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.
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.
Bullshit.
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
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.
...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)."
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.
that it's stopped.
Mm hmmm.
(google "disinformation")
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Nice to know that the value of american citizen's privacy never factored in, just the cost to the federal budget.
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.
Bro-fisted, chest-bumped and laughed our asses off! I mean, stop doing what we do best? That'll be the day.
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."
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"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
They were never going to to begin with. You're an ignoramus to believe otherwise.
Forced their hand? So they have stopped? TA, sure, believe this.
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.
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.
"He promised he wouldn't cum in my mouth! Promised!"
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Such as the jailers instead of the prisoners?
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
"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!"
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