modecx · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about Santa Claus. He sees you when you're sleeping and he knows when you're awake. He's a mighty perverted creep, for goodness sake!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  34. Assume the worst... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

    ...and take the control out of their hands.

    It's obvious that no one in power can be trusted to NOT collect as much as they can collect. It doesn't matter whether that is a government or a business. There is only one REAL solution. Encrypt everything. And since one cannot trust proprietary solutions to NOT include a back door into the encryption scheme, the only solution is to use open source software AND for such software to be routinely audited by knowledgeable people. And for all of us to be vigilant concerning other ways to circumvent the encryption.

    It seems to me that this is a declaration of an arms race between those in power and the average user. But of course, hasn't it always been that way?

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. And new Christies to spy on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will never let go of the most dominant political tool ever devised and they will never get voted out of office

  37. Re:Keep Meta-data? Change Constitution first by east+coast · · Score: 1

    If you think Feinstein holds the 2nd Amendment as gospel then you have no idea what you're talking about.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  38. Support comes from the people. by lionchild · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you want people to support the metadata program and various and sundry other programs that various services and branches are or will be using, then you need for the people to want those programs. You can't just say, "It's for your own good," or "..we should support the President," and expect them to not have reservations.

    How about we start by making news reporting in the US, more about actual, real, factual news, including not merely local, but national and GLOBAL news. Embedding reports with units during previous deployments has shown it brings support to our troops, if not why they are where they are. How about the US get a taste for what rough and bloody events happen in the real world? If The People want to be protected from that coming to their shores, they'll support the things that keep that away.

    The People give the power, and if not done carefully, The People will take the power.

    Which reminds me: We need more Statesmen, and fewer Politicians both in the US, and abroad.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  39. Ah, Dianne... by sigmabody · · Score: 2

    That's what I "love" about my "representative": never afraid to state the blindingly obvious, while completely and derisively ignoring the will of the people she nominally speaks for. Of course the government is not going to willingly give up their police-state surveillance powers; governments never give up power they have taken, legally or otherwise. Blah blah, security, protection, something about terrorism, etc.

    1. Re:Ah, Dianne... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every one rational thinker with an argument against, there are three voters who get paid to vote for her (subsidized housing, food and monthly payments). Feinstein has no reason to care about any rational arguments to the opposite as long as she has bought her votes.

  40. This from a women who dislikes weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In addition to "spying" on the general populace, she also does not like the idea of the general populace having any significant arms.
    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

    1. Re:This from a women who dislikes weapons by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      She doesn't dislike weapons; she's fine with 'the elite' and their guards having weapons. She dislikes the proles, like most left-wing politicians.

    2. Re: This from a women who dislikes weapons by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I've seen that movie before. It's was played on many stages around the world throughout history.

      Spoiler Alert: It ends badly!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:This from a women who dislikes weapons by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      She dislikes the proles, like 99.99999999% of politicians.

  41. So we need to... by iapetus · · Score: 1
    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  42. Ah, yes, but DIANE: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....the massive crappflooding of totally hoaxed data for you to sort out is here to stay also.

    And as confucious said, "a fool can ask questions faster than seven wise men can answer"

    So enjoy sorting it all out, jackalope!

    Checkmate!

    MUWAHAHAHAA

  43. Textbook Catch-22 by oneiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan..."

    The senate intelligence committee behaves as if we've already lost our national identity to the "war on terror." Surely Feinstein understands that "privacy people" aren't going to be placated by such a statement and that their continuing discontent will only serve to perpetuate the perception of our formerly great nation as "the Great Satan." It's a vicious circle, and the only way out is to enact policies that live up to the two key tenets outlined in the last line of our national anthem.

    As an aside, I don't think there's anyone left in this country who doesn't understand that we occupy the role of "the Great Satan." Republican constituents meet the idea with doggedly obstinate belligerence. Democratic constituents snivel the truism to comfort themselves while their two-faced ideologues advance the security state agenda after being elected to do the opposite. We all see it.

    1. Re:Textbook Catch-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The senate intelligence committee behaves as if we've already lost our national identity to the "war on terror."

      Well, we have, unfortunately.

      The other interesting tidbit here involves Mike Rogers, the guy who's still reiterating the debunked talking point about Snowden not having the "capability" to do what he did, and accusing him of having Russian help without citing any evidence.

      Surely Feinstein understands that "privacy people" aren't going to be placated by such a statement and that their continuing discontent will only serve to perpetuate the perception of our formerly great nation as "the Great Satan." It's a vicious circle, and the only way out is to enact policies that live up to the two key tenets outlined in the last line of our national anthem.

      This. During the cold war, there was a saying "Better dead than Red." Better to let the Russians nuke us than to abandon our way of life for theris.

      The Russians had the capability to annihilate us; it turned out they didn't have the desire. The terrists have the desire to annihilate us; even with a couple of nukes, they won't have the capability to do any more damage to our nation than Hurricane Katrina did.

      Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Rogers, the only people in this story who are acting under Soviet influence - the only two people actively trying to turn America into a KGB-like dystopian nightmare - are you.

      And if refusing your protection means I'm somewhat more likely to get blown to smithereens by a terrorist? So be it. I don't want your protection, DiFi. I don't want to live in your neighborhood, Mr. Rogers. I know enough of what was like behind the Iron Curtain that I want no part of it.

    2. Re:Textbook Catch-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should start a site. lettheterroristskillus.com

  44. Your programs are why we are viewed as Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your NSA programs are satanic!

  45. California... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please seriously consider a recall election.

    Feinstein is giving more aid and comfort to the Enemies of Freedom than an entire division of Soviet troops ever could.

    If she can't be hauled out and tried, at least haul her out.

  46. Your Freudian slip is showing by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan.

    That is classic...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  47. Great Satan by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    You are not Still the Great Satan, you are Again the Great Satan, to a whole new group of people.

  48. Re:Keep Meta-data? Change Constitution first by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    You must not pay attention to American politics. Feinstein has been working tirelessly against the 2nd amendment for over thirty years.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  49. Osama Bin Laden did NOT have a nuclear submarine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....the massive crappflooding of totally hoaxed data for you to sort out is here to stay also.

    And as confucious said, "a fool can ask questions faster than seven wise men can answer"

    So enjoy sorting it all out, jackalope!

    Checkmate!

  50. what else is Dianne Feinstein protecting? by strstr · · Score: 1

    Could it be we are living in a mind control prison with no real democracy, like Dr. Robert Duncan says?

    Did you know they installed mind reading and mind altering radar systems in 1976, and today they have a database with all our recorded thoughts memories, and data? Everything you ever saw, felt, heard, dreamt, said or did is stored in this database, according to Dr. Robert Duncan CIA/DOD/US DOJ physicist and whistleblower. Total psychoenergy monitoring sits at 1.4 terabytes per second for all watched. And they torture and remotely control people, directing energy and voices into peoples heads, use this information to manipulate and control society.

    How could any American have control over their lives if this is being used by the President, Senators, Congressman, Police, FBI, DOD, CIA, NSA, in secret? Dr. Robert Duncan said he helped develop most of these technologies, and they're abusing and misusing all his work. They do EEG cloning, memory probes, EEG projection, etc. Watch us pee and poo and fuck, and enter our minds to control and abuse us.

    Download Dr. Duncan's book The Matrix Deciphered in PDF, watch his video testimony, and learn more here: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

    Since they really have this, realize every word they tell us (Senator, Congressman, President, State official, would have to be a lie. They use this, and lie about it in every statement they make. "There is no domestic spying on Americans" -Obama).

    1. Re:what else is Dianne Feinstein protecting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it be we are living in a mind control prison with no real democracy, like Dr. Robert Duncan says?

      No "we" are not.

      YOU, Todd Giffen, on the other hand, will be in such a place very soon.

      After your trial for masturbating in public, your next stop will be the Nut House in Salem.

    2. Re:what else is Dianne Feinstein protecting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't think the government keeps info from you, seeds fear, bread you to be a mindless troll since you were born, prevented your usefulness, etc? While they prescreened every elector in every election, rigged every election, and prevented revolutionists and outsiders from gaining power?

      What if every person in power is someone they allowed to be in power, knowing they would not protect us and would allow these abuses to occur? It has been going on since the dawn of time, and they have been screening people out and in based on their thoughts and memories alone since 1976.

    3. Re:what else is Dianne Feinstein protecting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Todd, your psychotic paranoia level invalidates everything you say as words from an extreme nut case.

  51. Re:Keep Meta-data? Change Constitution first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False:
    https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

  52. The Information Fallacy by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."

    Feinstein's falling victim to what I like to call "The Information Fallacy." Let's say that we knew that terrorists were going to blow something up at some time. It would be hard to thwart this based on this information, right? But if we obtained more information and learned their names, their target, and the exact date they planned to attack, thwarting them gets a lot easier. So far so good, but it can lead people to figure that getting even more information would lead to finding even more terrorist plots (perhaps even ones we don't know about yet).

    In an ideal world, albeit one where privacy isn't a concern, this might be true. In the real world, though, gathering tons of information from everyone just leads to a signal-to-noise problem. For every one "Let's blow this up" terrorist phone record there will be millions (if not more) of "How's dad doing?", "When should we meet for dinner?", and other mundane phone records. There might even be some that tick off the right keyword boxes but for the wrong reasons. "That backpack is da bomb" might refer to explosives in a carry-on or it might be the use of slang to indicate that the person's backpack is really nice.

    Sadly, too many politicians are worried that reducing the information we gather is just going to let terrorist messages slip by. It might, but we should be doing more focused information gathering (with proper checks and balances to prevent abuse) to improve signal-to-noise, not general information gathering hoping that some signal pokes out from all of the surrounding noise.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:The Information Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, these programs do not, or so they say, check for key words or content. In fact, all they supposedly do is draw the network between people. They know who you talk to, who they talk to, who's part of the inner circles and outer circles. They think if they find a terrorist, they can look at his social circles, his communications, and find more terrorists. Of course, that's what they tell you when you're sitting in the back of a FBI van, because one of your co-workers just blew up a building.

      "But he was just a co-worker!" you try to tell them.

      "Sure bud, that's what they all say."

  53. Terr0rists do not use email or cellphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they have not since before 911. No, folks, this is to spy on us and their political enemies.

  54. Pay no attention ... by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared."

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

    We keep hearing about the boogeyman terrorists who are coming for us .. these terrible people with these terrible plans. But really, we've done orders of magnitude more damage to ourselves than anyone external possibly could have done. And we continue to bludgeon ourselves about the head and shoulders, deflecting any semblance of reasoning with "because terrorism"

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:Pay no attention ... by catfood · · Score: 1

      Notably, Feinstein didn't swear an oath to protect us from bombs and terrorists. She swore to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution.

      How the hell is this protecting the Constitution?

    2. Re:Pay no attention ... by fnj · · Score: 1

      It is grounds for censure at the very least, and more appropriately expulsion for violating their oath.

    3. Re:Pay no attention ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, gonna keep sitting there or are you intending to do something about it?

  55. Keeps getting elected by sjbe · · Score: 2

    She in no way represents the voters of California. She represents herself.

    If she does not represent the voters then why do those same voters keep electing her? Senate races aren't gerrymandered so obviously she must have some significant appeal across the state to those who continue to vote her into office.

    1. Re:Keeps getting elected by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Senate races aren't gerrymandered so obviously she must have some significant appeal to the liberal hipesters in LA and SF who continue to vote her into office." FTFY. With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.

    2. Re:Keeps getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...she must have some significant appeal to the liberal hipesters in LA and SF who continue to vote her into office." FTFY. With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.

      I dunno, it looks pretty mixed to me.

      (caveat: this graphic represents the 2012 presidential election, not a senatorial election)

    3. Re:Keeps getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dianne Feinstein : Brought to you by the Democrat Party and the sycophants at Slashdot.

    4. Re:Keeps getting elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shame that people vote instead of land.

    5. Re:Keeps getting elected by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.

      Of course, the SF Bay Area and the greater LA area together contain half the population of the state, so that's not a very strong statement.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  56. Worst senator ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every single thing that she does is horrible! How does this wretch keep getting elected?

    1. Re:Worst senator ever by r.freeman · · Score: 1

      Democracy. ~ rule of majority of idiots ~

  57. Wrong Targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long it will take our supposed " boogey men " ( aka: Teh Terrorists ) to figure out they are targeting all the wrong things.
    *Assuming, of course, ( tin-foil-hat-time ) the events thus far haven't been Government sponsored to make passing their pet-project legislation easier*

    If they truly want to make a difference, if they want the drone strikes to stop, if they want all the spying silliness to stop, they simply need to change their thinking. Shift the focus to those that make the decisions to authorize a drone strike on your country. The folks who make the decisions to go wage a never-ending war on ( insert some real or make-believe cause here ), the folks who seem to think that spying on anyone and everything is ok as long as it's done under the guise of protecting the flock.

    Focus your attention on the policy makers instead of some spectators in a marathon, or some random innocent people in a tower who have absolutely zero say so in governmental policy concerning anything. ( Don't even start with the go vote BS. Voting X or Y here ultimately reaches the same conclusion. The current administration serves to illustrate my point beautifully. )

    Vote for me ! I promise to be the good guy you've all been waiting for ! Together we'll change the World ! :|

    Sound familiar ? It should. We hear the same BS every election from every candidate. Has it EVER been true ? Ever ? Anyone ? :|

    You want to change the way the US does things, you need to start thinking about who to focus your attention upon to make that happen. Here's a hint, the average Joe and Jane doing the 9-5 grind to live the " American Dream " ( which is currently trying not to drown in debt ) aren't the droids you're looking for.

  58. "We still occupy the role of the Great Satan" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So ... We should keep acting like the "Great Satan"?

  59. drastic cuts in social programs by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    hey AC, parent is right & others like pixelpusher listed these

    Unemployment benefits? Medicare cuts? Vouchers for healthcare instead of actual health care? School funding?

    you are just wrong, AC. you need to hack through the rhetoric & cognitive dissonance. Trolling is not argumentation & you need to stop...the only way to "lose" a discussion like this is to remain ignorant

    the idea that 'saving face' in a discussion is more important than all other factors is the core of trolling...just stop...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  60. Don't you understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Eastasia that's been the enemy all along! Who hung these Eurasia banners here?

  61. citation not needed by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    it's fine w/o a citation...everyone, even young adults w/o kids, has seen the effect of public school budget cuts based on artificial scarcity

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  62. solution? by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "government spying" is loaded language...everyone is against "government spying" on its citizens like in the book 1984

    what I want to see from this AC is actual policy solutions.

    the government's job, per the constitution, is partly to use law enforcement & the military. the people have a right for their personal effect to be secure from that *unless* probable cause...etc

    virtually everyone would agree that the above statements are accurate and true & reprsents how our system works

    digital communications exist. we on /. understand how it all works.

    digital communications, such as a routing table, IP address, MAC address, list of SMS's from a certain number, this is ALL personal data, covered by the US citizen's right to privacy

    you, AC, and every critic of this policy must either be criticizing the very *existence* of government OR the debate is about when/how not if the government can access your personal data

    the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant

    what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?

    THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.

    everyone wants to pop off fiery bon-mots about how X politician is just as bad as Bush & reference a work of fiction that critiques totalitarian regimes

    its bullshit...it hurts our industry & makes our jobs harder

    stop bitching and start typing policy solutions

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:solution? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant

      what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?

      THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.

      I think the issue is rather that the anti-privacy advocates do everything in their power to avoid that question, since the answer is pretty cut-and-dried - warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin to be seized, pursuant to Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.

      Don't like it? Amend the Constitution, or deal with it and operate within existing law. Feigned ignorance is no excuse.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a policy solution for you:

      War (whether waged both military, law enforcement, or intelligence services) should only be used reactively, never preemptively.

      We're infringing on liberties in order to prevent bad things that "could" happen, and that's not right. If we ever want to rid ourselves of the "Great Satan" title, we need to stop being the Great Satan, and we need to stop now.

    3. Re:solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *both -> by. That's what I get for not editing before submitting.

    4. Re:solution? by WhatHump · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government can collect and store digital information about me. But it must be stored in an secured and encrypted repository with access controls that are fully auditable (e.g., who looked at it, when and why), and every piece of data is tagged with its source and collection method (e.g., intercepted in transit between client and server, scraped from a web page, provided by an ISP). Then when the government wants to search my digital information for signs of criminal activity, they go before a judge and ask for a warrant, just like any other warrant for a physical search. And when it's granted and executed, I (and my lawyer) get a copy of the warrant, a list of the data retrieved and the metadata, and a copy of the audit logs up to and including the search that was conducted. Oh, and no gag orders on the warrants. Think the government will go for that? Think they'll give up their "super-secret tools" to appease us voters?

      --
      "Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
    5. Re:solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're interpretation of the 4th amendment is wrong. It isn't cut and dry. Here is an explanation by the EFF, which I hope would be considered a reliable source on Slashdot:

      https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

    6. Re:solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, that link doesn't mean his interpretation of the fourth amendment is wrong; it just indicates that his interpretation of the fourth amendment differs from that of some judges. There is a difference, and the difference is a big one. The EFF is fighting against this; they only acknowledge past precedents on the topic.

      And is it any surprise that the government wants the government to have more power? All it means is that some judges are complicit in the crimes against the American people, not that privacy advocates' interpretations of the constitution are wrong.

    7. Re:solution? by celle · · Score: 2

      "The government can collect and store digital information about me."

            No the government can't. The constitution makes it quite clear on that. It the gov. suspects something they can make it clear to a judge with the accused being there to challenge it.

    8. Re:solution? by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      Bro, what is your fetish with 'digital communications'? Imagine all of the thoughts you expressed, but instead of the context of a voice conversation using the internet, imagine a voice conversation between you and your wife as you stroll in the park, or sit in your back yard.

      Just because the government _has the technical capability_ to inexpensively (if not today, watch out for next week) fly solar drones infinitely recording via parabolic microphones everyone's backyards and every public park- DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD, just because it will probably help them prevent some amount of lawbreaking, and save some amount of lives. Just because the government _could_ send local police departments to do random inspections of everyone's houses (conveniently while they are not at home perhaps), DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD, just because it will probably help them prevent some amount of lawbreaking, and save some amount of lives.

      Now think to the current headlines about Obama's theories on restructuring the program. The concept that doesn't seem to get much airplay is- maybe ever single bit flowing across the internet does not need to be stored and accessible to the government forever, or even for a limited time with their promise that they will delete their copy eventually. Maybe, *just maybe*, in a couple years when the government can 3D print a swarm of a million solar powered drones with parabolic microphones to cover the world, humanity will decide that it doesn't need to be able to listen to every conversation between every married couple whispering to each other in a public park or their own backyard. Maybe. But probably not. They are addicted to spying. It gives them a rush of power, a sense of control. It's about domination, and the ability to have comforts in your world, at the expense of the victims.

    9. Re:solution? by StayFrosty · · Score: 2

      Here's a solution I figure just about every "privacy troll" can probably agree with:

      The NSA needs to stop collecting data on US citizens. If a US citizen needs to be investigated, it's the FBI's job to do that investigation.
      If the FBI wants to collect data on a US citizen, they should get a warrant the normal way. None of this secret court nonsense.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    10. Re:solution? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      IF he volunteers it, they can.

      It's like a cop asking, can I search your car. If you say yes, he can. If you say no, then he needs to talk to a judge in most cases.

      ""The government can collect and store digital information about me."" does not run foul of the constitution because he was giving them permissions as long as they met his conditions.

    11. Re:solution? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You're interpretation of the 4th amendment is wrong. It isn't cut and dry. Here is an explanation by the EFF, which I hope would be considered a reliable source on Slashdot:

      https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

      First off, I don't know what "You are interpretation" is supposed to mean.

      Second, assuming you actually meant "your interpretation," Please note that I did not 'interpret' shit, but rather posted a moderately paraphrased wording of a portion of the Amendment, i.e. "warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin[g] to be seized."

      That you disagree with the wording of the amendment itself is by no means a reflection on my understanding of its intent.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:solution? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      see, this is more like what I want to see discussion-wise

      in my mind, the Amendment is pretty fucking clear...get a warrant

      i see two problems that have created the current mess we're in:

      1. lawmakers *still* genuinely do not understand technology & the wording of new laws and interpretation of old laws, which is **entirely dependent on language** gets misunderstood and worded improperly and bam: you have the Digitlal Millenium Copyright Act and ridiculously worded search warrants that get thrown out of court

      2. Patriot Act...it started before but that's a good milestone for our current intel/military/nsa/cia clusterfuck. Obviously, in order to protect from enemies foreign and domestic they need to be able to ask to search in a way that won't comprimise sources & methods or undercover agents. These are real problems, but there is a long-held system of classifying documents "top secret" and whatnot. The channels exist, they just need to be reorganized. The system for, say, the CIA to get permission to go through all your shit but not have a publicly available warrant needs to have clear, high hurdles with group accountability. End the compartmentalization of this stuff.

      IMHO, the tech industry bears some of the responsibility for #1...we need to learn to explain things better. Talk at a high level but use words that connect abstract computing concepts to things everyday people understand but w/o dumbing down the complexity.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    13. Re:solution? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So, here's a serious question: How hard would it be to have a warrant describe the data to be seized, as being present in thus-and-such a quanity in a specified place and timeframe? or something like that, whatever would confine the warrant to a specific lot of data, rather than vaguely all over the place.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:solution? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So, here's a serious question: How hard would it be to have a warrant describe the data to be seized, as being present in thus-and-such a quanity in a specified place and timeframe? or something like that, whatever would confine the warrant to a specific lot of data, rather than vaguely all over the place.

      For someone like your typical Slashdot reader? Probably not hard at all - we understand the technology and related terminology.

      The problem is that legislators don't understand what they're making laws about.

      Well, OK, maybe not so much "legislators" as "the lobbyists who ghost-write most legislation..."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:solution? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "The data present on this hard disk, dated between mmddyy and m2d2y2" or "the data transmitted between these two IP addresses on thus-and-such a date." It's not really any harder than "garage at 123 Main Street". Anything beyond a specified location (and with data, a date) is fishing beyond the scope of a warrant.

      Anyway, that's how I'd do it; your prosecutors may vary.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:solution? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      As hard as the judge wants it to be.

      If you have a suspected criminal that's violating copyright law via bittorrent, the judge should issue a search warrent so that the cops can get the ISP to log any bittorrent traffic from the suspect. It wouldn't include his phone traffic as that has nothing to do with sharing movies. You know, disregarding the bullshit that is copyright law.

      If the suspected criminal is a radical terrorist who has shown probable cause for blowing shit up and being part of a sleeper cell, then the judge should issue a search warrent for any and all communication to or from the suspect until the time of his arrest. Or probably something even more invasive and clever. Really it's whatever the cops think they can get away with and up to the judge to deny anything that oversteps the current issue at hand.

      There are people out there whom we really do want to invasively probe. I'd just rather it wasn't the entire populace.

    17. Re:solution? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      "The data present on this hard disk, dated between mmddyy and m2d2y2" or "the data transmitted between these two IP addresses on thus-and-such a date." It's not really any harder than "garage at 123 Main Street". Anything beyond a specified location (and with data, a date) is fishing beyond the scope of a warrant.

      Anyway, that's how I'd do it; your prosecutors may vary.

      Don't forget naming the "particular [data] to be seized." Otherwise, it's still a fishing expedition. I don't think "the data" is nearly specific enough; that's like saying "we're going to search your house for illegal stuff we think might be there," and I know that one doesn't fly in a real court of law.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:solution? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're right. At the very least, the type of data they seek. What else?

      Must not be not all that hard if we can hash out a basic standard in five minutes... I think the truth is most LEOs don't =want= a standard for digital warrants, cuz it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. Worst thing that happens is the case gets thrown out, which is no skin off their ass.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:solution? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      True enough... trouble with "people we want to invasively probe" is that tomorrow that may be you and me, for doing what's perfectly legal today.

      Hey, go upstream a bit and see if you've got something to add to the little Digital Warrant Standard that CanHasDIY and I have put forth.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  63. a grand bargain by rlwhite · · Score: 1

    I propose that, in exchange for the continued mass surveillance, all NSA employees and everyone involved in NSA oversight shall be injected with a GPS tracking device and forced to wear head-mounted camera, with feeds from both published 24/7 on the web.

  64. She's rubber stamped every executive excess by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Go through the list... she's always said yes to expansions in executive power.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  65. More FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this "virtually everybody" she is talking about? The Senate Intelligence Committee is 8 people. If two or three of them don't agree, that's not virtually everybody agreeing. But, you have to love how she keeps push the fearmongering. She sounds like she's making things up on the spot at this point. But, she still has no grasp of why people and privacy advocates are upset. Hey - everyone who lives in California - stop voting for her.

    1. Re:More FUD by scotts13 · · Score: 1

      What is this "virtually everybody" she is talking about?

      Virtually everybody WHO MATTERS. If you're not on the committee, you don't matter; and if you disagree, you don't matter either.

  66. Get out of California, Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "everybody, virtually, except two or three, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree with that."

    Isn't that cool, they can decide all by themselves what is okay.

    Feinstein is a stain on California that wont go away. Feinstein and her peers are destroying this state at an alarming rate.

  67. I fear the US Government more that terrorists by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the president or feinstein understand that they are losing people's trust and they are now more scary. And it looks like they are willing to act on this.

  68. Understandable from her point of view by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    From Feinstein's point of view, and others like her, the United States IS the government and ONLY the government. Only things that threaten the government are relevant. Everything done in Washington D.C. is to make sure the government survives. They don't give a rat's ass about you and me. We're just the unwashed masses who they feed upon.

    The trouble is that even if you find a good person and elect them to office, after they're there for a while they get infected with that chronic disease called power.

    I've given this much thought and I really like the idea of limiting a person's political "career" to one term in one office, no matter what level of government they're elected to. So, if you're elected to your local city council, you can serve one term and never be eligible to run for another office on any level in your whole life. Sure, we'd get a bunch of amateur no-nothings, but it may be better than what we have now.

  69. least dishonest answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the USoA is still the great satan. They insist on putting themselves there. So complaining they just have to have the capability to defend themselves against all those nasy pissed-off furriners in the rest of the world they just can stop pissing off with premeditated intent is a little... circular, shall we say?

  70. Keep in mind, those "in the know" by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Feinstein has had access to threat assessments. Notice that those who get access to this information OR perhaps it's those who have influence over big brother are all informed in such a way that they go against the public.

    Multiple possibilities exist. Here are a few to think about:

    1) "You don't know what we know" creates a culture with an attitude that your ignorance of the situation makes your views irrelevant. It is similar to people who know science and history dealing with Sara Palin types. I leave discussion of differences up to you.

    2) Lobbyists do not have to be registered. The CIA, NSA, FBI, HMS, using what they know about policy makers (legal or not) can tell them what they need to hear to get them to vote where desired. Similar to lobbyists but without the $$$ "contributions". Add to that all the privatization produced contractors who DO contribute $$$. They don't have to lie, it's easy to filter information in a biased but honest way to alter perception. Officials rely great deal upon their staff and dept. staff for information, they must take the word of the NSA when it lies to them... until a "traitor" like Snowden provide proof. Sure they should be skeptical but you can't get much done or get far without functionally acting trusting. I suggest "Yes, Minister" as a primer on the subject. You'll see this when you write something specific to your representative and get a non-canned reply - when you get a new representative and write it again you'll get nearly the same reply from the new official (because the staff hasn't changed.)

    3) Officials. Sometimes the law forbids doing one's job or doing the right thing. Snowden is an example of this. People who accept the "reality" of the situation succeed and those who don't quit early or are fired or are imprisoned. This fosters a culture. Even like minded people will have to officially oppose and stop others if they want to continue. It is quite a bit like authoritarian societies where children turn in their parents (and if you don't think the USA is already authoritarian, you have a lot of learning to do.) The NSA head has to lie or become a Snowden and Snowden types never make it to the top... if they didn't contract out they'd have filtered him out at a lower security level -- it would take years to get to where he was if he wasn't a contractor. Plus officials have catch-21 situations in their career history that can be used against them.

  71. Terrorists More Incompetent than Emo Teenagers by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So which is it? Is our police state so incomptent that it can't stop disturbed teens from shooting up schools, or are the terrorists so incompetent that they can't manage similar (or worse) carnage? And other than 9/11, it's not like we were swimming in attacks before they went all Stasi on us.

    The Constitution is the law here, and the only criminals we need to be focused on are the ones in our own government. They gave away the freedoms that Al Qaeda could never take from us and that makes them worse in my book.

    1. Re:Terrorists More Incompetent than Emo Teenagers by russotto · · Score: 1

      So which is it? Is our police state so incomptent that it can't stop disturbed teens from shooting up schools, or are the terrorists so incompetent that they can't manage similar (or worse) carnage?

      Look at Richard Reid (the shoe bomber). Or Feisel, the NYC Times Square bomber. Or the Glasgow airport attack. Yes, our police state is incompetent (which is mostly a good thing). And yes, the terrorists are even more incompetent. They've had one really spectacular idea (which they had to steal from Tom Clancy), another pretty deadly one (the Madrid subway bombing) and a whole string of fizzles and failures. If they were competent, there'd be buildings coming down and SUVs blowing up in crowded areas on a regular basis.

  72. Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.

    Right. That's why California has 38 Democrats versus 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives, 2 Democrat senators, over 60% of the voters vote Democrat in presidential elections and the Republicans haven't won a majority of the popular vote in presidential elections since 1988. (that's 25 years for those of you counting at home) The Democrats hold enormous majorities in the State House and State Senate and registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 2.5 million voters.

    But you go ahead and keep believing that California is "largely Republican" if it helps you sleep at night.

    1. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always been generally right-leaning, and I am REALLY up in arms about the NSA stuff.

      What I don't understand is when I read quotes from people like Feinstein, who's one of the furthest left people in Washington, saying things that liberals used to make fun of Bush for saying - terrorism FUD, basically.

      And liberals seem to be aligned with me on revulsion to the domestic spying programs, and yet they continue to vote for people like Feinstein who make the right noises at home, but then go right along with all the spying programs.

      If we don't hold our friends AND enemies accountable in politics, what else do we expect?

      We get the governance we deserve...

    2. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This doesn't surprise me at all. The "institutional left", (which is well represented in DC but probably not representative of the left-leaning public) has reached the point now where they'll seize any excuse for a larger, more powerful, more well-funded government, even crossing traditional lines to become defense hawks.

      I expect the Democratic Party (at the federal level) to increasingly support any government program with a budget, even the military, to the increasing frustration of the voters, as the money starts to run out. At the state and local levels, acceptance that the budget can't be infinite is coming much faster and earlier, and politicians (on both sides) are discovering that cutting budgets isn't actually the end of the world, but that hasn't started trickling up to the federal level yet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people haven't realized that the left is inherently authoritarian. Every single one of their "solutions" requires heavy handed enforcement and must be imposed. I think people maybe are starting to realize this, but not nearly fast enough to prevent massive damage. Even more appalling is that the core of the left does realize this and are entirely ok with it.

    4. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by letherial · · Score: 1

      Its cause we have a D in the white house, once we get the R in the white house then the hypocrisy flips

      it doesn't matter, all of congress is just a big bowl of hypocritical bullshit, both sides dont represent American people

    5. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      The big question is will this trend continue

    6. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by geekforhire · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right. Some areas of CA are certainly Republican leaning (Orange County to San Diego) but in general everything north of OC is more and more liberal as you move up the state. A few rural areas aside. Why Feinstein's supporters have not run her out of town years ago is beyond me. She and the people that vote for her make a strong argument to dividing CA into two new states...just too much voting power in Nor Cal so it might as well just be their state.

    7. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both sides dont represent American people

      No, they do represent the American people. American isn't China. Not yet anyway, and certainly not in principle.

      If the system is currently working as intended, then the government you have is the government the American people wanted. Collectively you guys voted the government you have. You laid your bed, you sleep in it.

      If the system isn't working as intended, that it is a perversion of its earlier working self, well the American people are still at fault, as it was their responsibility to remain vigilant and prevent it from being corrupted in the first place. "A Republic, if you can keep it"

      Nobody else would or could own up and take responsibility for the mess you're in. The politicians certainly wouldn't ("yeah, my heart just grew three sizes overnight, so I'm gonna turn myself in. Drag me out into the streets to be hanged now!" said no politician ever). Foreign countries couldn't (not their country, and some of those countries would actually cheer if the US suffers)

    8. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by sjbe · · Score: 0

      Most people haven't realized that the left is inherently authoritarian.

      So is the right. The right wants a few rich guys that own everything to make all the decisions. They want limited government so their guys (the rich and mostly white ones with *ionaire at the end of their net worth) can be the ones with all the authority. The religious wing of the party wants their morals enforced by gunpoint on everyone else regardless of the hypocrisy and incompatibility with the principle of limited government.

      The big delusion on the left is not that government can't be useful but rather that government can be trusted to restrain itself. There are plenty of examples of responsible government but many fewer of trustworthy government. We have separation of powers and various bits of over oversight for a reason. We also limit this power so that we don't drown in red tape. Government can be useful but it is very dangerous too. Government is run by people and people are easily corrupted, deluded and fallible.

    9. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by tsqr · · Score: 1

      The combined populations of metro LA and metro San Francisco make up about 50% of California's total population. The rest of the state would probably be overjoyed if LA and SF would secede from California.

    10. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democratic party is hardly "left".

    11. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling that you are revealing more about yourself than about "most people".

      The societal outcomes of extreme left wing politics are startling similar to extreme right wing politics. This has been known and widely published for centuries. While I don't know if "most people" know this, the generally centrist character of most societies suggest that the average citizens "gets it".

      Or maybe the average citizen is disengaged and blasé. That could be it too.

    12. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Most people haven't realized that the left is inherently authoritarian. Every single one of their "solutions" requires heavy handed enforcement and must be imposed. I think people maybe are starting to realize this, but not nearly fast enough to prevent massive damage. Even more appalling is that the core of the left does realize this and are entirely ok with it.

      This right here is what my /. sig refers to.

      Most Americans are of the "it can never happen here" mindset when it comes to fascism & totalitarianism. They forget (or never learned about) how Mussolini and even Hitler were quite popular and much admired in the US prior to WW2. The US is already well down the road to fascism, popularly described as "crony capitalism".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why I've been saying for years "grab every cent you can from the government, use every program, and be ready for the collapse" as there isn't any way to stop it now, the collapse is inevitable and will make the depression look like a flash crash.

      For those that don't know why our economy is doomed the answer is Ronnie Raygun and the 401K and 403B which forced billions into the stock market. be sure to look at the charts at 3.30, look at what the numbers were before the 29 crash (125%) and what the numbers are now (over 400%) to see why it cannot be stopped. Wall Street now functions solely on gambling and speculation brought on by all that government money and without it the financial sector we have now simply couldn't exist, the financial sector would have to shrink by a good 70% or more and rather than let that happen they will simply keep buying politicians....until they can't borrow another buck, can't have the fed print another dollar, then you might as well light a match because the whole thing is gonna go up in smoke.

      If you vote on anything above local issues? you are wasting your time, as we see here BOTH sides are for bigger government, bigger budgets, doesn't matter WHAT the budget is going for as long as they can find a way to skim some they are all for it. Ds, Rs, no difference anymore, they'll just keep spending until the USD is worth the same as Zimbabwe's, so grab all you can, take every cent from every program you can, and be ready to take care of your own when the whole thing falls down.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like the "left" and the "right" in this country are acting out the age old rivalry between the nobility and the church, with various aspects of the aristocracy siding with either. You'll notice that the rest of us serfs don't even count as pawns in that game. We're the board they all step on.

      Oddly enough, they seem to have crossed aspects of both as it played out in Western European history so that neither is pure nobility or church in that traditional sense.

    15. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the "right" is inherently authoritarian. It does not matter that the "left" is also.

    16. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitlers party was for socialist german workers, so a socialist party. Preached state rule over individualism.
      Mussolinis party was state capitalism. Preached state rule over individualism.
      Russian communist party was totalitarism and worked well for the state oligarch class, and only in name for soviet socialist workers. (I live in former CCCP seen that myself). Preached state rule over individualism.

      So, what is the real difference behind all entitys named a "party"?

      All of them talk about the need for strong state regulations in day to day lives of subject people. So what do you get when you vote for a party, and not for individual accountable people? Freedom? Hope of change? No, you get the same old game of left-right what is meaningless, and is meant to keep people fighting each other.
      In the same time the voting is rigged, politicians are bought and countries of the world are really governed by handful of international banking families.

    17. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by rthille · · Score: 1

      Feinstein has been a fucktard for years. Somewhere I still have her letter back to me saying that while she likes hearing from her constituents she still had to support the "flag abuse amendment".

      She apparently confuses freedom and symbols of freedom...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    18. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      No, they do represent the American people.

      On what issues? Since many people are voting for the "lesser of two evils," there are many issues where these people don't represent them at all. You can't call them representatives if people only vote for them because they think the other guy would be 'more evil.'

      Whether the American people are at fault is irrelevant to the question of whether or not these people are truly representing the American people, and they aren't.

    19. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Mussolini wasn't left wing. Neither was Hitler.

    20. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.

      Right. That's why California has 38 Democrats versus 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives, 2 Democrat senators, over 60% of the voters vote Democrat in presidential elections and the Republicans haven't won a majority of the popular vote in presidential elections since 1988. (that's 25 years for those of you counting at home) The Democrats hold enormous majorities in the State House and State Senate and registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 2.5 million voters.

      But you go ahead and keep believing that California is "largely Republican" if it helps you sleep at night.

      The two aren't as mutually exclusive as you might think. It's pretty much the LA area and the SF Bay area that are D, while the rest of the state trends R. However, something like 75% of the people in the state live in those two areas. The state is "largely Republican" if you're talking by land area, not by population.

    21. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was inherited unfortunately from the hard right. There really is very little difference in the political parties, and the same terms apply to members of both camps.

    22. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty difficult to say that the people that want a smaller more limited government is inherently authoritarian.

    23. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Why not?

    24. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On what issues? Since many people are voting for the "lesser of two evils," there are many issues where these people don't represent them at all.

      Wrong. When you vote for "lesser of two evils", you're still voting for someone (in this case, more evil). When you vote for someone, it means you agree to them being your representative. That they do a bad job representative is your fault for choosing poorly.

      Think of it this way: you hire a salesperson to deal with your customers. That salesperson is your "representative". He does a horrible job. You might think he doesn't "represent" your company's values and interests, but too bad, YOU hired him. It is your problem for hiring him in the first place.

      You can't call them representatives if people only vote for them because they think the other guy would be 'more evil.'

      Oh yes you can. Why is it only between those two guys? Why not vote for a third guy? Or do something about the system to allow for more meaningful choice? As I said, you the people let it became that way in the first place.

      Whether the American people are at fault is irrelevant to the question of whether or not these people are truly representing the American people, and they aren't.

      No, other way around. Whether or not those people are truly representing the American people is irrelevant. What matters is whose fault it is, because those at fault are the ones who need to do something to fix the problem.

      Easy test: ask "so what?" Ok, they don't represent the American people. So what? Now that we established that, who's going to remove them from power? As I said, politicians are not going to suddenly have a change of heart and "do the right thing" on their own. Do you want foreign countries to bomb the USA to kick Obama out of office?

    25. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. When you vote for "lesser of two evils", you're still voting for someone (in this case, more evil). When you vote for someone, it means you agree to them being your representative.

      Your logic is bad. You said, "No, they do represent the American people." Obviously, if people are only voting for them because they're the lesser of two evils (which is idiots), they aren't truly representing them at all.

      That they do a bad job representative is your fault for choosing poorly.

      The question of who's at fault is different from the question of whether or not they're presenting the people. Don't confuse the two.

      Oh yes you can. Why is it only between those two guys? Why not vote for a third guy?

      I already do.

      No, other way around. Whether or not those people are truly representing the American people is irrelevant.

      It is not irrelevant. You said they're representing the American people, and I disputed that claim. How could it possibly be irrelevant?

    26. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What don't you understand about Feinstein? It's pretty simple, "her guy" is "in charge" and that's all that matters. Hell, the summary even spells that out "The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability So I think we would agree with him." She will not hold her friend accountable either. The only congresscritters that will hold anyone accountable are "noobs" aka freshmen that have neither friends nor power to accomplish anything significant. You're absolutely correct, we get and have the government we deserve, because we all either asked for it or are willing to put up with it.

    27. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      I have one quibble with you. I wouldn't call Democrats "the left". We have a right-wing party, and a centrist party. And third parties, god bless 'em.

    28. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      The American left is opposed to too many economic freedoms and pro social freedoms. The American right, largely, is opposed to social freedoms and pro economic freedoms. Don't reduce everything to one issue, please. When it comes to abortion and gay marriage, it's conservatives who want more government in our lives, not liberals. Please look into the "political compass" for more.

    29. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It's hard to say don't reduce everything to one issue, and then limit social issues to abortion and gay marriage. OK, granted, two issues. If we classify social issues as civil rights, I see conservatives as vastly more liberal (in the true sense of the word) than those on the left. Whether it's voting rights, gun rights, labor rights, or educational rights, the left has moved from a liberal position on most of these issues to one that is authoritarian. Such as, "the right to an abortion shall not be restricted, and we're gonna make you pay for them". Or "the right to peaceably assemble gives everyone the right to join a union, so we're gonna make you join one as a condition of employment". Or, "everyone has a right to an education, so we're going to provide you with a shitty one that's insanely expensive, and we won't allow you any alternative". Or, "health care is a right, so we're going to destroy your excellent health insurance, deny you access to our subsidized insurance marketplace and automatically enroll you in Medicaid." That last one is what happened in my case. It's going to take a lot to move me off the "Fuck You" pedestal after that.

    30. Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      Okay, wait, wait. You believe the Republican party is better on voting than the left? For real? Remember those GOP-sponsored "voter ID" laws that were ruled unconstitutional because they disenfranchised minorities, poor, and the elderly? I do, because I went door to door distributing lists of acceptable ID documents (you needed a copy of the rules written down, you see, because they were too complicated to remember). The conservative wing were the folks who challenged the Voting Rights Act, and after that got neutered, there were voter-ID and other voter-suppression bills going into effect inside twenty-four hours. All by Republican politicians, in conservative areas.

      Hmm, other stuff. Labor rights, well I can't comment on the American left, but the actual philosophical left is strongly opposed to abuses of the working class and extremely pro-union. (Frankly I'm surprised you mentioned it; seems like "union" is a dirty word to people on the right). Though given that our country is ruled by the rich with zero accountability to anyone else, unions right now are a joke (hey, I bet we agree on this part!). Although actually you also seem to be arguing that unions have too MUCH power, given that they can mandate you join a union if you want to work at a particular place or in a particular capacity. This strikes me as very much unrelated to government, probably because it is a mechanic of how unions function.

      Educational rights... you mean private schools? Yeah, I mean, I guess I value equal education for everyone more than I value the rights of rich parents to send their kids to fancy schools? I don't know, that one's iffy, but the people with advantages to tend to send their kids to private schools to avoid being affected by our current educational crisis, and that's not sustainable. (By the way, I also taught in a public school, and for all the money the city was supposedly pouring into the system, we didn't see a dime).

      The abortion issue has been widely discussed and religious groups are allowed to opt out of paying for contraceptives for exactly this reason. The "rights" issue with abortion, however, is about whether people are permitted to have them (and if so, to have actual access to them) in the first place. That is a much larger scale issue with huge human and human rights implications. I'm also going to go ahead and point out that most of planned parenthood is mammograms, pap smears, and other crucial preventive care unrelated to sex. Just in case you were talking about that.

      Healthcare I'm not going to defend anyone on. I feel like Obama may have had something with the single-payer option, but when that went down, so did most of the real good the ACA could've done. As an actual liberal, I believe in socialized medicine, and even if you don't I think we can all agree that our current system is a price-gouging, patient-neglecting, claim-denying, unnecessary-test-prescribing, big-pharma-driven, loophole-using, corporate-sponsored and generally clawing-kicking-biting-and-hairpulling cash grab. Seriously, fuck our healthcare system. Fuck it entirely.

  73. It's a civil rights issue, not a privacy one by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

    I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights.

    If it is to be done, it needs to be done in a way that respect's people's civil rights.

    Supporters of the NSA spying program have been rephrasing the concerns with it as a privacy rights issue. The concerns with it go deeper than that: fundamentally it is a violation of the constitutional and civil rights afforded by law. Reframing it a privacy issue is a dishonest way of downplaying the serious constitutional violations that the NSA is infringing upon.

  74. Easy Solution by trongey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nobody ever seems to remember that the NSA falls under the Executive Branch. Congress doesn't have to do squat. There's this one guy who has the authority to tell the NSA "Don't do that," and they're required to stop.
    Clue: He lives in a really big house with a boring paint job.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    1. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ostensibly under the Executive Branch. I think it's pretty obvious now they are outside anyone's control at all. The last president that tried to reign in a 3-letter agency this big had a very bad day in Dallas.

    2. Re:Easy Solution by trongey · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't even remotely expect him to say that to them. I don't imagine that he even wants them to stop. I was just pointing out that he has the power to do so.
      It's unfortunate that he's not in the position of representing the American populace.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  75. facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability. So I think we would agree with him."

    *facepalm* California, you need to get rid of this senator ASAP.

    Not only does it not follow that a president wanting this, should cause Congress to agree with him, but on the contrary, it's the Senate's job to check presidents.

    I could theoretically respect a senator who took simply took the position "domestic spying is a good idea," and I might even respect them more if they said something like "we ought to take seriously, the idea of repealing some of the Bill of Rights, as much of that stuff no longer reflects the values of Americans." (I'd oppose such a person, but realistically, I'd also probably lose debates to them, as their statement would be pretty damn accurate.)

    But when she uses "a president wants it," as the reason for giving presidents more power, she's pretty much admitting she's neglecting her duties as Senator, even working against those duties.

  76. Never by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan"

    But daring to ask *why* we are so hated is still considered an act of treason (spoiler: it ain't because 'they hate our freedoms').

  77. No Kidding by carrier+lost · · Score: 2

    "'..."I don't believe so," Feinstein said during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "The president has very clearly said that he wants to continue to recieve the funding provided by the contractors who supply the equipment, software and bodies involved in this billion-dollar operation. So I think we would agree with him. I know a dominant majority of the - everybody, virtually, except two or three, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree with that." ... "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still need massive amounts of campaign funds going into this next election cycle", Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. Television spots and Youtube ads are frickin' expensive!"'"

  78. Re:Keep Meta-data? Change Constitution first by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

    False? You linked to a page that states the opinions of a few judges. Anyone even slightly intelligent knows that the government was never meant to be able to outsource its spying to corporations, so this is a clear violation of the spirit of the fourth amendment.

  79. Exactly. It's not about liberty by Zordak · · Score: 1

    Your average voter, be s/he a Democrat or Republican, is not interested in liberty in any meaningful sense. S/he is interested in license. "Give me license to do what I want, and if anything bad happens, fix it and let me go back to doing whatever caused it."

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  80. Wrong on all accounts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's wrong on gun control and wrong on privacy. It's time for her to go.

  81. Why only talk about this one Senetor? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

    Lots of senators have given their support to the NSA, some on stronger terms then Feinstein. I'm in no way excusing her, I completely disagree with her on this, but this is clearly an effort to continue to polarize an issue that is sadly a failure by both major parties.

  82. Dianne Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the president are both traitors to the United States of America, as are most, if not all politicians in government.
    They should be treated as such.

  83. Humans, and the nature of Power by kheldan · · Score: 1

    The amount of power you posess is directly proportional to how much it corrupts you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one who posesses power ever willingly relinquishes it.

    The NSA (and the rest of the intellgence community, for that matter) appear to have taken lessons from organizations like the Catholic church, and organized religion in general: If you can keep people in a constant state of fear, their higher cognitive abilities are, for all intents and purposes, turned off, and they naturally turn towards leadership for "answers" to keep them "safe". With religion, it's the fear of the Devil and of Eternity in Hell that keeps the masses in a state of fear. With the U.S. government and the intelligence community, those roles are played by "terrorists" and by "the destruction of America".

    By some means (or perhaps any means necessary), the populace of the U.S. needs to take the power back. All these "threats to the U.S. and it's citizens" have, for the most part, always been there, and will always be there -- they've just been leveraged by people with power who, like all people with power, do whatever they can to maintain that power, and to increase their power towards Absolute by whatever means necessary.

    I believe that taking the power back from these power-mongering types can still be accomplished through peaceful means, but only if the bulk of the citizenry of the U.S. continues to wake up and fully realize what's been going on. Assange, Snowden, and their ilk have given the first wake-up jolts, it's now up to the rest of America to decide if they want to become fully conscious, get up, get dressed, and start cleaning house, or if they want to just roll over and go back to sleep.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  84. The Great Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness"

    Ok.. so the only way this makes sense is that she is trying to say that because of our critical role as the Great Satan, we have to devise new bombs and invent new terrorist threats / groups and uphold a new level of viciousness, which we have been doing pretty well I admit - but I don't see how it justifies the NSA's treason (in my opinion, every person in the NSA who took an oath to defend the constitution should now be in prison (in Cuba of course) awaiting trial, optionally with their every move and every word recorded and broadcast live to the world online (especially conversations w/ their lawyers.)

    Feinstein belongs in guantanamo as well.

  85. Oh, we understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no AMERICAN resistance to the complete end of the freedom in our persons, property, papers and effects from unreasonable search. Because, in the end, Republican's war on the 4th Amendment has worked. Under the guise of saving us from SOME drugs, we now admit we are the most guarded people on earth, watched day and night, living in a goldfish bowl to make life easier for the bluesuited thugs.

  86. Dianne Feinstein - ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    "still occupy the role of Great Satan"

    Perhaps, but it's idiots like this who are making us "fulfill" that role.

  87. OK, so you expected anythign different? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    If you did you are / were a complete fool and here is why...

    Our government, believe it or not, generally acts in the best interest of us. How do I know this? Because at a time in my life I worked for it.

    You can site all of the lobbying abuses, sweetheart deals, back room dealing, etc. etc. but the general thrust of your argument would still be wrong

    Senator A votes to have deal B go through and for the most part he does it for two reasons, re-election money or to get a project / company / entity to do business in his or her state because fundamentally his interests generally align with the people who elected him or her to office.

    When it comes to national security everyone had a total freak out when a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia flew airliners full of people into buildings. Was the NSA kinda clueless? Maybe, were our politicians? Very much so, so they did what all politicians do, they gave an agency carte blanche and looked the other way while saying you had damn well better cover our asses from here on out..

    What is really funny about this, is that the so called "Meta Data" is noting more than your phone bill. Ah but the chink in the armor are phones you can buy with a prepaid sim in them for cash. You don't know who made a call you just know that a call was made, so even that data is hard to deal with because you actually have to track the device down, put some eyes on the ground and search for 1 person out of the population of [insert large metropolitan area here ] to see who is using that phone. I think we could go a long way towards prevention of bad things my outlawing them. You want to buy a pre-paid cell phone, fine, we scan your photo ID so at least we have a picture of the person or perhaps a finger print. Do that and we catch half of the gang bangers tomorrow.

    You see I really don't care who knows the number I made a call to or got a call from, what I do care about is them knowing the content of the call, and I am not even sure the new data center in Utah could hold all audio from every call made. What this is really is know if two baddies are talking to each other, or a baddie is calling a guy who works for the FAA, an airline, a company that manufactures chemicals that can be made into explosives, etc. you get the idea.

    As to Diane Feinstein I think she should have to register as a foreign agent of Israel since she their US lobbying arm. I used to vote for her but have voted against in the last two senatorial elections and I am a Democrat!

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    1. Re:OK, so you expected anythign different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, do you people just want to tire everyone out with your nonsense? Your arguments (that this invasion of privacy doesn't matter, that the government would never abuse its power or that they couldn't do it in this instance, etc.) have been debunked time and time again. It grows tiring. If you honestly don't think this will be abused, just look at history; there are no good governments, and all of them have abused their powers in horrendous ways, and that includes the US government (slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of Japanese citizens, to name a few). The abuse of this program is an inevitability, and has likely already happened.

      There's a reason that organizations such as the ACLU and EFF--which are devoted to the protection of our civil liberties--are up in arms about this.

      You see I really don't care who knows the number I made a call to or got a call from, what I do care about is them knowing the content of the call

      You may not care, but I do. Don't sacrifice my privacy just because you don't care. I care very much, thank you. Also, it would be just as easy for them to get the content of the call, so pretending as if that should be more private is just ridiculous.

      Ultimately, freedom is what's important. If having freedom and privacy means I'll be more likely to blow up in a terrorists attack--which I doubt, by the way--then so be it.

  88. Because... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Elections are rigged....that should be obvious after the California GMO labeling vote where the results were polled as 70% in favor of, and then amazingly and unexpectedly the actual vote tally was reversed with 70% voting against the labeling.

    That was when I knew that Californians DO NOT VOTE.

    Why?

    Because you have a reversal of the poll, on a indifference based issue. What does that mean? Most people either care about having GMO products labeled or they do not give a damn. Almost no percentage of the population except for a few die hard folks on the right that still 3 DDT are actually concerned about preventing GMO labeling.

    So you had grass roots vs the weeds of indifference. With zero affect on the weeds. Those who don't care about GMO labelling, have not horse in the race. Adding it doesn't affect them. They don't care. That was an IMPOSSIBLE vote, blamed on a spending and advertising fee but clearly a result of the electronic voting fabrication system.

    1. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's that Muslim Kenyan Socialist backed by MSM, Nancy Pelosi and Chicago Machine Politics!

    2. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your proof is... Oh wait. There is none. You are just making unsubstantiated allegations.

      Obviously the polls were wrong and were not scientifically based..

      You need mental help. You are obviously suffering from extreme paranoia.

  89. Veteran by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Benefits, Retirement and Pensions

  90. "Privacy People" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got to love this dismissive moniker, akin to the despised "Gun People." What's that phrase liberals always use? "The Other." They love to accuse their enemies of seeing people as "The Other." Looks like, to paraphrase Walt Kelly, "We have met The Other and he is us."

  91. Not a left/right thing by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always been generally right-leaning, and I am REALLY up in arms about the NSA stuff.

    It's not really a left/right issue. It's an issue of how you feel about the 4th amendment and how much you trust the government to protect your civil liberties. I don't have any ideological objection to the government being empowered to look for dangerous criminals but I have a HUGE problem with them gutting my Constitutional rights in pursuit of these same criminals. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be convenient for the government to watch me. That is the entire point of the 4th amendment and a few others as well. Terrorists are criminals and I expect them to be treated as such under the law, particularly when the party under suspicion is a US citizen.

    I think the problem is that circumstances have organized such that the executive branch no longer has meaningful oversight. Congress is unwilling to take a stand because anyone who does gets voted out of office for "being soft on terrorism". The judiciary has largely punted on the issue so far by claiming no one has standing to challenge. (It's unclear how you prove standing against a classified program that you can go to jail for talking about) Worst of all we have a surveillance program with zero accountability to the electorate. We have a secret program, doing secret activities, "overseen" by a secret (rubber stamp) court, with secret findings than are never required to be made public. Exactly how am I as a citizen supposed to make an informed evaluation of the actions of the NSA? Maybe what they are doing is fine (yeah I doubt it too) but I have no way to know.

    1. Re:Not a left/right thing by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that circumstances have organized such that the executive branch no longer has meaningful oversight.

      A conception from the start of the country, born by Clinton, raised by Bush, and now wielded to full effect by Obama. It's the ramping up that's the real problem.

      Congress is unwilling to take a stand because anyone who does gets voted out of office for...

      I'd modify that ending to 'for the cause de jour', but opposing the party leadership really is what gets them tossed these days. It isn't so much about who holds sway over the voters, as it is who commands the political party. This is why the Tea Party is such a negative force for the Red Team. The people in control aren't members of the party, so they're hard(er) to control.

      The judiciary has largely punted on the issue so far by claiming no one has standing to challenge. (It's unclear how you prove standing against a classified program that you can go to jail for talking about)

      While I agree with the judiciary, they can't really intervene here without cause, understand that these laws and executive orders are being designed this way when they are being issued. It's no accident.

      Worst of all we have a surveillance program with zero accountability to the electorate.

      This is entirely by design. The framers of the Patriot Act and its massive new powers knew that the public would grow weary of the 'War' on 'Terror'. But our current system doesn't perform well without someone to be 'at war' with, and the end of the Cold War mean needing to pick a new enemy.

      Fortunately for the evil-doers there was this whole Sunni-Shia thing just waiting to start sucking up war dollars.

      I think all of this is evident in what Fienstein said in the sound-byte:

      "The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability so I think we would agree with him."

      "The president says if we want to stay in the party, we'll do what he says".

      "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."

      "We're in the middle of a Middle Eastern Batman gambit, so things won't change soon."

      Notice she even uses the phrases 'occupy the role' and 'the Great Satan'. How very Freudian.

    2. Re:Not a left/right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always been generally right-leaning, and I am REALLY up in arms about the NSA stuff.

      It's not really a left/right issue. It's an issue of how you feel about the 4th amendment and how much you trust the government to protect your civil liberties. I don't have any ideological objection to the government being empowered to look for dangerous criminals but I have a HUGE problem with them gutting my Constitutional rights in pursuit of these same criminals. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be convenient for the government to watch me. That is the entire point of the 4th amendment and a few others as well. Terrorists are criminals and I expect them to be treated as such under the law, particularly when the party under suspicion is a US citizen.

      I think the problem is that circumstances have organized such that the executive branch no longer has meaningful oversight. Congress is unwilling to take a stand because anyone who does gets voted out of office for "being soft on terrorism". The judiciary has largely punted on the issue so far by claiming no one has standing to challenge. (It's unclear how you prove standing against a classified program that you can go to jail for talking about) Worst of all we have a surveillance program with zero accountability to the electorate. We have a secret program, doing secret activities, "overseen" by a secret (rubber stamp) court, with secret findings than are never required to be made public. Exactly how am I as a citizen supposed to make an informed evaluation of the actions of the NSA? Maybe what they are doing is fine (yeah I doubt it too) but I have no way to know.

      The "circumstances" which "have organized" as you put it began with the 17th amendment. (I would add the minor point that the circumstances didn't organize themselves).

      The 17th amendment shifted congress several notches from a republic (with balanced power between the feds and the states) towards a more pure democracy. Once this was done, it was easier to convince the masses to give up more power to the feds for their own safety. (brace for metaphor) Once water finds a way into the roof, rot begins slowly. Once the rot grabs hold, it will make way for more water to enter the roof.

      At this point, the constitution begins to erode as federal judges are appointed by those that wish to put more power in the federal government and less power distributed closer to the people. This happened in both major political parties.

    3. Re:Not a left/right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a secret program, doing secret activities, "overseen" by a secret (rubber stamp) court, with secret findings than are never required to be made public. Exactly how am I as a citizen supposed to make an informed evaluation of the actions of the NSA? Maybe what they are doing is fine (yeah I doubt it too) but I have no way to know.

      Now that they have your post, they will be using the provisions of the NDAA to secretly abduct you to a secret location based on secret charges they don't need to even tell you, and you won't even be allowed a trial because... sshhhh, it's a secret.

    4. Re:Not a left/right thing by captainlavender · · Score: 1

      And yet, a lot of conservatives still hate Snowden. I'm sort of scratching my head over that one. Everybody's glad they know what he told us, but half the US still hates him for telling us.

  92. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  93. Thank (your deity) that in-line replies are back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is she allowed to parrot this?

    Because it's her job to make people feel warm and safe. Sort of like a rapist with a feather-bed and pillow.

    She's saying that she cares and she wants to do the right thing, also the status quo is important and a part of the 'good guy' job. By putting your feelings first she can ignore the schism between good intentions and governmental thuggery. She feels mollified by vague promises and ignores that fact that nothing has changed.

  94. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  95. Checks and balances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability So I think we would agree with him.

    Good to know that checks and balances system is working as intended!

  96. FORUM SLIDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is a technique known as a "Forum Slide" where bullshit is flooded into discussions that Big Brother does not want the citizens to have. It's like a firehose of garbage bits to flood away real content.

    Moderators please be aware of this FORUM SLIDE bullshit and use Mod Points appropriately. Posting anonymous to prevent my points from being wasted.

  97. you do understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That that was also accomplished with a Democratic majority in Congress.

  98. Re: FORUM SLIDE in effect here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There's a bot or douchebag posting replies here tons of lines of text about "MyCleanPC" ....

    This is a technique known as a "Forum Slide" where bullshit is flooded into discussions that Big Brother does not want the citizens to have. It's like a firehose of garbage bits to flood away real content. Moderators please be aware of this FORUM SLIDE bullshit and use Mod Points appropriately. Posting anonymous to prevent my points from being wasted.

  99. thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  100. Jew Cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jew Cunt puts Israel and any other thing she can think of in front of the American Constitution

    Someone should shit in this Jew Cunt's mouth , repeatedly.

  101. Because...terrorism...and...stuff by Chas · · Score: 1

    Great. Terrorism is now the eternal go-to answer for all the government's problems with those pesky laws protecting us from government tyranny.

    Can we just massacre our fucking corrupt government now and set up something more rational and less invasive in its place?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  102. Feinstein? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    Jewish by any chance?

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  103. Well There It Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Power craves power and fights to increase power.

    As I said all along NSA and bulk surveillance are not going away.

    The best thing for us non-Federal Government citizens of the US is to reverse engineer NSA's methods and techniques and apply them to every Federal employee and publish their comings and goings and who they buy and sell to, i.e. the Press.

    Get drones flying along the public roads leading into Ft. Meade to get license plate numbers, intercept the cell-phone meta data transmissions and do a grep sed sort and awk to co-locate and identify and publish it with a Quickbird image. And do this to Congress and the White House, and the Federal Department buildings around the National Mall.

    Have a 24/7 cable channel, "What Is Your Congress Doing Now!" for instance to publish video results.

    Get CCTV camera feeds in Banks to see Congressman-X at the counter and "Oh isn't THAT a bundle of dollars interesting."

    Level playing field means war.

  104. Feinstein has to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She is a detriment to her state and the U.S. citizenry. She has voted against her own constituent's desires dozens of times. And this seems like another instance. If/When she runs for re-election vote for the other "guy."

       

  105. You don't HAVE to be the Great Satan by John+Jamieson · · Score: 1

    "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."

    Well then, be like Darth Vader and take off the mask.

  106. Re:Keep Meta-data? Change Constitution first by east+coast · · Score: 1

    If you think the NSA issue is a right vs left kind of argument in today's political climate you're even further gone than what I first thought!

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  107. Trying to turn Christians against the gov't? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Is she trying to turn Christians against the government? Because that sounds exactly like what she's going to end up doing with this statement!

    1. Re:Trying to turn Christians against the gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, they will just use faith to continue to support whatever they feel like believing. In their minds 'feeling' is the same as fact.

  108. When Is Her Next Election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The time has come to kick all the pro-NSA pieces of shit to the curb.

  109. Wholesale survellence is NOT the answer by jonwil · · Score: 1

    What is needed is to take all the money being spent on capturing every piece of data the NSA can get its hands on and redirect that money into a massive hiring program aimed at dramatically increasing the number of people employed to turn all the data into useful information that the right people can take and act upon.

    Capturing everyone's phone calls and internet data wont catch the next 9/11 hijackers or the next Boston bomber, especially since the next guys are going to assume that they are being spied upon when they use any kind of electronic communications and will use secret codes, one-time-pads and other things (as well as non-electronic communications methods that no wiretap can ever collect)

  110. Feinstein needs to be kicked out of office by stenvar · · Score: 1

    She's self-righteous, arrogant, and downright evil. It's high time she get kicked out of office.

  111. dont 'bro' me unless you know me by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    hey dude...I'm not your 'bro'...

    nowhere did I contend what you say I contended...your comment is a string of straw man arguments...like this:

    "just because the government can X doesnt mean they should"

    where X is some thing that would invade privacy but maybe not technically be illegal

    you're arguing against a straw man...there's like 3 or 4 points in there...it means nothing

    I never said those things are good, or that they government should do them

    I ASKED WHEN/HOW IT COULD BE DONE...if the answer is virtually never fine

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:dont 'bro' me unless you know me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey bro, I'm a woman you insensitive clod.

  112. "The Great Satan" by b_manas · · Score: 1

    I do not follow her on her "The Great Satan role" reference. Would someone care to explain this to me?

    1. Re:"The Great Satan" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Google will explain it to you. When you grow up and start to be more aware of the world around you, references like this will make more sense. But perhaps you should focus on your algebra homework and the cute girl in 3rd period for now.

    2. Re:"The Great Satan" by b_manas · · Score: 1

      Okay, then. The whole world isn't Christian.

  113. Re: FORUM SLIDE in effect here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you totally sure that some of the mods are not in legue with the "Forum slide" troll?
    Lots of good political post in /. that talk about gunrights, left-right trap, and personal freedom are recently marked as trolls or redundant ...

  114. FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fire that evil lying hook, using the terrorist card again , pitiful.

  115. Yes, less savory than DiFi by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Nothing against Elizabeth Emken, who as far as I can tell is a fine person, except for her involvement in an evil criminal conspiracy called "The Republican Party". Yes, there are some good Republicans, and California seriously needs to upgrade our local Republican Party, who tend to be nasty right-wingers who don't have any more clue about fiscal responsibility than our Democrats do, interspersed with occasional rich folks showing off. (The 2006 token Republican, Dick Mountjoy, was a pro-war right-winger, and California didn't have their "top-two primary", so I was able to vote Libertarian, since there was no risk of him beating Feinstein. I don't remember if I voted for Emken or abstained, since there are no longer third-party candidates in the general election here.)

    But it won't be safe to vote for any Republicans for anything until the national party cleans up the corruption of the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Norquist/Koch era. Senate majorities matter even if our senior senator is consistently on the side of Evil. House majorities matter, and Congressmembers occasionally get promoted to Senator. State legislators run for Congressional seats, city council members run for state legislature, school board members run for city council.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  116. Gerrymandering and Special Interests in California by billstewart · · Score: 1

    No, it doesn't affect the Senate races. The latest rounds of assembly-district gerrymandering have been fun to watch - the Republicans put together a plan for a bipartisan citizens commission to run the gerrymander, figuring that it would work better than letting the majority-Democrat legislature do it, and then botched the followthrough that they needed to stack the commission with Republicans; they ended up with a group that was less Republican than the legislature, and didn't have the commitment to preserving current members' seats that a legislative version would have had. So they lost a few more seats than they needed to, but fundamentally this is California, where we've got a majority of Democrats, the Republicans are mostly nasty right-wingers with no more care about fiscal responsibility than the Democrats have, and pretty much everybody viewed Schwarzenegger's attempts at fixing the budget to be half-hearted and the Republicans to be Not Helping, so they got stomped.

    California's legislature has fairly short term limits, which means they're much more influenced by current events and nobody sticks around long enough for the programs they pass to actually get implemented, so the penalty for failure is low, there's no institutional memory, and lobbyists write most of the legislation and get assembly members to pass it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  117. Re: "The rich can be kept in check by regulation"? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? The rich do write most of the regulations, so it's not like that's going to keep them in check. Look how well it worked for the 2008 banking collapse, or the persistence of the military-industrial complex.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  118. Re: "The rich can be kept in check by regulation"? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    They only can write it to benefit one over another because of Keynesian economics. That is the entire problem- manipulating the economy instead of simply keeping products from harming people and the environment (people by extension) and preventing fraud.

    I don't really care about the military-industrial complex so bark up another tree. The banking collapse was directly associated with Keynesian economics. It could have been avoided if congress would have acted in 2003 when the request to change regulation on and monitor GSEs in the mortgage industry was made.

  119. Re:Feinstein's not at all "Furthest Left" by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Yes, Feinstein likes a big-spending government, and prefers more of that spending to go to social programs than Bush did, but that doesn't make her a "leftist" any more than it made him one. She's pretty consistent in her opposition to most of the Bill of Rights - doesn't like free speech on the Internet, doesn't like search warrants, didn't stop torture at Gitmo. Yeah, she's occasionally come out to support the liberal side of issues like gay marriage or abortion, but it's not like she really broke through a lot of boundaries on those in the Senate.

    Basically, the only thing leftist about her is that she counts as +1 in the "D" column instead of the "R" column when you're counting the Senate majority party, which does make a huge difference. But she's got enough seniority that California's Democrats haven't run a serious primary challenger against her in years, and California's Republicans know they're going to lose so they've only run token candidates who are doing their "take one for the team" job in return for future party favors. It's too bad Carly Fiorina decided to run against Barbara Boxer instead of DiFi - I dislike her immensely, but it would have been a fun race to watch.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  120. Anybody remember the 4th amendment? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Those were the days.

  121. Provide a convincing argument by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    that collecting insane amounts of irrelevant data helps stop terrorism.

    If terrorists know we are collecting tweets, do you think they will continue to use twitter?

  122. AC? by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    who is this AC? is it deconfiction unlogged?

    I'm confused...

    also, if deconfiction wants to reply that would be nice...I'd like to hear what deconfiction thinks the policy about privacy should be

    not complaining about how things ARE...but a description of policy of how things SHOULD BE

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:AC? by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      wow, maybe the first time I've ever been personally _asked_ for an opinion on slashdot. No, that AC was not me. The Bro thing was nothing personal, just think of it as a snark tag.

      Here is your response- First, my response was instigated by your comments here -

      you, AC, and every critic of this policy must either be criticizing the very *existence* of government OR the debate is about when/how not if the government can access your personal data

      the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant

      My personal reaction was sufficiently summed up by another comment which basically quoted and explained the 4th ammendment.

      My secondary reaction was to get a little snarky, and bring up- not strawmen, but real similar scenarios. The 4th ammendment is (somewhat sadly) all about a subjective interpretation of the word 'reasonable'. Obviously, if the feds and police were perfectly trustworthy, letting them have keys to all of our houses, and letting them search any house they like, whenever they like, when the home is empty, would give the authorities an obviously useful and efficient tool to fight crime. Lives would be saved, more rapists and thieves put in jail, etc. So, clearly as a society we have decided that that is not 'reasonable'. We want more privacy than that, even if it costs lives and victims. The same thing with mandating microphones tapped into the phonesystem embedded in every home/apartement wall. Again, an amazingly useful intelligence tool for the authorities to combat crime and terrorism. And again as a society we've decided that it is 'unreasonable' to go that far.

      I brought up the cheap 3d printed solar powered drone w/ parabolic mic theory because I think it is usefully analagous in the current situation between the tech-capability jump between pre-internet and internet, and current-internet and - future with $1 solar drones with parabolic mics.

      I believe the problem with the internet, and the related interp of 4th ammendment 'reasonable', is that recently much of society was simply ignorant of internet technology. They largely still are (think net neutrality, metered bandwidth, peak vs non-peak, etc). What is really horrible is I believe the NSA engaged in a massive decade long campaign of disinformation and other deeds to keep the public basically ignorant of the internet, and related security concerns.

      Anyway, I can blather on at length, but the short answer is - I think the policy should follow the spirit of the 4th ammendment. And this human being doesn't consider the collection of internet SIGINT/LOVINT indiscriminately from all citizens all the time is 'reasonable'. I think it would be reasonable to _start collection after targeting and getting a judge to sign a warrant_. But I don't consider it reasonable to collect SIGINT/LOVINT in a database that _could be used politically against every citizen_ _before_ a target has been selected, and a legal warrant issued by the judicial branch.

      $0.02...

    2. Re:AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and for the synergistic record, here is the next day's article from the BBC about 'kangaroo court led by elders in india orders woman to be gang raped'. (thankfully with fairly quick arrests including the elder head of the 'gang', but with horrifically creepy quotes throughout the article. And again, arguing that the US is somehow morally more responsible, and thus can more safely manage a LOVINT database on all citizens... doesn't sway well with me. I live smack in the middle of the US, and there are plenty of demented senile elderly here with horrific levels of sexism and racism conditioned into their demented idle thought processes.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25855325

      "
      Police in India's West Bengal state have arrested 13 men in connection with a gang rape of a woman, allegedly on orders of village elders who objected to her relationship with a man.

      The 20-year-old woman has been admitted to a hospital in a critical condition.

      Unofficial courts in India's villages often sanction killings of couples deemed to have violated local codes.

      Scrutiny of sexual violence in India has grown since the 2012 gang rape and murder of a student on a Delhi bus. ... ... ...
      "

  123. When she talks by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    I just don't see how anyone can continue to adhere to the same tired partisan political blathering that passes for intelligent political discourse.

    Neither party cares about the public, the constitution, privacy, or anything except for the money being funneled mostly secretly by lobbyists and special interest groups.

    The Coup d'état against the US people wasn't broadcast by the US media.

  124. Limited government by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I think it's pretty difficult to say that the people that want a smaller more limited government is inherently authoritarian.

    "Limited government" in republican-speak generally means government with less taxation authority particularly for things the democrats support. If the republicans were serious about genuinely more limited government they would be pushing for a smaller military but instead they increase military spending at every opportunity regardless of actual need. They also would be making serious efforts to limit medicare and social security which are another 50% of federal spending but they never really seriously address limiting those programs. Even when they do try it generally comes in the form of "screw the poor" legislation like eliminating food stamps with no alternative to replace it with. Also a lot of their social positions are incompatible with the concept of limited government. Their "family values" positions are a fundamentally a form of government supported social engineering. They are perfectly fine with a less limited government as long as it is for things that support their social agenda.

    No, the republicans may want less expensive government but they certainly do not want genuinely limited government.

    1. Re:Limited government by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Actually, Republicans widely supported the sequester which mandated a 5% cut to defense spending. Most of them support further across the board cuts. They also definitely support cuts and reform to entitlement programs, but when they do they are depicted in television ads pushing old ladies in wheelchairs off of cliffs. So basically, fuck you.

  125. Re: The unseen enemy... is Social Media by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    I had a good laugh at this thread, people bashing Diane Feinstein, first because she is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then because she is a Democrat from California, all of which is beside the point if these same people use Google, or Facebook, or Twitter or any other social media company. The post to which I replied has the right idea, and I am saying so in more words to amplify the point that although I don't like what NSA is doing, that we have accepted the same thing done by every social media company out there as a fair business activity. That is the irony, and that is what the people who replies above don't get about technology, that people will use it to their advantage because its power is evident. Lots of businesses use similar techniques to find potential customers that NSA uses to develop networks of terror suspects. It isn't Google Analytics, but it is the same idea. So, until all of the people who posted so far agree that Social Media should be outlawed, we are stuck with the temptation NSA has taken. It is the nature of the Big Data we are saving about each other.

  126. Trading security for your liberties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tear down the NSA program, which I am willing to bet is the sentiment of most of my other free thinking Californians.
    I for one am not willing to trade my liberties for security, this thought makes our elected officials scared as most of us
    with any type of brain know that control comes from being able to censor the masses information. It will stop either by legislation or by America rising up
    to stop them. A 2nd American revolution is coming, and that scares the crap out of the power elite.

  127. Re: The unseen enemy... is Social Media by infinitelink · · Score: 1

    Uh huh.

    The US government accessing all the data and metadata of private companies by the companies involuntarily compliance, without permission or need or notice to affected parties that dealing with those companies or services means serving the data to the government, and under gag orders with criminal penalties for saying anything--and with the government requiring entry for any of its agents to their facilities to take-over machines and interface at the government's will, is the same as what companies are doing with the metadata.

    You need to try again.

    --
    Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
  128. Re: The unseen enemy... is Social Media by bbsalem · · Score: 1

    Please redraft your reply to me. It s hard to parse the run-on sentence. There need to be some separation of ideas. That is why we have the period as a punctuation mark.

  129. Re:Feinstein's not at all "Furthest Left" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She is the poster child for the left wing as Cheney is for the right.

  130. Dear Anonymous Coward by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Let's review the extreme paranoia....

    - Flouride, now even the FDA is turning against it.
    - They're listening to our phone calls and reading our emails. No, you're just crazy. Well, whad'd'ya know...they are.
    - Fast and Furious Gun Running, deliberate arming of cartels. Seriously, even I thought that was crazy. I was wrong.

    But let me point you to the real fact. There is ZERO way for us to confirm votes. It would be extremely easy to implement in these electronic voting systems. Every voter would receive a printout with a code, heck, do it as a QR code. No names, nada, but you could take that code and go online and confirm that your vote was registered correctly. This SHOULD OF BEEN MANDATORY for these new systems.

    But the truth is, when you have a zero cause issue, facing a strong vocal grass roots, and the polls are 60%-70% in favor, and then surprisingly, the end result was a complete reversal. You've got to be honest, and take a step back and evaluate the likelihood of that your election system is rigged.

    GMO Labeling is a I care or don't give a damn issue. To overwhelm a grass roots issue polling at 2/3 requires a substantial amount of motivation on the part of the electorate. And honestly, that just wasn't there. This issue didn't have anything to motivate those who weren't for it, to oppose it.

  131. Re:Feinstein's not at all "Furthest Left" by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If by that, you mean that the right wing uses DiFi for posters recruiting for their side, maybe so, but those are cartoon versions of her used for their own side's purposes, and the two aren't really equivalent or parallel. Darth Cheney's evil, and the left wing hates him, but he's a military-industrial-complex radical, not a social-conservative right-winger.

    (I'm going to have to deviate from my usual position on Cheney here, which is to grudgingly admit that the man almost certainly doesn't actually eat live puppies for breakfast, but not to say anything more positive than that about him... And I'm a Libertarian, not a leftist or progressive.)

    Cheney's not, as far as I know, a racist. He's not a theocrat. He was against gay marriage until his gay daughter forced him to reconsider his position, but he's not one of those people who are hung up about gays or who use homophobia as a way to drum up business with other right-wingers. (He'll happily use Fear of Foreign Terrorists to do that, but the business he's trying to drum up is military business, not Republicans-vs-Democrats; he'd prefer a Republican-controlled big army and intrusive spying system, but a Democrat-controlled one will do, and Feinstein was his type of Democrat.) He's not been part of the Republican War on Women. He was fine with the right-wingers' desires to militarize the border, but that was because he likes militarizing things, not because he wants to stop having cheap immigrant labor available for US businesses.

    Cheney's not one of those right-wingers who say that "Government doesn't work" because they want to cut social programs and annoy progressives. He's the type of conservative who likes lots of very big, very intrusive government. The kind the right-wingers pretend they dislike, even as they help elect guys like Cheney.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks