Very well put. I have no problem giving up a little personal privacy (giving the government my phone number) to add my cell phone to a list that receives texts when an Amber Alert is sent out in my state, because there is the potential to save someone's life. I do have a problem with the government publishing how many firearms I have in my house because that puts me and my neighbors at risk of home burglary or getting into the situation where I need to defend myself with said firearms.
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism." Most mindless sheep would say that it is ok to sacrifice anything, to prevent terrorism.
That's not the problem. The problem is what the government can/will do with the information when the political climate is favorable to the party in charge. Say for example, pull every phone call and e-mail from a political opponent to conduct opposition research. Or find out who has a gun in their house, and enact nationwide confiscation. Or scan their e-mails for keywords to indicate someone's political beliefs, and investigating or auditing those people because they disagree with the political party in charge.
That is the danger. Not terrorism from outside, from terrorism conducted by our own government.
No real way to tell, to be honest. Unless you take a trip to the Taco Bell right outside of Fort Meade and hope that some analyst decides to talk about work while eating a Doritos Locos taco.
You seem to have missed the "and such" part of my statement. There is other information, besides classification markings, that serve to verify that the presentation did in fact come from within the NSA.
It is legitimate because the Powerpoint presentation contains pieces of information which could only be known by someone who was working within the NSA and had a familiarity with their systems. So perhaps I should say "the Powerpoint is a legitimate NSA document because of certain stylistic components and small pieces of information present within it which would only be known by someone working within the NSA."
Because each line did not have a classification marking (lazy contractors, I assume), it is impossible to tell which parts exactly are NOFORN or not. However, that means that all information within the slideshow is considered to be of the security level of the Powerpoint as a whole.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. I am going to assume some lazy Lockheed Martin contractor threw these slides together 10 minutes before some meeting, therefore their accuracy could easily be in question. I mean, the classification marking are supposed to be centered. How hard is it to click one button?
If you read the Powerpoint, you will notice that the PRISM program was classified as TOPSECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN . The NOFORN part means that other agencies, from the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, do not have access to that information. GCHQ may have had access to the data acquired, but based on the NSA's own documents, the GCHQ was not privy to the source or method of collecting that data.
"You are wrong, but I am not going to tell you HOW you are wrong"
From reading the Powerpoint, I came to a few conclusions. First, the news reports about the details of the program are accurate. Second, the Powerpoint is legitimate, albeit amateur for someone to disregard the standard stylistic guidelines for information that has classifications on it. Third, the full Powerpoint presentation will be declassified in 2037, so do not hold your breath for all the details.
Slashdot Mirror
You have obviously not had enough coffee this morning.
Very well put. I have no problem giving up a little personal privacy (giving the government my phone number) to add my cell phone to a list that receives texts when an Amber Alert is sent out in my state, because there is the potential to save someone's life. I do have a problem with the government publishing how many firearms I have in my house because that puts me and my neighbors at risk of home burglary or getting into the situation where I need to defend myself with said firearms.
Will Ubuntu Touch come with the NSA backdoor, or is that going to be an aftermarket upgrade?
When Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore and Van Jones all agree on something, you can definitely say that the issue is non-partisan and actually transcends politics. That should tell the American people all they need to know.
Hey Cousins,
Can we get a refund? I don't have the receipt anymore, but I would like to at least get some store credit.
From, An American subject
The American 2-Party system of corrupt politicians have done more to harm amerika than Muslims ever did. They're the ones we should be monitoring.
FTFY
Glad that one of the mindless Obama sheep has finally opened their eyes to the truth.
Hope you don't 'look' gay...
That would be a compliment by today's standards.
There is no better quote to describe what is going on right now, and what has been going on for years, than that of Herman Goering.
I believe the poll results, but only for one reason. Because the responses were framed in the context of "to fight terrorism." Most mindless sheep would say that it is ok to sacrifice anything, to prevent terrorism.
That's not the problem. The problem is what the government can/will do with the information when the political climate is favorable to the party in charge. Say for example, pull every phone call and e-mail from a political opponent to conduct opposition research. Or find out who has a gun in their house, and enact nationwide confiscation. Or scan their e-mails for keywords to indicate someone's political beliefs, and investigating or auditing those people because they disagree with the political party in charge.
That is the danger. Not terrorism from outside, from terrorism conducted by our own government.
It needs a robot arm. So that I can buy my Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets at the grocery store without ever leaving my house.
No real way to tell, to be honest. Unless you take a trip to the Taco Bell right outside of Fort Meade and hope that some analyst decides to talk about work while eating a Doritos Locos taco.
You seem to have missed the "and such" part of my statement. There is other information, besides classification markings, that serve to verify that the presentation did in fact come from within the NSA.
In accordance with your own stupid "failure codes", your entire article receives a SUPERFAIL!
What? That's disgusting! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
It is legitimate because the Powerpoint presentation contains pieces of information which could only be known by someone who was working within the NSA and had a familiarity with their systems. So perhaps I should say "the Powerpoint is a legitimate NSA document because of certain stylistic components and small pieces of information present within it which would only be known by someone working within the NSA."
I just happen to know a guy....
To clarify, I meant the markings on the Powerpoint, not necessarily the information in the presentation. Classification markings and such.
First page of the presentation has a block that says "declassification date"
Because each line did not have a classification marking (lazy contractors, I assume), it is impossible to tell which parts exactly are NOFORN or not. However, that means that all information within the slideshow is considered to be of the security level of the Powerpoint as a whole.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. I am going to assume some lazy Lockheed Martin contractor threw these slides together 10 minutes before some meeting, therefore their accuracy could easily be in question. I mean, the classification marking are supposed to be centered. How hard is it to click one button?
If you read the Powerpoint, you will notice that the PRISM program was classified as TOPSECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN . The NOFORN part means that other agencies, from the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, do not have access to that information. GCHQ may have had access to the data acquired, but based on the NSA's own documents, the GCHQ was not privy to the source or method of collecting that data.
"You are wrong, but I am not going to tell you HOW you are wrong"
From reading the Powerpoint, I came to a few conclusions. First, the news reports about the details of the program are accurate. Second, the Powerpoint is legitimate, albeit amateur for someone to disregard the standard stylistic guidelines for information that has classifications on it. Third, the full Powerpoint presentation will be declassified in 2037, so do not hold your breath for all the details.
Why would the Amish need a court system? They have the Amish Mafia to protect them.
The Earth is only 6,000 years old. Or so says this guy
No cherry pick, you claimed "the civil rights movement (opposed by conservatives like Goldwater)"
I merely pointed out the fact that you were wrong, that Goldwater supported every other version of the Civil Rights Act except 1964.
World of Warcraft: Killing boar in the forest