Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Planned To Discredit Radicals Based On Web-Browsing Habits

Comments Filter:
  • FP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:20PM (#45540463)
    first "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to hide" post!
    • Re:FP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:26PM (#45540559) Homepage Journal

      first "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to hide" post!

      well, they're just redefining(or thats the way it's always been in usa seemingly) trying to achieve change of system as being radically wrong.

      reminds me of this airhead minister we had for a while in finland who remarked that it's preposterous that some people were trying to change the law... which was funny because she worked in the parliament - and the main function for the parliament is to change the laws.

      • Re:FP (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Internetuser1248 (1787630) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:46PM (#45540807)
        On the subject of stupid/corrupt officials, just a translation for those who don't already know:

        Radical sympathiser (Governmentish)
        Noun
        A person that disagrees with our right to absolute power over everything.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jdogalt (961241)

        well, they're just redefining(or thats the way it's always been in usa seemingly) trying to achieve change of system as being radically wrong.

        And then the next moment deciding to create and use a Kompromat database to prevent any undesired changes to the system. A revelation like this leads me to these sorts of philosophical and ethical ponderings- Would the sorts of NSA employees that decided to engage in these sorts of 'political ratfucking campaigns' also have thought that it would have been ethical to- e.g. pay a million dollars to a monica lewinski to seduce a president, in order to discredit him? I mean, after all, it's just a little victi

      • Re:FP (Score:5, Informative)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @04:53PM (#45542541) Journal
        Uhhh..."redefining"? This is just COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org] updated for the age of social media. The government has been suppressing and in some cases outright murdering activists for decades, this is nothing new. For an example see the middle of the Wiki entry I linked to, outright execution of an activist by members of the US gov, no charges filed of course.
    • Re:FP (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:27PM (#45540569)
      I have nothing to hide, but I still don't post my name here...

      Anyone posting your quote should be required to post their real name.

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        What I want to hide depends entirely on who's looking for it.

        The government already knows my real name, and knows I use "Sarten-X" as an alias, too. The government also already knows my address, and if agents want to come visit, they're welcome to.

        On the other hand, I don't trust the Internet fuckwads nearly so much, so "Sarten-X" is all you get.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      Actually this is one case where I might accept that argument.

      I look at porn and we can basically say every other human with internet access has as well.

      I also have intoxicating liquors in my home!

      The only way this impacts anyone is if they are in the closet or something. Just having looked at porn is not something anyone in 2013 should be concerned about, at least not anyone I hang out with.

  • Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:22PM (#45540499) Homepage

    Why would one lose ones credibility because of that?

    If anything I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't watch porn..

    • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FlyHelicopters (1540845) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:24PM (#45540527)
      Amen to that... Why is prostitution illegal while porn is not? The whole thing smacks of religious nut jobs who want to regulate your private life.
      • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:36PM (#45540675)

        Amen to that... Why is prostitution illegal while porn is not? The whole thing smacks of religious nut jobs who want to regulate your private life.

        Apparently you've never visited Washington, DC, where the "escort" business thrives due to its many politician and high-ranking government official client-base. Of course if working class Joe Q. Public is in the company of these "escorts", assuming he can afford them, the police will have his name in the newspaper faster than a Gulf of Mexico Hurricane flattens a school.

      • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by donscarletti (569232) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:48PM (#45540839)
        • * You can't get STDs from porn.
        • * Pornographic videos and literature are not human, so its distribution cannot be human trafficking.
        • * If your wife catches you watching a bunch of porn, she is unlikely to divorce you.
        • * Porn rarely gets beaten up by pimps and johns.
        • * Almost everyone openly or secretly loves porn, criminalising it would be too hard.
        • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:58PM (#45540951)
          You can get STDs for free, and human trafficking occurs plenty regardless of prostitution laws. There would be lot less beating (and to a lesser degree, trafficking) if prostitution weren't illegal such that its practitioners are unable to report real crimes committed against them to the police.

          To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Obfuscant (592200)

            To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.

            Actually, when you consider that those who are selling it are often coerced into doing so, and those who give it away for free aren't, there is some sense to a law prohibiting sales. There is also the issue of "the rich" being able to afford something that regular mortals cannot, such as would happen with organ donation vs. organ sales. I mean "kidney" type organs, not "Hammond" or "Wurlitzer". We've kinda decided as a society that a rich person low on the list of need being able to get a kidney transplant

          • by jalopezp (2622345)

            To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.

            Like a kidney? Or a child?

        • by SeaFox (739806) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:17PM (#45541221)


          • * Porn rarely gets beaten up by pimps and johns.

          I had an amusing mental image of a pimp punching VHS tapes there.

        • by JLennox (942693)

          Much of your list is valid only because prostitution is illegal.

        • * You can't get STDs from porn.

          Somewhere, somehow, someone either is or already has proven you wrong.

          * Pornographic videos and literature are not human, so its distribution cannot be human trafficking.

          There is little to no human trafficking in places with legal prostitution, especially compared to places where it is not legal. They say the same thing about drugs: "Dur, using drugs supports criminals!" completely ignoring the fact that if the drugs in question were legal, one would not have to deal with criminals in order to acquire them. Catch-22.

          * If your wife catches you watching a bunch of porn, she is unlikely to divorce you.

          1) You have never met my wife.
          2) That's not really a rationale for the criminalization of

      • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by epyT-R (613989) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:38PM (#45541561)

        Actually it's not just the religious zealots who have issue with prostitution. The leftwing feminist groups have issue with it too. Basically the latter doesn't want men having easy access to sex without having to deal with privileged princesses. They label this as 'abuse' even though it's consensual all around (she wants his money, he wants her body for an hour). In many ways, prostitution is the most honest exchange that exists between the two genders, especially since the point of marriage and the nuclear family has been thoroughly destroyed.

        • by gweihir (88907)

          Indeed. A transparent strategy by neo-feminists to increase their power. These are typically also the type of feminist that are unaware of the original definition of the movement, namely to create equality. Neo-feminists do not mind inequality between the sexes, they actually want it, but with them on the top. Men taking charge of their own sexuality by removing female access control and substitution of porn are of course the enemy if these people.

    • spirals (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheMeuge (645043) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:26PM (#45540549)

      Information imbalance creates a vast power imbalance. And we'd be fools to think that this power imbalance would not be exploited. Generally, in military terms you talk about capabilities, rather than intentions when making assessments. So when universal surveillance becomes a capability, we have to assume it's not just used, but used universally. And one doesn't have to go far in history to search for consequences of having such a system. While not nearly as sophisticated, East Germany during the Soviet era provides plenty of evidence for what WILL be done with the information obtained as a result of a vast surveillance network. In a few words, mainly ammunition for the government to persecute and discredit critics (which isn't new), but also alarmingly but unsurprisingly, a way for those with access to this information (specific individuals within law enforcement and government) to exert this power over other private individuals for spite, profit, blackmail, coverup, etc. It's happened before. We have to be fools to think it won't happen again.

      • But I'd give you a bump if I could.
      • Re:spirals (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bob_super (3391281) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:47PM (#45540823)

        You forgot to add that once the state is known to spy on everything, it can fabricate any "evidence" it wishes against specific individuals (as a state policy, or because the database operator has a grudge/political motivation), and people will believe it.

      • Re:spirals (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pitchpipe (708843) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:14PM (#45541171)

        In a few words, mainly ammunition for the government to persecute and discredit critics (which isn't new), but also alarmingly but unsurprisingly, a way for those with access to this information (specific individuals within law enforcement and government) to exert this power over other private individuals for spite, profit, blackmail, coverup, etc.

        It's even worse than that. Because they have these systems they don't need any actual evidence. If they don't like you (or you're divorcing someone they care about) they can just accuse you of wrongdoing that they "discovered" through surveilling you. How are you going to prove that you didn't do what they accuse you of? Audit their systems? Mmm hmm, I'm sure they'll let a known pedophilistic-terrorist or his designee in to check everything out. Even when you can audit systems it's hard enough to prove a negative.

    • by jasper160 (2642717) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:27PM (#45540571)
      I am sure the NSA was spending hours "analyzing" the material.
      • Right.

        I'm sure they have some interesting spreadsheets/presentations detailing the "current bad guys" porn preferences:
        "Wow, this imam in Hamburg is really into Shaved Headed Albino Milf Lesbians with "Eat at Joes" tattoos"
      • Re: Porn browsing? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:54PM (#45540903) Homepage Journal
        The don't need porn. They have more than enough watching what real people, of all ages, do.
        • The don't need porn. They have more than enough watching what real people, of all ages, do.

          Hu? That's called "Amateur Porn". It's still porn.

    • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rnturn (11092) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:30PM (#45540603)

      ``If anything I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't watch porn.''

      If anything, I'd mistrust the people who make a big deal about never looking at internet porn. Just look at the frequent revelations involving vocal evangelists.

      Trying to lean on people based on their internet browsing habits? It seems that someone's trying to quell any public dissent on NSA snooping on Americans. "Listen buddy... icksnay on the oopingsnay or we'll let everyone in your church know about those web sites you visited last Wednesday evening between the hours of 9:00PM and 10:30PM."

      • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:54PM (#45540905) Homepage

        If anything, I'd mistrust the people who make a big deal about never looking at internet porn. Just look at the frequent revelations involving vocal evangelists.

        In general, I've come to the conclusion the louder someone screeches about the morality of other people, the higher the likelihood they'll get caught in a scandal.

        Which has more or less confirmed for me that people are lying douchebags, who mostly want to point the finger at everyone else.

        The more rigid and extreme the position, the more they're full of shit.

    • by firex726 (1188453)

      So porn today is like drinking back in the wild west, with regards to trusting people?

    • by khasim (1285)

      In theory it is not that they watch it but what they watch.

      Suppose the NSA loads up the computer of some "radical" with 100's of gigs of interracial gay enema porn and then "reveals" the dirty sex browsing history to the world.

      In reality, you'll just be convincing the people who already don't like that person that he is a filthy disgusting bad person. And the people who approved of his ideas will claim it is a conspiracy by the NSA/FBI/CIA/whatever to discredit him and that those pictures were planted.

      • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:07PM (#45541085)

        In reality, you'll just be convincing the people who already don't like that person that he is a filthy disgusting bad person. And the people who approved of his ideas will claim it is a conspiracy by the NSA/FBI/CIA/whatever to discredit him and that those pictures were planted.

        And that's one of the (many) problems with this whole system. Here it wouldn't be a question of agents having to sneak into a guy's house and plant the material. They'll just claim that he browsed such sites and the rest of us will be expected to take their word for it. "Where's the evidence to support this claim?" "We can't tell you. National security."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        My greater fear is that the NSA might already possess, or be working toward, the ability to inject false records into a target's credit history. Create a situation where credit cards are revoked, assets are impounded, the target loses his house, his car, and any ability to ever use credit again. What better way to shut a dissident up than to so mess with his personal finances that he has to spend every waking moment trying to get it all straightened out.

        When will snooping on private data end, and manipulat

    • by SirGarlon (845873) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:40PM (#45540729)

      If anything I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't watch porn..

      What about someone who just reads erotica ... while naked and covered in butter? Hypothetically, of course!

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      It's even stupider than that, as whoever accuses first would instantly become an incredibly juicy target for any magazine to publish the "true story behind the accuser".

      Unless the NSA have someone who's never, ever seen a porn site, which would be a feat beyond miraculous.

    • by Shatrat (855151)

      If you're a mullah, you wouldn't want people to know you like watching people do things you would have them killed for.

    • Re:Porn browsing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TWiTfan (2887093) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:43PM (#45540771)

      Anything that even looks like deviant sexual behavior can cost someone their job, their wife and kids, etc. It's a powerful blackmail tool, no matter how common we all know it is.

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      Why would one lose ones credibility because of that?

      If anything I wouldn't trust someone who doesn't watch porn..

      And what possible "proof" could the NSA provide that anyone would believe?

      NSA: Hey, look everyone, Joe Radical watches donkey-porn!
      Joe: I do not.
      NSA: You do too - look at these report we created that shows every dokey-porn video you watched
      Joe: That's fake, you made it up
      NSA: It's true! We swear it and everyone knows we have no incentive to make it up just to look you look bad!

      How would the NSA prove that the "private" browsing activity that they are exposing is really their activity and not something they

      • How would the NSA prove that the "private" browsing activity that they are exposing is really their activity and not something they made up?

        We can't tell you. National security.

        Oh, by the way, your family might find your browsing history from last week interesting. You wouldn't want to change your publicly stated opinions on our programs would you?

    • Why would one lose ones credibility because of that?

      Because politics, that's why.

      You hear the talking heads squawk about a political entity getting "busted" for having a more-interesting-than-missionary sexual preference, and, regardless of how innocuous it may be, the next thing you know their career in politics is over.

      Sexual preference is ideal blackmail for politicians who spend the majority of their professional lives trying to convince the public that they're more moral than the next guy. Which is pretty much all of them.

      Seems to me the only real defen

    • Obligatory (from that email that circulated around a while back:

      Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

      *29 have been accused of spousal abuse
      *7 have been arrested for fraud
      *19 have been accused of writing bad checks
      *117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
      *3 have done time for assault
      *71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
      *14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
      *8 have been arrested for shoplifting
      *21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
      *84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year Can you guess which organization this is?

      GIVE UP YET?????

      IT IS THE 535 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

  • Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pitchpipe (708843) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:25PM (#45540539)
    So, they were going to abuse this power?! J. Edgar Hoover would be shocked I tell you: shocked that it took them this long.

    Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately we get to come along for the ride.

  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:28PM (#45540579)

    Given the shroud of secrecy the NSA has created, it would be impossible to tell what evidence was real and what was fabricated. So if the NSA wanted to frame one of these "radicals" -- or a sitting member of Congress -- who would be able to refute those charges?

    When are Congressmen going to publicly admit that this rogue agency is a greater danger to national security, in any meaningful sense of the term, than Al Quaeda ever was?

    • by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby@@@comcast...net> on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:45PM (#45540793)

      People have been gathering the sexual habits of people that they may need to discredit for thousands of years. In the Roman times the Christians accused the Pagan Roman's in charge of having orgy's [cracked.com] and myth sticks around to this day. Mind you having relations with slaves that were children was considered perfectly acceptable by that society so nobody bothered to use it to slander anyone and the result was that people talked freely about it. What they didn't talk freely about was having orgies as they were simply a myth [sydney.edu.au]. In other words this story is as old as prostitutes, politicians and spies, only the names have changed.

    • by 0123456 (636235) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:45PM (#45540797)

      When are Congressmen going to publicly admit that this rogue agency is a greater danger to national security, in any meaningful sense of the term, than Al Quaeda ever was?

      Never, given they just discovered that the NSA has a list of all the pr0n sites they've visited. Do you think there's any politician in DC who has no skeletons in the cupboard for the NSA to exploit?

      This is why you don't create a secret police agency. Once they have a file on everyone, no-one can stop them.

    • Bingo.

      The NSA is merely a tool for whoever can manipulate their way into controlling how it is used.
      It is only a matter of time until a president or other powerful corporate interest uses the NSA to frame what they consider internal, American threats .

      The patriots at the NSA wouldn't think twice about using their omniscience to discredit or even bring the threat of physical violence to any American citizen if their overlords commanded them to.
  • Is there any bottom to this at all? Seriously, I expected them to be nasty, bureaucratic and invasive but it sounds like they were taking policy guidelines from conspiracy websites.
    • by oodaloop (1229816) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:33PM (#45540633)
      Remember the article yesterday about US officials fearing another 2 years' worth of releases? It means there are people well aware of more things not yet released. This is just the beginning.
    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      It's an age-old adage, if you give someone power they ARE going to use it. And agencies, like people, will usually push for as much power as they can get. The NSA and CIA (and to a lesser extent, the FBI) were basically given blank checks after 9-11. Anyone who ever believed they were going to voluntarily restrict their use of that kind of power to Muslim terrorists was a fool.

  • The fact is, the 3-letter spy agencies have ALWAYS capitalized on blackmail. That these agencies even exist, in my opinion, is based on their blackmail powers. But these days, as politicians are actually standing up for their wayward ways (thank Rob Ford and Bill Clinton!) I think it's time we stop persecuting people for being people. (Crack smoking mayor? I have to draw a line there but the idea is good.) If someone gambles, weigh it in on how you feel about them. If someone is gay, SO WHAT?! If som

  • by swb (14022) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:37PM (#45540695)

    It really is, except this time there's no messy "black bag" B&E jobs to get into homes and find porno mags, read diaries and letters, etc. Just hack into their computers and it's all right there.

  • But I'm sure that they would NEVER go that far.

    • by Jiro (131519)

      If you're referring to Julian Assange, those rape charges were the fault of radical feminists getting their beliefs entrenched in European rape law, not the NSA.

  • by Minupla (62455) <minupla@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:42PM (#45540753) Homepage Journal

    You know, it's funny but I don't believe I recall seeing "...until we don't agree with your speech, at which point we'll collect dirt on you and blackmail you with it" in the first amendment. Must be in the second edition.

    The Great Firewall of China begins to look like a useful protection for their citizens at this point.

    (Yes, I realize that the majority of these people were not on US soil, but it's purportedly a principle, and one the US criticizes any country who does not espouse, and as such should apply more broadly then just to people standing on US soil at the time).

    Min

  • by cpghost (719344) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:42PM (#45540759) Homepage
    While most won't mind the NSA blackmailing (potential) terrorists using their web history, why stop there? Hasn't the NSA already blackmailed high ranking EU politicians, using the very same techniques, to ensure that SWIFT data will continue to be shared with the US [reuters.com], despite the European Parliament's motion to suspend this data sharing? See where all this leads to?
  • Tamerlan Tsarnaev (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @02:49PM (#45540859)

    What did the NSA know about Tamerlan Tsarnaev? That's what I want to know. If the mass surveillance is justified, how did they not know about his plot? How did they fail to prevent it?

  • Richelieu (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:04PM (#45541047) Homepage

    Arms inspector Scott Ritter, who called Bush and company liars. Immediately monitored to hell and back, reputation ruined by mysterious surveillance forces within months of taking the fight to Bush's people. Being right was no excuse; he was never allowed on Oprah again, or anywhere else. We invaded Iran under false pretense. He's in prison after the second round of surveillance.

    As for the charges, which they ultimately nailed him with? Dunno. Why does everyone assume that computers can't lie? Once you set up the premise that we are catching lots of bad men, it's child's play to make you a bad man - just invent some logs, some chat, and boom goes the dynamite. I don't trust electrons when they are under the control of people who would bomb 60,000 people to death for oil and conflating brown people with other brown people.

    And talking to girls online is a crime they can hang on a lot of men, anyway. He didn't *do* anything. Except piss the right people off. On the other hand, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft and Rice are rich and free after stealing trillions in oil, starting two endless wars, and killing over a hundred thousand people.

    Assume that people are watching you, listening to you - retroactively - if you annoy the right people. They can indeed hang you with six lines. Hell, I do now christen this "Richelieuing".

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:14PM (#45541179)

    The FBI used similar tactics [rawstory.com] on the "most dangerous Negro" aka Martin Luther King -- they bugged his bedroom and then tried to blackmail him with an audiotape of him having sex with women who weren't his wife.

  • by nospam007 (722110) * on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:37PM (#45541541)

    "Trust is good but control is better"

  • by wcrowe (94389) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:40PM (#45541575)

    We know the NSA captures a lot of information on everyone. So now, whether you like them or not, you are likely to believe anything the say about anyone. Which means the NSA can discredit, blackmail, manipulate, or destroy anyone they want. It does not matter whether the information they have is real or fabricated. There is no way to successfully refute anything they say about anyone.

    What a monster we have created.

    • by wcrowe (94389)

      Sorry to reply to my own post, but I just realized that the NSA has become the Ministry of Truth.

  • by DarthVain (724186) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @03:43PM (#45541601)

    Um what?

    If the idea is that this activity is being legitimized by fighting Terrorism, I don't quite buy it...

    NSA: "Stop being a terrorist, or we will blackmail you by showing all your terrorist buddies all the lewd websites you visit!"

    Terrorist: "I am going to stop being a lunatic and be rational for a second. A) Do you really think that is something that might dissuade a terrorist, or make a terrorist feel even more warm and fuzzy about the USA? B) Do you really think my terrorist buddies will believe the NSA (I mean come on we can get them to believe anything, but coming from you... lol)? C) Who exactly are you going to tell? Do you have lists of terrorist buddies? Because I think if you did, you might do something a bit more constructive with it. OK back to the crazy...

    This seems like something that is far more likely to be politically motivated than anything to do with terrorism.

    • Exactly. The people that the NSA claims to be targeting with programs like this believe that the US is a great evil. Do you think these people are going to believe a word that "an evil secret-spy organization within the great evil" says? This will do zero to reduce terrorism and is only a tool for political manipulation either foreign ("let us fly drones in your country or your people learn what websites you like looking at") or domestic ("stop opposing our agenda or we'll ruin your political career and/

  • by digitalmonkey2k1 (521301) * on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#45542233) Homepage

    Ensuring that I'm not posting as AC to help drive this in...

    Just because sex and nudity is considered taboo and only for deviants by all of the repressed Mericans, doesn't mean that everyone will be embarrassed by making it visible. Some of the other stuff may help discredit, but not the porn.

  • keep in mind (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @04:34PM (#45542251)

    Keep in mind that "radical" simply means "has different political opinions than those with the most political power". This was a direct suppression of everything democracy stands for and every value this country was founded to protect. The NSA has not only committed illegal acts, they have committed high treason.

  • by Sentrion (964745) on Wednesday November 27, 2013 @07:00PM (#45543867)

    At least it is only on the internet, and not with boots on the ground. I'm sure the NSA would never do anything crazy, like stage a sexual assault case against a foreign activist that was publishing state secrets.

"Ahead warp factor 1" - Captain Kirk

Working...