Slashdot Mirror


NSA: We Mulled Ending Phone Program Before Edward Snowden Leaks

Mark Wilson writes Edward Snowden is heralded as both a hero and villain. A privacy vigilante and a traitor. It just depends who you ask. The revelations he made about the NSA's surveillance programs have completely changed the face of online security, and changed the way everyone looks at the internet and privacy. But just before the whistle was blown, it seems that the NSA was considering bringing its telephone data collection program to an end. Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.

140 comments

  1. Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions.

    I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general.

    The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

    1. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or those who thought the US intelligence agencies were following the constitution.

      It was suspected, but even most of the people who were considered tin foil mad hatters were lowballing the amount of surveillance.

    2. Re:Not everyone by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Those technically ignorant are the ones having passive and active election rights and they are in majority, This means nothing has much changed except now NSA has to claim their programs are beneficial so that the colossal amount of money spent on them does not look like a incompetence or outright corruption.

    3. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a "goddamned piece of paper" would curtail this?

      The *only* force that prevents powerful institutions from abusing their power is public accountability. Any talk about oversight committees and the state of the law is pure air.

      If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.

    4. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically ignorant.

      The best kind of ignorant!

    5. Re:Not everyone by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

      There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    6. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How old are you? Because I learned about ECHELON 15 years ago (in computer magazines at the bookstore), and there were already talks about intercepting and accessing pretty much everything, large data stores, keyword analysis, etc. And I was just a slightly-geeky teen discovering the Internet 'underground' back then. From France. Even the EU was publicly investigating ECHELON around this time.

      Wikipedia tells me there has been some amount of public discussion about it for the past 20 years, and the program dates back to 50 years ago, so it's very easy to imagine much progress has been made since then.

      Even back then, I wouldn't have called them 'suspicions'... No need to be paranoid to understand how obvious it was, in a large part at least, and not just from the USA of course...

      One of the main issues with all our problems, is that people often 'forget' for how long they knew about them (even when nothing was ever really done to try and solve them), media always repaint them as 'news' for business purpose (and, it is easy to think, for more global manipulation), and new generations think they are new problems they just discovered themselves... It's easier to consider accepting to do nothing about recent problems, than understanding how everything and everyone has been so thoroughly covered in shit for so long and try to do anything about it.

    7. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

      There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.

      There is?

      Seems 99.999% of the population did exactly FUCK ALL after Snowden about their online privacy.

      Even when the tinfoil hatters are proven dead-nuts right, people don't give a shit. Watch and see as they wet their fucking pants over the first lady Prez, in all her corrupt glory.

      People are not just stupid. They fucking stupid. They're not even smart enough to know why they should give a shit.

    8. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between suspecting and knowing. In addition, the NSA and all of the traitors in government now know that *they* are being watched and that any single person has the power to call them out on it.

    9. Re: Not everyone by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Err, not the only force. Revolution works pretty well on occasion, too.

    10. Re: Not everyone by twitnutttt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.

      Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

      For shame!

    11. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well put

    12. Re: Not everyone by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Dam straight! There needs to be a balance:

      * Too much authority with too little accountability leads to abuse of power
      * Too little authority with too much accountability leads to bureaucracy.

      You curtail abuses of Authority by having Accountability

    13. Re: Not everyone by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

      It's a bit like the Japanese and Whaling. Turns out that the whalers operate at a loss, nobody in Japan actually likes whale meat, etc... But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

      In short, they may have ended the program since then if Snowden hadn't leaked because the program wasn't justifying itself, but now they're having to defend their illegal and unconstitutional actions, thus they 'have' to continue and justify the program in order to avoid saying they made a mistake.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re: Not everyone by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Who gives a crap about the phone shit. What it revealed was that US government executives routinely lie to the public and attack members of the public with slander and false arrest when members of the public try to expose the criminal activities of above the law government departments.

      The US department of State, the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service and even the FBI at the highest levels all routinely consider themselves above the law. This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected and who will be selected to take the highest administrative positions in government not as agents of the public but as agents of the corporations who arranged for their appointment.

      The US government has become an empty teleprompter reading mouthpiece for those corporations who pay to get their colluding and conspiring pet politicians elected. The Snowden leaks exposed the underlying reality of how far the Public Relations show of the US government differs from corporate controlled reality of government agencies.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re: Not everyone by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      On occasion. Typically what it accomplishes as a switch in position of the upper and middle classes, on the backs of the lowest classes, many of whom may get a slight nudge upward in power/money/class to blind them to the truth.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    16. Re: Not everyone by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Cutting their budget also has a profound effect.

    17. Re: Not everyone by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      That would be blissfully ignorant. But ignorance alone does not bring bliss. Otherwise there would be a lot more happy people.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    18. Re: Not everyone by dryeo · · Score: 2

      How many actual revolutions have improved things?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re: Not everyone by dryeo · · Score: 2

      That's true. They can either force the telecommunications companies to pay for the data collection, who will of course pass the costs on to their customers but is not a tax. Or they can become more self-financing, selling drugs and weapons is one traditional way for the 3 letter agencies to self-finance or they could do insider trading as they get all the insider intelligence. Since Reagan proofed that selling weapons to your enemies is a good election tactic they may go that route.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re: Not everyone by west · · Score: 2

      If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.

      Which is, of course, why every citizen must be constantly monitored. If we're outside the scrutiny of others, it is *guaranteed* that we are doing something nefarious.

    21. Re: Not everyone by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Revolution is not a deterant to those in power, as they believe their actions are required to remain in power.

    22. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected ....

      Not that I would deny that corporations attempt to influence government policy and the laws that are made, but .... Could you explain how you think corporations "control" which politicians get elected? Corporations don't vote, it's illegal for them to try to control the votes of their employees, and they have limitations on how they spend money for political purposes. Do they do it through mind control? Mass hypnosis? Could you explain? It looks to me like you are exaggerating their influence, not to mention a few other things.

      Since different corporations have different interests and goals, how is that reconciled if they control everything? How does that work if a very powerful corporation in one state disagrees with a weaker national corporation? What if different industries disagree on things? Is there a "congress of corporations" where this is all hammered out before they command the politicians to do their will? And who is it that gives the commands? What if they can't come to an agreement? Do you have any evidence of this sort of collusion?

      How do you think the corporations control government agencies? Is it Sears, Walmart, or IBM that controls the FBI? Does Ford control the Social Security Administration, or is it Du Pont? Who controls the State Department? Ikea? AT&T? Go Daddy? I think there are a few holes in your theory.

      --
      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
    23. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone that wasn't sponsored by a hostile government?

    24. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions."

      I've heard this a lot of times, and the more I think about it the less I like it. I think you're severely underestimating the difference between "well of course everyone suspects..." and "today the Guardian published thousands of pages of..."

      The second one leads to actual change. The first never will.

    25. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's take a popular example. Koch.

      I'm the past year, I'd talked with someone who just left a job there, and they would have large meetings and discuss how republican candidates were good because they would help the company. There was expected clapping, and agreement. If you didn't seem to agree, seemed skeptical, or possibly weren't enthusiastic enough, your manager would come talk to you, and suggest as to why they were good. Not directly controlling a vote, but with unspoken intent, and your livelihood, your promotions, or finding another reason to fire you.

      I shit you not, that's what I've heard. If true (I can think of no reason for the person to lie, as it was in a casual conversation,) then how is that not influencing it? Churches can't do that or they lose their tax free status, but there's little to restrict a corporation with that's similar that I'm aware of.

    26. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like bullshit to me.

      This is just laying the foundation for admitting they were wrong without losing face. They can't be seen saying "we fucked up and we would still be fucking up if it wasn't for Snowden" so to save face for chasing Snowden to the end of the Earth he has to be the bad guy for preventing them from doing the right thing.

      It doesn't matter who doesn't believe it so long as sock puppets like Firethorn can successfully sell this bullshit story to the sheep with bandwagon appeal and confirmation bias.

      The fact that it took them this long means they had something better in the works and Snowden pushed them to expedite the transition. Just like FBI retiring CARNIVORE. Once an organization ceases to innovate it dies. I'm glad the NSA has a more precision tool which will eliminate the need for carpet bombing...

      My speculation:
      I suspect it is a firmware hack for LTE radio chips which does the same audio-template matching they were doing on the backend using the handsets battery (therefore removing the need to monitor the calls en masse using intercepts).

      "Trigger words" get escalated to "Level 2" intercept status with a simple malformed packet signalling to the network that the device is a HOT POTATO. It's like building a cocaine testing lab in to every duffel bag...

      Similarly, if they have 3 degrees of separation as a goal: they can privatize the data collection and then build vulnerabilities in to the devices implementation of LTE/SMS network traffic which allow point to point infection without interference from an outside party.

      They just have to touch the target device with their MAGIC THUMB and PRION will begin to spread MAD COW to the other devices. If they can get the device manufacturers to build back doors in to the devices at a lower level than eMMC then they don't need to be able to inject malware in to VPN/network traffic as they have an autonomous insider which requires significantly fewer wiretap resources and can actively request the desired infections. The chip infects the kernel/bootloader every time the system boots.

      Here's the win for democracy: the primary functionality of accumulating blackmail material on diplomats/legislators to change policy in favor of US interests/NSA budget is significantly reduced(at least with HOT POTATO... MAGIC THUMB should still work fine).

    27. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) What did you expect them to do?
      B) The three facts that will determine the next president of the United States will be Gender, Race, Religion, Height: in that order. Same as it ever was.
      It's only interesting because the "gender" is no longer male and the "race" is no longer Caucasian.
      C) Eventually we'll run out of races and genders(and permutation) for gimmick-voting and we'll have to go back to "Religion" and "Height" as the primary deciding factor(s). "Is Bayer the best brand of Aspirin? Of course: it has a buffer!" Fungible commodities need cosmetic distinctions.
      D) Voting between a douche-bag and a shit sandwich is only as effective as the effort to pick the douche and the sandwich during the primaries. If you believe the US President can fix a corrupt congress/justice department then you should pursue change during the primary elections where you have more candidates to choose from.

    28. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once a revolution start it is a bit too late for backsies. The one in power needs to defend the power or die at that point.
      The way it is a deterrent is that it will be a bit harder for the next guy to believe that those actions are sufficient to remain in power.

    29. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meet? Set goals? Can't be!

      Please look up Conspiracy of the light bulb

    30. Re: Not everyone by Pi1grim · · Score: 2

      >> If we're outside the scrutiny of others
      We're not. We're monitored at our workplaces (by performance and endresult in smart companies, by process in the rest). Whenever someone get's some power (puts on a cop uniform, gets keys to server room, etc), he is being monitored more closely while in power, as with power comes accountability. When you go home - noone is trusting you with any power, so no monitoring is necessary, so your comment does not apply. CIA, NSA, FBI, all the alphabet agencies are working for the country, the people, no matter how much cynicism you want to demonstrate - this is how it should be, this is the goal, so they should be held accountable and closely monitored, especially if they are having the power to snoop on entire world.

    31. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty, but only those that turned a dictatorship into a democracy, like in Spain, Portugal and much of Central and Eastern Europe.

    32. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    33. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry to say, but whale meat is delicious. And I'm not even Japanese.
      Imagine the most delicious and delicate and complex bacon you can ever have in your life? Similar, but not even close.

    34. Re: Not everyone by zidium · · Score: 1

      Everyone already knows that the CIA and NSA fund blackop military and scientific projects by selling drugs, kidnapping young women (sex slave trade), assassinations-for-hire, etc. Right?

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    35. Re: Not everyone by zidium · · Score: 1

      Historically? Only the French and American ones, and arguably Crimea. The rest usually end up in acrimony and many times military juntas (Egyptian Spring).

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    36. Re: Not everyone by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

      If governmental employees think that "saving face" is more important than doing the right thing, they shouldn't be governmental employees any more.

      --
      That is all.
    37. Re:Not everyone by bulled · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.

      It is sad to me that people who claimed this was happening before Snowden were all considered tin foil hat crazy. And after Snowden the plotical establishment have all taken the stance of "Well, duh. Of course that has always been happening". There was never a "Holy shit, our government lies to us" moment, just move on to "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

    38. Re: Not everyone by orient · · Score: 1

      Money buys propaganda/advertising. Propaganda brings votes.

      Candidates who get more donations, buy more propaganda and get more votes.

      The donor companies effectively choose who will get elected.

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
    39. Re: Not everyone by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It's not just State, CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service. VA hospital execs lying. IRS auditors auditing.

      The problem is truly that the US Government operates as a corporation which is beholden to its shareholders (who are not the voters, of course) and employees. It is going to do this because gerrymandering and its sheer size make it unaccountable to the public.

    40. Re: Not everyone by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Follow the Money, this will always find the person pulling the strings.
      Swift Boat to freedom ads can sum up how its done.
      When the dust settles we realize what a lie it all was but it would be after say Diebold changed the election map.

    41. Re: Not everyone by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Which French Revolution?

      The one that started in 1789 resulted in a Reign of Terror followed by a reactionary Junta-like Directory, followed by the Emperor of the French, Napoleon I?

      I think the French probably would have been better off without the Revolution, although it did eventually work out for them in the end. Four Republics and four monarchies later.

      I'm not sure why anyone thinks of the French Revolution as a success. All of the progress came from them getting tired of killing each other and everyone else.

       

    42. Re:Not everyone by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think people who thought this before Snowden were considered crazy. Everyone knew about signals intelligence or suspected it to some degree.

      What makes a tin-foil hatter is not necessarily their insight into what is happening, but what that *means*. This was supposed to be some sort of New World Order/Illuminati plot to rule the world and control our precious bodily fluids. Which isn't exactly what we got.

      The NSA is expected to monitor communications. It is a signals intelligence agency. Anyone who knew what the NSA does knows that it monitors that stuff.

      I also don't think anyone who knew what the NSA did truly believed that the NSA didn't monitor data internal to the US in doing their duties. While technically illegal, I don't know that anyone really cares as long as this information isn't used against normal citizens who aren't terrorists. That's a pretty shitty thing for an idealist to swallow, but business as usual for anyone who is the least bit pragmatic about it.

      The fact is, no one cares now because while Snowden did a good job of embarrassing the US government, he didn't actually expose a program to keep neat records on individuals which was used, J. Edgar Hoover-style, to get their way to create a reign of terror and a new state panopticon. It was like lifting up a rock and seeing the bugs scurrying around under it. It's not pleasant to look at, but at the same time, it was exactly what everyone expected already.

      You know what the biggest threat to the US is today? The US Government, but not one piece of the US Government, the whole thing. Not because it is an Orwellian nightmare, but because it is a bureaucratic nightmare that is decoupling from the control of the public by clever manipulation of hot button issues and gerrymandering. The NSA does things for the same reason the VA executives covered things up: they are only looking out for their own territories and trying to save face. They only care about Congress, and Congress has a 12% rating and still gets re-elected. So what does that say about who the government really works for?

    43. Re: Not everyone by dryeo · · Score: 1

      As a revolution, the American one was a complete failure, not even getting within a few thousand miles of Parliament little well replacing the King. It did evolve into a successful war of secession though leading to an independent country.
      As for the French, well the AC summarized it pretty well.
      As others pointed out there has been a few successful non-violent ones but it seems as soon as the violence starts things go down hill.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    44. Re: Not everyone by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, someone please tell me what Snowden said that is shocking? I mean, I full expect the NSA to be snooping on Merkle's phone, and I understand that widespread electronic surveillance of the entire world is unlikely to have a "This is an American, so backoff" bit? I'll be honest, when I saw his first "revelations" I started tuning out, so there may be more shocking things in there.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    45. Re: Not everyone by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If governmental employees think that "saving face" is more important than doing the right thing, they shouldn't be governmental employees any more.

      Now this is a comment I agree with.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    46. Re:Not everyone by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

      While technically illegal, I don't know that anyone really cares as long as this information isn't used against normal citizens who aren't terrorists.

      What? There IS NO CHINESE WALL BETWEEN THE NSA AND LEA AT ALL!!!

    47. Re: Not everyone by bensch128 · · Score: 1

      Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

      For shame!

      As far as I know, they are still allowed to operate the program under the law. Hopefully, in June (or whenever the 215 provisions expire) they will no longer be legally allowed to operate. Then it'll probably cease to exist.

      That being said, it seems weird that the top level administrators of the NSA have been bold face lying to congressional committees under oath and no-one in the Justice Department is interested in prosecuting them for perjury.... As far as I understand, that is a legitimate crime.

    48. Re: Not everyone by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This holds especially true during the primaries when a truly tiny percentage of those eligible vote and basically allow the corporations to stack the elections, so no matter which team wins, they win. Foolish gullible Americans have already lost the elections before they have even started, just an empty show. The only real focus of the US government is to drive out all politicians who will actually represent their electorates and of course reading the speeches provided to them by their controlling corporations and voting as directed on the legislation as provided by lobbyists.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    49. Re: Not everyone by west · · Score: 1

      I go home to utter and complete power over two children. I have *far* more power over them than any employer has *ever* had over me.

      Obviously I, like every other parent, should be subject to 24 hour a day monitoring.

    50. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how many businesses and corporations there are in the US? Apparently not. Maybe you should look that up and figure out how that many entities are going to come to a single position. It's nonsense.

      --
      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
    51. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This holds especially true during the primaries when a truly tiny percentage of those eligible vote and basically allow the corporations to stack the elections, so no matter which team wins, they win.

      And the evidence for this is ???? Completely lacking? And once again we come back to the point of there something on the order of 30,000,000 businesses in the US. And you think they come to some sort of agreement and collude on picking political leaders? You don't think there might be some evidence of this sort of massive effort, do you? How are the many contradictory goals and philosophies reconciled? You don't suppose that even if this was happening that the many different efforts would tend to cancel each other out?

      The only real focus of the US government is to drive out all politicians who will actually represent their electorates and of course reading the speeches provided to them by their controlling corporations and voting as directed on the legislation as provided by lobbyists.

      Is there a list somewhere of which corporation "owns" each member of Congress? Who does IBM "own"? Microsoft? AT&T? Hormel? Chipolte? MacDonalds? At most they have influence, but not control. If they really did have control then you wouldn't see burdensome regulation or laws passed, like Sarbanes-Oxley.

      I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you might want to start looking for a better source, and maybe expose yourself to a wider range of views.

      --
      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
    52. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The donor companies effectively choose who will get elected.

      You believe nonsense.

      How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum

      Robert Shrum, a senior fellow at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has been a senior adviser on many Democratic campaigns, including Dick Gephardt (1988), Al Gore (2000), and John Kerry (2004).

      In politics there is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success. Just ask the well-heeled Republican losers of presidential primaries past â" former Texas Governor John Connally, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former Mayor and front-runner Rudolph Giuliani. Or how about Howard Dean, who raised and spent nearly $40 million before crashing and burning in the 2004 Iowa caucuses?

      --
      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
    53. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum

      I hope you weren't scarred for life by John Kerry's loss.

      --
      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. uh huh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure you did. "see? we're reasonable! snowden IS a reactionary traitor!" Why link to the muffington boast anyway? That's like linking to worldnetdaily.

  3. Sure you did.. by jaygridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bullshit.

    1. Re:Sure you did.. by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if the NSA was considering terminating these programs due to cost, that's not the same as terminating them because domestic surveillance exceeds the NSA's mandate. It's kind of like saying that we don't jail people for homosexuality because the prisons would cost too much: while the argument does end the injustice in the short term, it leaves open the possibility of it returning in a way that a moral argument doesn't.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Sure you did.. by jaygridley · · Score: 0

      Assuming they ever actually considered ending it at all, which is unlikely.

    3. Re:Sure you did.. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Oh, I have no doubt they considered ending it. Probably in a "how much power would we lose if" type scenario but consideration likely was there at some point.

    4. Re:Sure you did.. by infolation · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was contemplating ending my burglary career, but one of my accomplices grassed me up to the cops. So I sent the lads after him, and then decided my illegal housebreaking spree must continue with renewed vigour.

      The moral? Snitches get stitches.

    5. Re:Sure you did.. by mattventura · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising. They probably considered ending phone surveillance because internet surveillance is more important.

    6. Re:Sure you did.. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      If you know anything about government projects... anything at all... then you know that even the most successful programs are often cancelled, defunded, and split up for reasons that one can simply not apply logic to. I have no doubt that there were those in the NSA that were fighting vigorously to shit can this program... simply because it wasn't their pet project, or they wants its funds, or they hated the PM...

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    7. Re:Sure you did.. by gizmod · · Score: 1

      ^ This. This is why I still come here, hahaha.

  4. But now we can all go fuck ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Snowden blew the whistle, now they're going to dig their heels in more, and continue to track everyone.

    Why would they ever stop?

    1. Re:But now we can all go fuck ourselves by bmo · · Score: 2

      Since Snowden blew the whistle, now they're going to dig their heels in more, and continue to track everyone.

      The world really does work by "toddler logic" and passive-aggressive bullshit.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:But now we can all go fuck ourselves by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      They were never going to to begin with. You're an ignoramus to believe otherwise.

  5. The Agency That Really Cares About You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA

    1. Re: The Agency That Really Cares About You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it *does* stand for No Such Agency!

  6. This should be the common case, though. by shess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Big deal. If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're doing a good job. Just that "Oh, yeah, we considered cancelling that program" is a stupid comment which doesn't excuse anything. Most likely they kept the program more because you don't give up power and money once you have it, and they really didn't care about efficacy.

    1. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

      Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

    2. Re:This should be the common case, though. by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a stupid comment, it's a comment designed to lull credulous people into thinking they're less evil than they really are. That's evil in itself of course, but is par for the course for a three letter agency - goes without saying, really.

    3. Re:This should be the common case, though. by sjames · · Score: 1

      That and they couldn't get Alexander to stop running around in his new 6 million dollar mockup of the Enterprise bridge making whooshing sounds long enough to discuss it with him.

    4. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Blrfl · · Score: 2

      If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

      Govvies don't operate that way. They measure their worth by the dollar value of the programs they oversee. This makes the incentives completely bass-ackwards.

    5. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No but casting blame lets those that think of Snowden as a traitor add an extra point to their arguments, which they will eagerly do. "It's all his fault we're doing this. We would have stopped otherwise. Honest."

      Fact is they would have continued regardless, for the reasons others have already mentioned. And none of them have anything to do with Snowden.

    6. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

      The saddest part is how often I see parallels in Star Trek: DS9 to the various things that happen today with terrorism, state surveillance, etc. Obviously, it was more of a space soap opera than other Star Treks, and the whole spy story aspect was often played up to make spying look good or a necessary evil, but it seems an almost antithetical view of spy dramas in the 50s/60s and the general view of government's involvement. Honestly, James Bond relying upon near cartoonish villainy reminds me as much of Captain Planet as anything.

      Even the more "serious" versions like "Danger Man" still suffer from the general problem of overly rewarding the aspects of the whole affair. Honestly, by the very terms of the Geneva Conventions almost everyone at the NSA has more reason to be in a Gitmo prison than the current prisoners. That there's some sort of belief that it's all for the common good while desecrating the very values the country is founded on and supports makes the whole notion of flag burning as an offense laughable. And I think that's why it sort of comes full circle. We, as a country, are more interested in the fiction of harm that a TV show or a flag burning causes while we outright fund acts directly counter to our country's long-term well being all in the name of some vague notion that it's a necessity because, you know, every other country does it.

      God help us if that sort of logic had went with Jefferson and Washington and all the other founding fathers. We'd have never had a democratic republic as the last one before that, Greece, fell a long time ago.

    7. Re: This should be the common case, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not even so much that. It's that if you budget responsibly then obviously you don't need your budget, so it gets slashed. Meanwhile the guy across the hall who has gone way over budget obviously didn't get enough money. It's fucked up and should really be the other way around... Punish people who can't manage their budget and reward the responsible ones for actually making good decisions.

      I worked in the DoD as a civilian for several years and it was like this in every department I knew. It was a serious drain for morale knowing that if you did the right thing you would be punished.

    8. Re: This should be the common case, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. I contracted for govt for a little while and was apalled to find the same thing - If you don't spend all your budget, it means you didn't need it, so it gets cut next year. There was one project which had been hugely delayed (by beauracracy and incompetence unrelated to the project itself) and had a 2-year-old $10,000 server which was sitting in the corner unused, waiting for the project to get to the point where hardware was needed. They had to buy it because it was in that year's budget and if they had waited until they needed it they wouldn't have been able to afford it, despite the fact that the hardware had gotten cheaper and better in the intervening 2 years. Total madness.

      But it wasn't all bad - mid year, since we hadn't spent all of our budget, we suddenly got brand new, super-powerful workstations, even though our current ones were perfectly fine, and we had a nice day of "team training" which involved an open bar. Good use of tax dollars.

  7. "We mulled..." by surfdaddy · · Score: 2

    ...which means "we thought about it in passing, but really never had any serious intention of changing. We are after all an intelligence agency and there is no way we are going to REDUCE the information we get (voluntarily)."

    1. Re:"We mulled..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an *easy* way to think about it too. Think of your grandma. Would you pay someone to spy on your grandmother? In some cases there are people who say 'hell yeah and here is a list why'. But for 99.9% of everyone else they would look at you and say 'wtf dude?!'.

      The programs would 100% be easy to justify too. Trot out the thousands of cases you have solved doing this. Stop doing parallel construction. Show us what you are doing. If it is the 'right thing' then it will stand on its own. If not then PERHAPS it is shady and you should stop doing it.

      Basically 'dont be a skevy dick'.

    2. Re:"We mulled..." by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Intelligence agencies cancel programs all the time. Or do you think every program ever started is still going on?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:"We mulled..." by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

      Which TLA do you work for?

    4. Re:"We mulled..." by dryeo · · Score: 1

      He's right, programs get replaced by better more efficient programs. As an example I bet that the NSA hasn't sent someone up a telephone pole to physically tap a phone line in ages as that got replaced by co-locating at the phone company. Tapping telegraph lines also likely got canceled.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:"We mulled..." by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Don't believe it. They just want to distract your attention from Telegraphgate.

  8. You got caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're lying.

  9. Key Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two former senior NSA officials say they doubt Alexander would have approved it.

    So NSA insiders wanted it to stop, but knew the leadership would never allow it to stop.

    By 2013, some NSA officials were ready to stop the bulk collection even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of U.S. calling records. As always, the FBI still would be able to obtain the phone records of suspects through a court order.

    This is consistent with Stasi behavior. Rank-and-file knew it was evil, but the leaders would not let them stop without personal consequences for the people trying to stop it.

  10. I mulled laying off soda before I got fat. by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    I also mulled laying off gambling before I went broke.

    Therefore I am, morally speaking, thin and rich.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. So now we're supposed to believe by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that it's stopped.

    Mm hmmm.

    (google "disinformation")

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:So now we're supposed to believe by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, that's why they built their vast data center in the middle-of-nowhere Utah. Because they were shutting down the program.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:So now we're supposed to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phone records are passe. It's all about mirroring the internet.

    3. Re:So now we're supposed to believe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So now we're supposed to believe

      that it's stopped.

      Mm hmmm.

      (google "disinformation")

      There's no need to "google "disinformation"" since you've just demonstrated it. There is nothing claiming that NSA stopped the program. You just made that up, it's a straw man you use to spread FUD.

      Sadly your comment is all too typical of the quality of comments in discussions of this subject matter. But hey! At least your lying FUD is popular, whereas the truth seldom is.

      How do you think that will work out in the long run, basing positions and policy stands on lies and misinformation? I'm betting not well if practiced too widely.

      --
      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. Villain? On what planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone with any sense of justice views Snowden as a hero, period. Only corrupt or power-hungry officials and companies, and their cronies, have levied any substantial criticism as Snowden.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiGwAvd5mvM

    Also, Snowden changed the way even the tech savvy view the internet and privacy. An awful lot simply ignored the issue, just hoping FISA court did something. And even those who accepted the most likely scenario of creeping fascism and corruption went from viewing real cryptography, aka open source cryptography, as merely important to as something they could earn a living doing.

  13. Their latest psyops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are just getting lazy.

  14. uh huh by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to know that the value of american citizen's privacy never factored in, just the cost to the federal budget.

    1. Re:uh huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, maybe because they only pretend to
      and for the foreigners, they dont even pretend

      couldnt happen to a more deserving people.

    2. Re:uh huh by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      While it is nice to believe that they care about our privacy, the reality is that spooks only care about their budgets and information. Their focus on what they do, day to day, is about the same in just about any field. The talk about rights and The American People, comes from the political hacks running the agencies and Congress.

      Sometimes, I am sure, someone speaks up about this or that privacy issue, sort of like someone always has to point out that "this is waterfall, not Agile", and the rest of them roll their eyes and tell that guy to get back to work because they need to get the project done sometime this century.

  15. Sure they were... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    And yea... we were going to end the surveillance program anyway... yea! That's the ticket!

    And we were going to stop illegal wire taps and sneaking back doors into our commercial products.

    Yea... because our girlfriend... Candice Swanepoel didn't want us too.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  16. Considered ending the program? Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were already starting the colossal new data center used to store and process the intercepts. No government agency would cancel a program after the money was allocated and careers were tied to the project.

  17. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that convienient. How does snowden leaking what was going on make it more effective to continue post leak?

  18. But Then We Said "Nahhhh!" by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bro-fisted, chest-bumped and laughed our asses off! I mean, stop doing what we do best? That'll be the day.

  19. Sounds plausible by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a sanitary control in a restaurant I witnessed, when the inspectors came in, the owner said:

    "I was just going to change the fat in the fryer when you walked in."

  20. Petulant Children by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.,

    So they could have said, "OK, you know what, you're right. The benefits of this program are outweighed by its costs, the American people have a right to be involved in the decision about surveillance, and we are going to shut the program down." They would have been the bigger men, demonstrating that standing united is more important than ego.

    But instead, they cried, "NO! If it's your idea, if you're trying to force us to stop, well then FUCK YOU! We'll do what we want, whether you like it or not! YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO!" Like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum. Can't back down from a fight, that might make them look like they don't have a giant chip on their shoulders.

  21. we need to come together as a society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and execute everyone who works for the NSA as a warning to future tyrants.

    1. Re:we need to come together as a society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to come together as a society and fully fund the mental health infrastructure to provide adequate assistance for poor unfortunates like you.

    2. Re:we need to come together as a society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kill yourself

    3. Re:we need to come together as a society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get help.

  22. Picking sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Snowden's not really a traitor. Despite him revealing government secrets to the world, he mostly did it because he thought he was doing something good for the populace at large. Since the country is not defined solely as the government, he can't really be a traitor when he was doing it for the good of the rest of the country.

    On a scale of heroes (I definitely don't believe he's a hero, but I like the analogy I'm about to make), he's a Captain America. Meanwhile, the NSA are filling Iron Man's boots. The rest of the country just wants to be Spiderman, and they're split over which side to choose, although it seems like the Captain America side is kind of blatantly meant to look like the good guys.

  23. That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "domestic surveillance exceeds the NSA's mandate." - by TheGavster (774657) on Sunday March 29, 2015 @05:18PM (#49366701) Homepage

    See subject & what I quoted from you above: Imo, it'd make it illegal due to that - however, I don't feel they care one way or another... why?

    Legal or not, the entire thing is *REALLY* for blackmailing due to what you have noted the most - who's the REAL targets? Heck, anyone really IF they give a hoot about "their image" & on THAT note??

    Who gives a hoot about that, the MOST???

    POLITICIANS!

    (Yes, many of them ARE imo, controlled thus, & 'dance on a string' to big money that sponsored their campaigns, even President Obama said that recently (to get out & vote) - however, SOME OF THEM WILL & DO "GET OUTTA LINE" - look @ Johnny Kennedy God Rest his soul & we all know the results there... They're just men & being men, everyone has 'faults' that can & DO get 'exploited' thus - especially during re-election time... they don't even HAVE TO DO IT DIRECTLY, just 'drop a line' with proofs thereof to a political opponent & BOOM... no chance for re-election).

    APK

    P.S.=> No chance of re-election AS LONG AS FOLKS IN THE USA RESPOND TO "He does this & did that" that doesn't apply to HIS JOB (as a political leader) but instead who he screws or how much he drinks or "if he inhaled" etc. ... that has ZERO TO DO with their job, as long as they do their job right (looking @ the results out there? You tell me if they are doing it well or not, I say no - especially economically).

    Heck, reminds me of the tale when Abe Lincoln was told "General Grant is a drunk, get rid of thim!" by other FAR LESS SUCCESSFUL jealous generals (he later became president too)!

    Lincoln asked "What does he drink?" & they told him (insert booze type here) & BOUGHT EACH OF THEM A CASE OF IT for Christmas (since Grant was a great commander) essentially telling them "Be more like him, and drink this & PERHAPS THEN YOU WILL BE AS GOOD AS HE IS!"... apk

    1. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not susceptible to government surveillance. I edited my hosts file to include

      127.0.0.1 nsa.gov

      NOW I'M SUPER SECURE thanks to APK hosts file!

    2. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have anything better to say or do than be an online ac imbecile?

    3. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says an online AC imbecile

    4. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says more of an online AC imbecile

    5. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'm going to stop responding to myself now.

    6. Re:That's what bugged me also... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good

  24. We were totally gonna stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We started to feel ... you know... all squishy inside.... what is that "e" word again? electronic surveillance! Oh no wait... ethics.

  25. Re: Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U mad, nsa?

  26. Forced hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forced their hand? So they have stopped? TA, sure, believe this.

  27. "No seriously, we were going to stop as soon as yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing how they can show remorse without ever stopping.

  28. "forced the agency's hand" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How, exactly, did he force their hand?

    They haven't stopped. Did he force them not to stop?

  29. "It depends on who you ask"? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    I wonder who the article writer has been asking--his grandparents? Fox news? Because Snowden's been vindicated in the eyes of virtually everyone that doesn't bathe in television.

  30. I guess that's true, the rest is burocracy by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    They did think of getting rid of the data collection program, and they probably continue anyways.
    Not because of some secret agenda or whatever thing conspiracy theorists think about but for lowly bureaucratic reasons.

    The NSA maybe a technically advanced secret government agency, it is still an administrative service plenty of people who want to keep their job and think they are very important. It's the same thing as in all big structures, really.
    And what happens when someone decides to stop a multi-billion dollar program ? Some people will get laid off, or at least pulled out of their comfort zone. And when some of these people have significant influence, well, they can make it so that they keep their budget. This happens all the time and it is a problem, but it is even worse with rightfully secret agencies like the NSA because it makes it easier to hide less rightful arrangements. Plus, unlike private companies, government organizations don't need to make benefits.

  31. I am glad that they were considering the benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is good In a democracy they considered the cost of spying on their own people as opposed to the obvious infringements on peoples rights, and what every Government agency should have - some transparency.

  32. nsa strategic mass deception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is written is such a way to hide the programs of NSA, to downplay and mask the issue. NSA surveillance is already publically exposed as sucking up 100% of data passing through the United States, 80% of data world wide, while other countries suck up the rest under their own programs. Cellphones, wirelines, internet, protocols and all, plus satellite surveillance is in use. Quite honestly without some documents to back this up, and some dated video and audio recordings and stuff, NSA employees probably didn't even try to have any of this shut down. This sounds like a junk story. Also while some hickdicks might feel what they were doing was wrong, that makes sense, their voices by no means reflect anything the powers that be feel. That means you are zooming into this mess and taking it out of context but ultimately the data reported on meant nothing.

    William Binney NSA whistleblower trumps Huffington Post: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/video.php?id=ZmW-f-i_ri8

    Wanna know about NSAs secrets in the black world, special access programs, what one of their surveillance and warfare system architects has to say? http://www.drrobertduncan.com/

    Dun forget that our government looks out into the public and then concocts every bit of data we are given to go with the story, for maximum acceptance, while all the real story and data are never provided. They call it Strategic Mass Deception. Don't believe anything you hear about this gargage, it is all a lie, cannot be verified as true or untrue but we do tend to know its always a blanket of lie.

  33. Clapper's Girlfriend by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    "He promised he wouldn't cum in my mouth! Promised!"

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  34. Hoy Hoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you did not!

    So Hilly-Billy's [Hillary RODHAM Clinton's] e-mails are ... recoverable!

    Why?

    You copied them in 'flight' !

    Ha ha.

    Perverts at NSA

  35. Searchable database of blackmail information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why else would they do something that produces no security benefit?

    These programs are CIA-NSA-military's power : they can affect any political decisin anywhere on earth, their database tells them who to call and what delicate hints to drop into the conversation.

    'Our' Congressional representatives stopped representing their constituents a while back, NSA has not been called to account. Neocons have taken over control of foreign policy.

    NSA's database is part of the answer, I think.

  36. Told my girlfriend the same thing about the cheati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't see what the big deal is? I felt bad the *whole time* I was cheating on her! Why is she so unreasonable?

  37. Forced their hand? They're still collecting data! by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    So the principle is "the public must be denied all power!"???

    How did Snowden force their hand, since they're refusing to end the data collection program? He forced them to keep it? Because now that the public knows, the public must be denied freedom at all costs? Because F**K the public, keep the public from having any say is the principle?

  38. Re:Told my girlfriend the same thing about the che by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the logic of the article is "now that she knows that I cheated I am forced to continue cheating forever, because F**K HER what makes her think she has a say. Because the guy who told on me is a traitor and we can't reward traitors. Also I'll send him to the hospital if he comes out of hiding"

    That's the logic of the article.

  39. He doesn't: Want to know why?... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's some slashdouche I've spanked before on hosts & stalks by ac posts since he's still butthurt over it.

    * Yes, he has a "registered 'luser'" account too, & I'd love to tell you specifically which one, but there's been SO DAMN MANY of "his kind" (weasel "ne'er-do-wells" wannabes) here, I couldn't begin to tell you since they're ALL the same!

    APK

    P.S.=> I take heart in 1 thing - the fact the dolt doing it IS still "ReAcTinG" & butthurt... lol, wasting his time on that rather than doing something decent in software as I have - then again, I'm expecting such wastes of life to be on my level as equals/peers... they're not, no questions asked (massively inferior is more like it, & they KNOW it)... apk

    1. Re:He doesn't: Want to know why?... apk by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I'm confused as to why you sign your posts yet post as AC.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  40. GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The collection program is the tip of the iceberg. The comments and changes by Obama after the leaks leave the door wide open, only severing to deflect criticism and muddy the water with propaganda.

  41. Oh we're so sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. that you got caught and had your "hand forced".

    Buncha fuckwits.

  42. Re:Villain? On what planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone with any sense of justice views Snowden as a hero, period

    period is not an argument, leave it out next time.

  43. Mulled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we *mulled* it over, and did nothing. Please give us partial credit!

  44. WTF by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Mark Wilson writes Edward Snowden is heralded as both a hero and villain. A privacy vigilante and a traitor. It just depends who you ask.

    Such as the jailers instead of the prisoners?

  45. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call "Bullshit".

  46. Good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the NSA uses Ed as an excuse to end mass phone surveillance, then good to the greater part of humanity or presumably only Americans (who is the only nationality with constitutional rights according to Congress), that is, if we can trust them.

    The only undeniable truth in this story is that the NSA is somewhat bothered by by the bad publicity and they are now venturing into public relations announcements because they feel the pressure. This also implies that they are very much aware of their own history of scandalous revelations, and with that, the fact that public opinion shifts decade to decade, and politicians alternately either cry out for more surveillance or or enforcement of our constitutional rights.

    As we can't have Democratic rights without free speech and free access to information and right to privacy, NSA severely hamper their own usefulness if the public opinion is against them.

  47. Theodoric of Ft. Meade by T.E.D. · · Score: 1
    It happened in one meeting, chaired by Theodoric of Ft. Meade, NSA Subdirector. Here's a transcript Snowden smuggled out:

    "Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the intelligence traditions and superstitions of past decades. Maybe we intelligence agents should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method", with a respectful eye towards our citizen's privacy. Maybe this privacy could be extended to other branches of government: medicine, the IRS, lawmaking, social services, law enforcement. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!...Naaaaaahhh!"

  48. I believe this, absolutely by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And if you do, too, then I have this *great* little moneymaker for sale, I just can't move right now, but there's this bridge that you can set a tollbooth up on, in a northeastern city.....

                        mark