If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Espionage is how wars are prevented. We'd have a world war constantly for hundreds of years if not for the spy wars. World War 1 would never have ended.
Wars are prevented when leaders of countries actually sit down and try to work out relationships with countries, without the intent of screwing them over for gain.
How can you negotiate someone without knowing all their secrets? Governments have secrets and espionage is how negotiations can take place. If you don't know the other persons secrets you cannot know what the truth is and then how do you know what is or isn't fair?
Maybe because a random anyone doesn't even compare to US in power, surveillance technology and a whole lot of other things that matter.
You don't know that. Did you measure everyones power? Does it even matter how much power any particular snooper has? A random anyone is just as much of a threat as any government. I have no preference or bias toward or against any particular government or any particular spy. They all have the same functions, act relatively the same, share information with each other, etc.
You can't trust any government or institution. You can't trust any closed source software or anything which is not transparent.
Am I the only one seeing a war on information soon descending upon us?
Governments, once they realize the full breadth & capability of the US surveillance, and the fact that they themselves are vulnerable, and not only their citizen... they will soon decide to take action! And of course the US, having the confrontation with China in mind (and that it cannot weaken its position in such a critical time), will not back down easily.
Net neutrality is the first that could go, but I'm not sure it will be the last.
Do you think that Snowden will prove to be the trigger to the 3rd WW? (but an information/electronic one this time)
You think they didn't know that already? They knew before you did.
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Espionage is how wars are prevented. We'd have a world war constantly for hundreds of years if not for the spy wars. World War 1 would never have ended.
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.
You're saying you don't mind if the government has access to absolutely everything you do, when at any time they could use that information to put you in jail - or at least make your life miserable - for years?
If they want to get you on something or make up a case they can.
Yes, but if they have a target they can analyze the data with respect to that target. If you get on their radar they can pull up & analyze everything they have on you. And it's cheap to store massive amounts of data. What it comes down to is the government will have supreme power over anybody they don't like... which is not a good thing.
They should just analyze every bit of information they receive. I don't have a problem with the NSA collecting information about me. My problem is what they could be intending to do with it. They are saving our lives forever in the databases and storing it forever, and often there are leaks like with Snowden. So if Snowden can leak all this, what happens to all the stuff the NSA has on us over the years? Could someday someone at the NSA decide to go rogue and leak it all?
When you're focused on sucking in everything, you're not focusing on analyzing anything. Somehow, we didn't have the resources available to keep the Boston bombers under surveillance, but we have the resources to keep 300+ million innocent citizens under watch.
Computers analyze everything. Artificial intelligence will handle that problem and already is. The problem is the system must not be very effective if random people are being picked out.
correction, you do not have to name yourself, but you need to be pseudo-anonymous enough that you have an identity even if its virtual and you need at least a digital signature. You cannot be completely anonymous and be taken seriously.
Anonymous sources is not considered journalism. That is just rumor mongering.
the existing infrastructure is too closely controlled by the government and corporations
there needs to be peer to peer mesh networking which integrates with the current technology until we can wean ourselves off of the "controlled" infrastructure
large organizations are the enemy of individual freedom
But we cannot do that for everything. For stuff which isn't important it can be anonymous. For just chatter and discussion it can be anonymous. But when you want to actually make decisions or actually do things then there has to be accountability.
You can be anonymous in what you read or say if it's not taken seriously. But if you want to be taken seriously then you cannot be anonymous. If you're reporting a crime you can be pseudo-anonymous but if you want to secure a conviction then you have to name names and if you do that then you have to name yourself.
Well *thats* going to work. Say that to the rest of the world. While I agree with the sentiment, this is done by every good government and every bad government. People are getting upset at one or two countries that are effectively now the focal point for the mob.
I'd rather lobby for better oversight.
Its like arguing that Iran/NK should give up their nukes. Hehe.... *thats* successful.
Fact, that tech isnt going anywhere and its already in use by the side stealing IP from your endorsed pyramid scheme... er pension fund.
The only point that can be influenced is oversight to ensure that the middle class doesnt get undermined by corporate interests. Hell, that has the republicans scared (and they seem to be the advocate of small government). Even if it were to be shut down, it'd start up sometime in the future but under some other guise of a different technology (someone somewhere will lose the plot - damn fanatics).
Unfortunately this type of tech has been put to use by far more calculated governments (china, etc).
I actually agree we need more oversight and should be lobbying for that. But most people don't understand that every government will spy on them and that its not about good and bad. You get a choice as to which government gets to spy on you but they all share information with each other anyway.
FISA is way to entrenched to be simply eliminated after 35 years. Hell even when NSLs were initially created with the 1978 FISA act they were actually voluntary to respond to and there were no codified penalties for not complying. They were also extremely limited in scope for whom they could be used by and against. It wasn't until the 2001 FISA amendments as part of the Patriot Act that NSLs got especially heinous.
Just because no penalties are codified on the document it doesn't mean unwritten penalties don't exist. Any time you piss a bunch of powerful people off there is a penalty whether it is written into the law or not.
So they wont use US based servers and services? So where are they going to go? Any country they go to will have a government with a 3 letter agency spying on the servers and services and passing it to the NSA.
Not only that but the NSA could use other means to spy on multinationals and turn them into NSA friendly multinationals.
The only way to win this is to get FISA eliminated. Without first eliminating the gag orders and the Star Chamber...I mean FISA courts, we cannot succeed on the whole.
How is it better to not have a FISA court at all? We need a top secret surveillance court. I think FISA just needs to be empowered and more focused on defending civil liberties.
Drop this idea of the "government" as some evil alien entity with unknown motives. The issue here is that the NSA is being a bunch of assbags to internet companies.. At the behest of other companies. In this case, security services contractors. Why does everyone forget the warnings about the Military Industrial Complex? This is the Security Industrial Complex and we're throwing away our freedoms so some slimy fucks can make a buck. There is a reason most of our "generals" are desk jockeys whose' primary job is shuffling papers and securing funding.
Some say never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. I say never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by greed.
The point is there is still no way to defend yourself against a pissed off or curious NSA. if the NSA is pissed off you're done. If they are curious they'll learn everything about everything, including all about your life, your friends and family. There is nothing you can do to defend yourself against an agency that knows everything you do. What are you supposed to do? Tell them no and hope they play nice?
As a result everyone cooperates with any government agency. If you're in China or Russia you're not going to fight the FSB or the Chinese communist party. If you're in the USA you're not going to fight the NSA. But at least in the USA you have some rights and the NSA cannot legally spy on you, if you're in a foreign country then the NSA can legally spy on you and not only can you not fight the NSA but the NSA can use everything you ever did to convince you to cooperate.
So how exactly is it realistic for anyone not to cooperate with agencies that have so much power? You can cooperate or be destroyed trying to fight. The destruction of your business, but possibly of your personal life as well, most people aren't going to risk it.
It's not like there is equal power here and there is any way to put up much of a fight. Either they give the information to the NSA or the NSA takes the information. It's a lot easier to sell it than to deal with the hostile takeover or the underhanded means or the legal offensive. The average CEO is defenseless not only against the NSA but against any government agency.
Fighting is only a symbolic gesture. There is nothing anyone can do really to stop the NSA from getting what it wants.
So what is the point of scaring people by giving dirty secrets to the media? The media can't stop any of it.
That's why the media is supposed to be the fourth estate. Keep the people informed so they vote with their...votes.
That's the theory. ATM the US media is in dire straits. Either they give the consumers what they want. Which seems to be news about people, bite-sized snappy headlines and barely justifiable opinions. Background information seems to take the back seat. Which is why bloggers and Twitter are such a big threat since journalism now has such a low quality standard that anybody can do it. And the other side of the "informed public" medal is the public. Voters tend to judge their officials by their words, not by their deeds. Take Obama for instance. While campaigning for his first term he said some very nice things. But now he is just another lawyer who made it big in politics. Guantanamo Bay still is synonymous with a travesty of justice. Extra-judicial killings via drones has become worse. He started a war on whistleblowers(but not on corporate whistleblowers, the DOJ still hands out a nice percentage of the takings to them). Federal law still is an overcriminalized vague mess and it is becoming worse. Foreign relations are still damaged. And they are not damaged because they were caught. They are damaged for what they did. He faced a major rebellion in the house over the NSA spying affair and yet he has the gall to make light of it on some late night TV talk show. That performance propably earned him a couple of brownie points with the public but not by doing something about the sad state the US currently is in.
Obama is a major disappointment. Everybody had assumed he knew better than that. For goodness sake, he has a strong background in constitutional law. And yet right under his nose all of the above happened. If W feigned ignorance on all that everybody would concur. Obama does not have that luxury.
Please cite the Constitution. What specific quote says the media is the fourth estate?
Even if the Constitution said that, the media has absolutely no power and no authority to make arrests. What good is telling the media if the media cannot arrest anyone?
You can do whatever you want within your borders, and choose the rules you want to live by. But don't take your stupid decisions out on everyone else. And for the love of god, EU & UN, stand up to this bully.
While it is true what you wrote a lot of these things were done by proxy. Supposedly to keep their hands clean and stay on the right side of the law(whichever side that may be).The result is that a lot of other countries are complicit.
Most of the Western World has cooperated with the US in their spying. Because ter'rists OHMIGOD!
A lot of the torturing was done by third party countries that were not so squeamish with CIA officials(or propably inofficials, heh) reaped the results.
We are pretty much all fucked.
So what is the point of scaring people by giving dirty secrets to the media? The media can't stop any of it.
* violated the privacy of Americans and foreigners by collecting information on all their communications, regardless of whether they are being investigated or not
* executes people in foreign countries without any trial
* tortures people in foreign countries without any trial
* invades foreign countries by fabricating evidence
* pursues journalists and whistle-blowers through all possible legal and diplomatic channels of pressure
* arbitrarily withdraws the passport of their own citizens without any legal process
* arbitrarily withdraws the right to fly in the US without any legal process
* demands extradition, trials of foreigners and fair treatment based on international law, but refuses it to others
Then, when these things turn up
* nobody is being held accountable [e.g. Bush, Rumsfeld]
* no compensation for the victims [e.g. torture victims, invaded countries]
* no guarantees it will not happen again
You can do whatever you want within your borders, and choose the rules you want to live by. But don't take your stupid decisions out on everyone else. And for the love of god, EU & UN, stand up to this bully.
I don't believe journalists have any power to stop intelligence agencies or governments from doing anything. Glenn Greenwald is completely ineffective. Snowden leaking to journalists will be completely ineffective. The only way to stop a government is with a government.
Suppose that you have in your neighbourhood someone with a lot of weapons. Then the maid tells you, and gives you evidence, that he stole from you and other people you know, but you don't do anything, because he have weapons, and people could get hurt. But the maid that warned you know from a lot of more things that he did, several probably worse than the things you know already, like, don't know, killed a bunch of friends and have them buried in the backyard, kidnapped some childs and have them enclosed in the basement, and/or that accident that killed your grampa, was him, and wasn't an accident. Would you prefer to keep ignoring what he is doing and risking to be you, or your children their next victims or knowing, reporting him to the police or at least be prepared for when he targets you? You think that things will improve just ignoring what he does?
Unless you know someone bigger with even more weapons to go to for protection then you can't do anything like that if you don't have weapons. Glenn Greenwald can't do a damn thing to stop the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Espionage is how wars are prevented. We'd have a world war constantly for hundreds of years if not for the spy wars. World War 1 would never have ended.
Wars are prevented when leaders of countries actually sit down and try to work out relationships with countries, without the intent of screwing them over for gain.
How can you negotiate someone without knowing all their secrets? Governments have secrets and espionage is how negotiations can take place. If you don't know the other persons secrets you cannot know what the truth is and then how do you know what is or isn't fair?
Maybe because a random anyone doesn't even compare to US in power, surveillance technology and a whole lot of other things that matter.
You don't know that. Did you measure everyones power?
Does it even matter how much power any particular snooper has? A random anyone is just as much of a threat as any government. I have no preference or bias toward or against any particular government or any particular spy. They all have the same functions, act relatively the same, share information with each other, etc.
You can't trust any government or institution. You can't trust any closed source software or anything which is not transparent.
Why would any country trust a closed-sourced product produced by a US Technology firm?
Why would any country trust a closed source product produced by anyone?
Am I the only one seeing a war on information soon descending upon us?
Governments, once they realize the full breadth & capability of the US surveillance, and the fact that they themselves are vulnerable, and not only their citizen... they will soon decide to take action! And of course the US, having the confrontation with China in mind (and that it cannot weaken its position in such a critical time), will not back down easily.
Net neutrality is the first that could go, but I'm not sure it will be the last.
Do you think that Snowden will prove to be the trigger to the 3rd WW? (but an information/electronic one this time)
You think they didn't know that already? They knew before you did.
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Espionage is how wars are prevented. We'd have a world war constantly for hundreds of years if not for the spy wars. World War 1 would never have ended.
The NSA shjouldnt be fucking monitoring the UN. I really hate how everyone thinks it is okie dokie to spy all they want. Spying is an act of WAR.
Spying is how you prevent wars.
How many fucking Bitcoin stories do we have to read?
"The Cook Islands have declared that they are considering the legal status of Bitcoin"
"Senior government official admits to buying a pair of pants using Bitcoin"
"Bitcoin value decreases by 3% - is this the beginning of the end?"
Slashdot does not even accept Bitcoin.
But how would he be in the position to know what they are doing? He was low level.
They should just analyze every bit of information they receive. I don't have a problem with the NSA collecting information about me.
Then you are insane, because you probably commit several felonies a day:
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.
You're saying you don't mind if the government has access to absolutely everything you do, when at any time they could use that information to put you in jail - or at least make your life miserable - for years?
If they want to get you on something or make up a case they can.
Yes, but if they have a target they can analyze the data with respect to that target. If you get on their radar they can pull up & analyze everything they have on you. And it's cheap to store massive amounts of data. What it comes down to is the government will have supreme power over anybody they don't like... which is not a good thing.
They should just analyze every bit of information they receive. I don't have a problem with the NSA collecting information about me. My problem is what they could be intending to do with it. They are saving our lives forever in the databases and storing it forever, and often there are leaks like with Snowden. So if Snowden can leak all this, what happens to all the stuff the NSA has on us over the years? Could someday someone at the NSA decide to go rogue and leak it all?
When you're focused on sucking in everything, you're not focusing on analyzing anything. Somehow, we didn't have the resources available to keep the Boston bombers under surveillance, but we have the resources to keep 300+ million innocent citizens under watch.
Computers analyze everything. Artificial intelligence will handle that problem and already is.
The problem is the system must not be very effective if random people are being picked out.
correction, you do not have to name yourself, but you need to be pseudo-anonymous enough that you have an identity even if its virtual and you need at least a digital signature. You cannot be completely anonymous and be taken seriously.
Anonymous sources is not considered journalism. That is just rumor mongering.
the existing infrastructure is too closely controlled by the government and corporations
there needs to be peer to peer mesh networking which integrates with the current technology until we can wean ourselves off of the "controlled" infrastructure
large organizations are the enemy of individual freedom
But we cannot do that for everything. For stuff which isn't important it can be anonymous. For just chatter and discussion it can be anonymous. But when you want to actually make decisions or actually do things then there has to be accountability.
You can be anonymous in what you read or say if it's not taken seriously. But if you want to be taken seriously then you cannot be anonymous. If you're reporting a crime you can be pseudo-anonymous but if you want to secure a conviction then you have to name names and if you do that then you have to name yourself.
Well *thats* going to work. Say that to the rest of the world. While I agree with the sentiment, this is done by every good government and every bad government. People are getting upset at one or two countries that are effectively now the focal point for the mob.
I'd rather lobby for better oversight.
Its like arguing that Iran/NK should give up their nukes. Hehe.... *thats* successful.
Fact, that tech isnt going anywhere and its already in use by the side stealing IP from your endorsed pyramid scheme... er pension fund.
The only point that can be influenced is oversight to ensure that the middle class doesnt get undermined by corporate interests. Hell, that has the republicans scared (and they seem to be the advocate of small government). Even if it were to be shut down, it'd start up sometime in the future but under some other guise of a different technology (someone somewhere will lose the plot - damn fanatics).
Unfortunately this type of tech has been put to use by far more calculated governments (china, etc).
I actually agree we need more oversight and should be lobbying for that. But most people don't understand that every government will spy on them and that its not about good and bad. You get a choice as to which government gets to spy on you but they all share information with each other anyway.
FISA is way to entrenched to be simply eliminated after 35 years. Hell even when NSLs were initially created with the 1978 FISA act they were actually voluntary to respond to and there were no codified penalties for not complying. They were also extremely limited in scope for whom they could be used by and against. It wasn't until the 2001 FISA amendments as part of the Patriot Act that NSLs got especially heinous.
Just because no penalties are codified on the document it doesn't mean unwritten penalties don't exist. Any time you piss a bunch of powerful people off there is a penalty whether it is written into the law or not.
So they wont use US based servers and services? So where are they going to go? Any country they go to will have a government with a 3 letter agency spying on the servers and services and passing it to the NSA.
Not only that but the NSA could use other means to spy on multinationals and turn them into NSA friendly multinationals.
Eliminate FISA and replace it with what? Tribunals? One guy deciding everyone?
Some form of court has to exist.
The only way to win this is to get FISA eliminated. Without first eliminating the gag orders and the Star Chamber...I mean FISA courts, we cannot succeed on the whole.
How is it better to not have a FISA court at all? We need a top secret surveillance court. I think FISA just needs to be empowered and more focused on defending civil liberties.
Drop this idea of the "government" as some evil alien entity with unknown motives. The issue here is that the NSA is being a bunch of assbags to internet companies.. At the behest of other companies. In this case, security services contractors. Why does everyone forget the warnings about the Military Industrial Complex? This is the Security Industrial Complex and we're throwing away our freedoms so some slimy fucks can make a buck. There is a reason most of our "generals" are desk jockeys whose' primary job is shuffling papers and securing funding.
Some say never attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence. I say never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by greed.
The point is there is still no way to defend yourself against a pissed off or curious NSA. if the NSA is pissed off you're done. If they are curious they'll learn everything about everything, including all about your life, your friends and family. There is nothing you can do to defend yourself against an agency that knows everything you do. What are you supposed to do? Tell them no and hope they play nice?
As a result everyone cooperates with any government agency. If you're in China or Russia you're not going to fight the FSB or the Chinese communist party. If you're in the USA you're not going to fight the NSA. But at least in the USA you have some rights and the NSA cannot legally spy on you, if you're in a foreign country then the NSA can legally spy on you and not only can you not fight the NSA but the NSA can use everything you ever did to convince you to cooperate.
So how exactly is it realistic for anyone not to cooperate with agencies that have so much power? You can cooperate or be destroyed trying to fight. The destruction of your business, but possibly of your personal life as well, most people aren't going to risk it.
It's not like there is equal power here and there is any way to put up much of a fight. Either they give the information to the NSA or the NSA takes the information. It's a lot easier to sell it than to deal with the hostile takeover or the underhanded means or the legal offensive. The average CEO is defenseless not only against the NSA but against any government agency.
Fighting is only a symbolic gesture. There is nothing anyone can do really to stop the NSA from getting what it wants.
And you never knew until MIT rediscovered it.
So what is the point of scaring people by giving dirty secrets to the media? The media can't stop any of it.
That's why the media is supposed to be the fourth estate. Keep the people informed so they vote with their...votes.
That's the theory. ATM the US media is in dire straits. Either they give the consumers what they want. Which seems to be news about people, bite-sized snappy headlines and barely justifiable opinions. Background information seems to take the back seat. Which is why bloggers and Twitter are such a big threat since journalism now has such a low quality standard that anybody can do it. And the other side of the "informed public" medal is the public. Voters tend to judge their officials by their words, not by their deeds. Take Obama for instance. While campaigning for his first term he said some very nice things. But now he is just another lawyer who made it big in politics. Guantanamo Bay still is synonymous with a travesty of justice. Extra-judicial killings via drones has become worse. He started a war on whistleblowers(but not on corporate whistleblowers, the DOJ still hands out a nice percentage of the takings to them). Federal law still is an overcriminalized vague mess and it is becoming worse. Foreign relations are still damaged. And they are not damaged because they were caught. They are damaged for what they did. He faced a major rebellion in the house over the NSA spying affair and yet he has the gall to make light of it on some late night TV talk show. That performance propably earned him a couple of brownie points with the public but not by doing something about the sad state the US currently is in.
Obama is a major disappointment. Everybody had assumed he knew better than that. For goodness sake, he has a strong background in constitutional law. And yet right under his nose all of the above happened. If W feigned ignorance on all that everybody would concur. Obama does not have that luxury.
Please cite the Constitution. What specific quote says the media is the fourth estate?
Even if the Constitution said that, the media has absolutely no power and no authority to make arrests. What good is telling the media if the media cannot arrest anyone?
You can do whatever you want within your borders, and choose the rules you want to live by. But don't take your stupid decisions out on everyone else. And for the love of god, EU & UN, stand up to this bully.
While it is true what you wrote a lot of these things were done by proxy. Supposedly to keep their hands clean and stay on the right side of the law(whichever side that may be).The result is that a lot of other countries are complicit.
Most of the Western World has cooperated with the US in their spying. Because ter'rists OHMIGOD!
A lot of the torturing was done by third party countries that were not so squeamish with CIA officials(or propably inofficials, heh) reaped the results.
We are pretty much all fucked.
So what is the point of scaring people by giving dirty secrets to the media? The media can't stop any of it.
What happened so far:
The US government
* violated the privacy of Americans and foreigners by collecting information on all their communications, regardless of whether they are being investigated or not
* executes people in foreign countries without any trial
* tortures people in foreign countries without any trial
* invades foreign countries by fabricating evidence
* pursues journalists and whistle-blowers through all possible legal and diplomatic channels of pressure
* arbitrarily withdraws the passport of their own citizens without any legal process
* arbitrarily withdraws the right to fly in the US without any legal process
* demands extradition, trials of foreigners and fair treatment based on international law, but refuses it to others
Then, when these things turn up
* nobody is being held accountable [e.g. Bush, Rumsfeld]
* no compensation for the victims [e.g. torture victims, invaded countries]
* no guarantees it will not happen again
You can do whatever you want within your borders, and choose the rules you want to live by. But don't take your stupid decisions out on everyone else. And for the love of god, EU & UN, stand up to this bully.
I don't believe journalists have any power to stop intelligence agencies or governments from doing anything.
Glenn Greenwald is completely ineffective. Snowden leaking to journalists will be completely ineffective. The only way to stop a government is with a government.
Suppose that you have in your neighbourhood someone with a lot of weapons. Then the maid tells you, and gives you evidence, that he stole from you and other people you know, but you don't do anything, because he have weapons, and people could get hurt. But the maid that warned you know from a lot of more things that he did, several probably worse than the things you know already, like, don't know, killed a bunch of friends and have them buried in the backyard, kidnapped some childs and have them enclosed in the basement, and/or that accident that killed your grampa, was him, and wasn't an accident. Would you prefer to keep ignoring what he is doing and risking to be you, or your children their next victims or knowing, reporting him to the police or at least be prepared for when he targets you? You think that things will improve just ignoring what he does?
Unless you know someone bigger with even more weapons to go to for protection then you can't do anything like that if you don't have weapons. Glenn Greenwald can't do a damn thing to stop the NSA.