Senator Dianne Feinstein: NSA Metadata Program Here To Stay 510
cold fjord writes "The Hill reports, 'Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that lawmakers who favored shutting down the bulk collection of telephone metadata would not be successful in their efforts as Congress weighs potential reforms to the nation's controversial intelligence programs. "I don't believe so," Feinstein said during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press (video). "The president has very clearly said that he wants to keep the capability So I think we would agree with him. I know a dominant majority of the — everybody, virtually, except two or three, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree with that." ... "A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people's privacy rights."'"
The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
will never go away citizen, we need to spy on you to keep you safe. Now pick up that can.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why this person even lives in the land of the 'free' when she so clearly despises freedom. She's obviously not brave, either. What is her purpose here, other than to sacrifice all of our principles in order to make idiots feel safe?
The only people convinced by idiots like her are those who believe the government is composed of perfect angels and would never abuse this information. In other words, people willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for security; people who have forgotten the millions upon millions of people throughout history who have been murdered or abused by governments around the world, including the US government.
She makes me want to vomit.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A better question is why do people in California keep re-electing her over and over. She's been there for over 20 years.
Because it doesn't matter who you vote for.
Because... (Score:5, Informative)
Elections are rigged....that should be obvious after the California GMO labeling vote where the results were polled as 70% in favor of, and then amazingly and unexpectedly the actual vote tally was reversed with 70% voting against the labeling.
That was when I knew that Californians DO NOT VOTE.
Why?
Because you have a reversal of the poll, on a indifference based issue. What does that mean? Most people either care about having GMO products labeled or they do not give a damn. Almost no percentage of the population except for a few die hard folks on the right that still 3 DDT are actually concerned about preventing GMO labeling.
So you had grass roots vs the weeds of indifference. With zero affect on the weeds. Those who don't care about GMO labelling, have not horse in the race. Adding it doesn't affect them. They don't care. That was an IMPOSSIBLE vote, blamed on a spending and advertising fee but clearly a result of the electronic voting fabrication system.
Re: (Score:3)
Though in our defense, the districts are so jerrymandered and the politicians have special interest and underhanded politics (redistricting bill has a hope of passing? quick! introduce a fake one that lets us control the redistricting and confuse people with it!) down to such a science that most people have just given up.
Re: The unseen enemy (Score:4, Informative)
Lofgren is against it. She voted to support Justin Amash's attempt to defund these programs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am so glad I had to scroll through 10 stupidly long posts to continue reading comments.
Re: (Score:3)
They're just padding metadata.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
Some politicians do go get real jobs... after they boost markets where the company they are about to go work for is the benefactor.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is the problem with Keynesian economic. If the government can manipulates the economy, those in government can manipulate it to their advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
The rich can be kept in check by regulation. The alternative to Keynesian economics is not complete lawlessness (although it can be if you refuse to look at any other options).
Re: (Score:3)
They only can write it to benefit one over another because of Keynesian economics. That is the entire problem- manipulating the economy instead of simply keeping products from harming people and the environment (people by extension) and preventing fraud.
I don't really care about the military-industrial complex so bark up another tree. The banking collapse was directly associated with Keynesian economics. It could have been avoided if congress would have acted in 2003 when the request to change regulation on
Re: (Score:3)
She doesn't need to leave to benefit. Her husband is an investment banker, and she's been doing many things in government to make him more money. She even got a government property foreclosure contract steered to a company he has a part in.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhh, so you're willing to vote for evil just so "your team" wins. Except that you haven't figured out there's only one team -- Team Status Quo -- and you're not on it.
You're a coward, and absolutely deserve every nasty thing Feinstein inflicts on your state. You have no principles -- only a tribe. People like you are why this country is fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> "We" voted for her because the alternative was...well...less savory.
Less savory than Feinstein's husband, who is involved with $600 million questionable defense contracts, post office, and FDIC real estate deals? The Feinstein family sure makes a lot of money off the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? She in no way represents the voters of California. She represents herself.
Keeps getting elected (Score:3)
She in no way represents the voters of California. She represents herself.
If she does not represent the voters then why do those same voters keep electing her? Senate races aren't gerrymandered so obviously she must have some significant appeal across the state to those who continue to vote her into office.
Overwhelmingly Democrat in California (Score:5, Informative)
With those two exceptions California is actually largely Republican.
Right. That's why California has 38 Democrats versus 15 Republicans in the House of Representatives, 2 Democrat senators, over 60% of the voters vote Democrat [wikipedia.org] in presidential elections and the Republicans haven't won a majority of the popular vote in presidential elections since 1988. (that's 25 years for those of you counting at home) The Democrats hold enormous majorities in the State House and State Senate and registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 2.5 million voters.
But you go ahead and keep believing that California is "largely Republican" if it helps you sleep at night.
Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always been generally right-leaning, and I am REALLY up in arms about the NSA stuff.
What I don't understand is when I read quotes from people like Feinstein, who's one of the furthest left people in Washington, saying things that liberals used to make fun of Bush for saying - terrorism FUD, basically.
And liberals seem to be aligned with me on revulsion to the domestic spying programs, and yet they continue to vote for people like Feinstein who make the right noises at home, but then go right along with all the spying programs.
If we don't hold our friends AND enemies accountable in politics, what else do we expect?
We get the governance we deserve...
Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't surprise me at all. The "institutional left", (which is well represented in DC but probably not representative of the left-leaning public) has reached the point now where they'll seize any excuse for a larger, more powerful, more well-funded government, even crossing traditional lines to become defense hawks.
I expect the Democratic Party (at the federal level) to increasingly support any government program with a budget, even the military, to the increasing frustration of the voters, as the money starts to run out. At the state and local levels, acceptance that the budget can't be infinite is coming much faster and earlier, and politicians (on both sides) are discovering that cutting budgets isn't actually the end of the world, but that hasn't started trickling up to the federal level yet.
Re:Overwhelmingly Democrat in California (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a left/right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always been generally right-leaning, and I am REALLY up in arms about the NSA stuff.
It's not really a left/right issue. It's an issue of how you feel about the 4th amendment and how much you trust the government to protect your civil liberties. I don't have any ideological objection to the government being empowered to look for dangerous criminals but I have a HUGE problem with them gutting my Constitutional rights in pursuit of these same criminals. It's NOT SUPPOSED to be convenient for the government to watch me. That is the entire point of the 4th amendment and a few others as well. Terrorists are criminals and I expect them to be treated as such under the law, particularly when the party under suspicion is a US citizen.
I think the problem is that circumstances have organized such that the executive branch no longer has meaningful oversight. Congress is unwilling to take a stand because anyone who does gets voted out of office for "being soft on terrorism". The judiciary has largely punted on the issue so far by claiming no one has standing to challenge. (It's unclear how you prove standing against a classified program that you can go to jail for talking about) Worst of all we have a surveillance program with zero accountability to the electorate. We have a secret program, doing secret activities, "overseen" by a secret (rubber stamp) court, with secret findings than are never required to be made public. Exactly how am I as a citizen supposed to make an informed evaluation of the actions of the NSA? Maybe what they are doing is fine (yeah I doubt it too) but I have no way to know.
Re:Feinstein's not at all "Furthest Left" (Score:3)
Yes, Feinstein likes a big-spending government, and prefers more of that spending to go to social programs than Bush did, but that doesn't make her a "leftist" any more than it made him one. She's pretty consistent in her opposition to most of the Bill of Rights - doesn't like free speech on the Internet, doesn't like search warrants, didn't stop torture at Gitmo. Yeah, she's occasionally come out to support the liberal side of issues like gay marriage or abortion, but it's not like she really broke throu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Peoples Republic of California"
That little gem was taught to me by a programmer in LA. The guy was a German. At that point, you really have to wonder just how bad it is.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you evil totalitarian bitch, we understand perfectly well. We just don't care because we're not sniveling cowards and realize that civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!
They are, but this is besides the point. We are not even "more safe" in any way. I think the best they could actually show is one guy convicted for sending $8.5K to some terrorist organization (that's after years and years of surveillance).
Other dozens (or is it hundreds?) of terrorist operations are stopped by regular police work or are made up.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
civil liberties are worth being "less safe" for!
They are, but this is besides the point. We are not even "more safe" in any way. I think the best they could actually show is one guy convicted for sending $8.5K to some terrorist organization (that's after years and years of surveillance). Other dozens (or is it hundreds?) of terrorist operations are stopped by regular police work or are made up.
More importantly, the whole point of terrorism is not to make the victims more or less safe, but to acheive a poltical goal. In this case, the goal (well, at least one of the goals) was to prove that the U.S. doesn't actually support freedom. Giving up those freedoms is essentially surrendering without even putting up a fight. It's also simple cowardice.
Every week, we sacrifice several times the number of lives lost to terrorism for the convenience of driving large boxes of metal at ridiculous speeds, but we run and hide under the bed and call in the drones the second anyone breathes the word "terrorist."
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't it feel kind of like fear is winning when people are willing to give up liberties for the illusion of safety.
It kind of makes me think of a bully going "look I made you flinch". Until one day he's trying to make the kid flinch and the kid says "You know what? Win or loose if you want fight, I'll make you wish you never tried."
Only when it's policies and laws it's a lot harder to go back from the scared kid to being the kid that doesn't flinch.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
solution? (Score:4, Interesting)
"government spying" is loaded language...everyone is against "government spying" on its citizens like in the book 1984
what I want to see from this AC is actual policy solutions.
the government's job, per the constitution, is partly to use law enforcement & the military. the people have a right for their personal effect to be secure from that *unless* probable cause...etc
virtually everyone would agree that the above statements are accurate and true & reprsents how our system works
digital communications exist. we on /. understand how it all works.
digital communications, such as a routing table, IP address, MAC address, list of SMS's from a certain number, this is ALL personal data, covered by the US citizen's right to privacy
you, AC, and every critic of this policy must either be criticizing the very *existence* of government OR the debate is about when/how not if the government can access your personal data
the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant
what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?
THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.
everyone wants to pop off fiery bon-mots about how X politician is just as bad as Bush & reference a work of fiction that critiques totalitarian regimes
its bullshit...it hurts our industry & makes our jobs harder
stop bitching and start typing policy solutions
Re:solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant
what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?
THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.
I think the issue is rather that the anti-privacy advocates do everything in their power to avoid that question, since the answer is pretty cut-and-dried - warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin to be seized, pursuant to Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.
Don't like it? Amend the Constitution, or deal with it and operate within existing law. Feigned ignorance is no excuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The government can collect and store digital information about me. But it must be stored in an secured and encrypted repository with access controls that are fully auditable (e.g., who looked at it, when and why), and every piece of data is tagged with its source and collection method (e.g., intercepted in transit between client and server, scraped from a web page, provided by an ISP). Then when the government wants to search my digital information for signs of criminal activity, they go before a judge an
Re: (Score:3)
"The government can collect and store digital information about me."
No the government can't. The constitution makes it quite clear on that. It the gov. suspects something they can make it clear to a judge with the accused being there to challenge it.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a solution I figure just about every "privacy troll" can probably agree with:
The NSA needs to stop collecting data on US citizens. If a US citizen needs to be investigated, it's the FBI's job to do that investigation.
If the FBI wants to collect data on a US citizen, they should get a warrant the normal way. None of this secret court nonsense.
Re:The unseen enemy (Score:5, Informative)
This is a deliberate attempt to kill this discussion thread, not actually advertising. This loser has just picked up a piece of spam that some moron actually posted here a couple of years ago and is filling the thread with it because he knows that most people won't scroll past it.
Well, at least they are honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, at least they are honest (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be far more useful than it has been. So far, it's been useless, according to all of the Snowden documents. No benefit has been gained from it. Zero. Nada. Zilch. It's worthless.
Riddle me this, Batman: Why didn't the NSA stop the Target data breach? They surely could've seen it coming. They surely should've seen its traffic while it was in action. Why haven't they tracked down the perpetrator and thrown his ass in Gitmo? He's cost the economy something far more than a few billion dollars. He cost it confidence. That's a threat to national security and stability. Where is the NSA? Somewhere in a datacenter, doing fuck-all about the real security issues facing the nation, that's where.
"Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein" needs to address that before she starts parroting back crap the Ayatollah said 35 years ago. He's an old fart, and obviously incapable of rational thought. He's also been ineffective in reaching most of his goals for the last 35 years. Unfortunately, those same things can be said about Sen. Feinstein. It seems the old adage "physician, heal thyself" applies here.
Re: Well, at least they are honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, at least they are honest (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be far more useful than it has been. So far, it's been useless, according to all of the Snowden documents.
You seem to be confusing the actual purpose of this program with the snake oil sold to people (which they are increasingly reluctant to buy). I do not doubt that this program has been immensely useful for its actual purpose.
Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what federal government program has ever been rolled back?
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
The useful ones.
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
Social programs
Re: (Score:2)
Social programs
Really, when? And don't bother telling me about the *temporary* SNAP increase being allowed to expire.
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Informative)
If the GOP had it's way LOTS of social programs would be gone entirely..or haven't you been listening to what they actually say?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Regan repealed mental health aid for the mentally ill. He also repealed housing assistance for the same groups. Suddnely faced with the choice between paying their rent and buing their meds, they came off their meds, lost their jobs due to the behaviors caused by being off their meds, then lost their house to no income (and no support). There's a *huge* jump in the homeless population in the US starting in the early 80s as a direct result.
He also repealed some SS benefits. As the son of a deceased sailor, I
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:4)
Social programs
And the military.
US: Budget plan would slash Army by 100,000 soldiers [usatoday.com]
UK: Defence cuts to hit 9,500 Army posts [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
School funding.
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:5, Informative)
Banking regulations, Works Progress Administration (WPA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), National Recovery Administration (NRA)... to name a few
This is a post 9/11 world, didn't anyone get the memo?
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:4, Informative)
Reagan repealed mental health aid for the mentally ill. He also repealed housing assistance for the same groups. Suddnely faced with the choice between paying their rent and buing their meds, they came off their meds, lost their jobs due to the behaviors caused by being off their meds, then lost their house to no income (and no support). There's a *huge* jump in the homeless population in the US starting in the early 80s as a direct result.
He also repealed some SS benefits. As the son of a deceased sailor, I had been entitled to SS benefits until I turned 21 (if I went to college), but they were pulled back to 18.
There have been legions of cuts over the years to everything from the FDA to the ACoE. Happens all the time.
Re:Of course it is here to stay (Score:4, Insightful)
EPA. FDA. Meat inspections. Potable water inspections. IRS auditing of multimillionaires. OSHA. FERC. Customs inspections. Port security. VA psychological benefits. Pretty much any program that doesn't aid the PTB or the mega-corps.
"A lot of the privacy people... (Score:5, Insightful)
...perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."
On the contrary, I think they understand that very well.
Relevant Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Relevant Quote (Score:5, Informative)
I take it you haven't watched the shows then? Because I seem to recall the Eugenics Wars [memory-alpha.org], which led to the outlawing of genetic manipulation; the Bell Riots [memory-alpha.org], which led to the US government beginning to address the serious social problems facing the country; and World War III [memory-alpha.org] and the post-atomic horror [memory-alpha.org], followed shortly thereafter by first contact [memory-alpha.org], which acted as a catalyst for the unification of humanity [memory-alpha.org] which took about another 100 years to achieve after first contact.
There was nothing magical about it. From the mid-1900s (i.e. when the franchise first hit the airwaves) to when the United Federation of Planets is formed, you have nearly 200 years of history riddled with serious conflicts that led to societal changes after societal change. And even after things are allegedly "magically solved", you have internal conflicts going on, such as the Maquis Insurrection [memory-alpha.org]. Nothing was solved quickly or easily. Enterprise is all about this sort of stuff, in fact, since it pre-dates the formation of the Federation and deals with how fragile the United Earth government is and how the Vulcans mistrust the humans, since the humans were still pulling themselves out of the aftermath of the third world war.
And before you keep suggesting that there wasn't much in the way of explanation, those links tie back to information that was presented in each and every one of the series (I specifically recall the Eugenics Wars being mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9, and ENT; Bell Riots were in DS9; WW3 was in the very first and last episodes of TNG; post-atomic horror was mentioned in TNG and VOY; United Earth was all over the place in ENT; and I'm still making my way through TAS, but I know some of those are brought up in episodes I haven't seen yet), so no matter which one(s) you watched, you should have gotten some idea of the history of their fictional universe [memory-alpha.org].
Great Satan (Score:5, Insightful)
"We" are not the Great Satan, Dianne. That would be you and the rest of your despicable brood of self-righteous overbearing pax americana terrorists.
Re:Great Satan (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, yes -- that small vicious group that call themselves "The Congress". Vile bastards, those... Claiming to 'represent the people', yet imposing insult after insult upon the very people they claim to represent.
For reals??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Eisenhower's warning.
Stop that (Score:5, Insightful)
"A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."
Maybe we shouldn't occupy that role?
Re: (Score:2)
It's designated, not occupied.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the actual headline should have been "US government finally recognizes own evilness, joins Iran, North Korea in Axis of Evil."?
Re: (Score:3)
Puh-lease, like the US would ever join an "Axis of Evil."
We have way too many marketroids for that. We'd refuse to sign the charter unless they agreed to change the name to something suitably badass, like "The Bad Wolfpack."
Separation of powers (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing that the Legislative and Executive branches of government are set up to balance each other.
Feinstein to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, Fuck You! (Score:5, Insightful)
What she is really saying is, "Fuck you Citizen! We are the Government and will do as we like. We are not concerned that nearly all Americans and 100% of foreign nationals are appalled by our actions. Go back to playing with your iPhones while us grownups take care of business".
No Shit?! (Score:2)
The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to keep the program that lets them collect information on everybody, and legality be damned. Which would only be a problem if anybody actually stood up and said it was illegal, admittedly.
In other news, water continues to be wet, the sky continues to be blue, and people in the Middle East continue to kill each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist on the loose (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, there is a very dangerous terrorist on the loose: her name is Dianne Feinstein.
She's nuts (Score:2)
The people that keep voting her into office are nuts. Give California back to Mexico.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think she understands "preparation" (Score:3)
A critical requirement of preparation is evidence of the effectiveness of your preparation. Where's the evidence that dragnet surveillance is effective?
In other words (Score:2)
They don't give a shit what we, the people, their boss, want. They're going to continue doing it anyway.
So what's the NSA got on her? (Score:3)
Re:So what's the NSA got on her? (Score:5, Informative)
What do they have on her?
A husband that makes a fortune through her legislation and owns companies which profit from defense contracts?
They don't need anything on her.
Textbook Catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
The senate intelligence committee behaves as if we've already lost our national identity to the "war on terror." Surely Feinstein understands that "privacy people" aren't going to be placated by such a statement and that their continuing discontent will only serve to perpetuate the perception of our formerly great nation as "the Great Satan." It's a vicious circle, and the only way out is to enact policies that live up to the two key tenets outlined in the last line of our national anthem.
As an aside, I don't think there's anyone left in this country who doesn't understand that we occupy the role of "the Great Satan." Republican constituents meet the idea with doggedly obstinate belligerence. Democratic constituents snivel the truism to comfort themselves while their two-faced ideologues advance the security state agenda after being elected to do the opposite. We all see it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, we have, unfortunately.
The other interesting tidbit here involves Mike Rogers, the guy who's still reiterating the debunked talking point about Snowden not having the "capability" to do what he did, and accusing him of having Russian help [theguardian.com] without citing any evidence.
Your Freudian slip is showing (Score:3)
A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan.
That is classic...
The Information Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Feinstein's falling victim to what I like to call "The Information Fallacy." Let's say that we knew that terrorists were going to blow something up at some time. It would be hard to thwart this based on this information, right? But if we obtained more information and learned their names, their target, and the exact date they planned to attack, thwarting them gets a lot easier. So far so good, but it can lead people to figure that getting even more information would lead to finding even more terrorist plots (perhaps even ones we don't know about yet).
In an ideal world, albeit one where privacy isn't a concern, this might be true. In the real world, though, gathering tons of information from everyone just leads to a signal-to-noise problem. For every one "Let's blow this up" terrorist phone record there will be millions (if not more) of "How's dad doing?", "When should we meet for dinner?", and other mundane phone records. There might even be some that tick off the right keyword boxes but for the wrong reasons. "That backpack is da bomb" might refer to explosives in a carry-on or it might be the use of slang to indicate that the person's backpack is really nice.
Sadly, too many politicians are worried that reducing the information we gather is just going to let terrorist messages slip by. It might, but we should be doing more focused information gathering (with proper checks and balances to prevent abuse) to improve signal-to-noise, not general information gathering hoping that some signal pokes out from all of the surrounding noise.
Pay no attention ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness," Feinstein said. "We need to be prepared."
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
We keep hearing about the boogeyman terrorists who are coming for us .. these terrible people with these terrible plans. But really, we've done orders of magnitude more damage to ourselves than anyone external possibly could have done. And we continue to bludgeon ourselves about the head and shoulders, deflecting any semblance of reasoning with "because terrorism"
She's rubber stamped every executive excess (Score:3)
Go through the list... she's always said yes to expansions in executive power.
Terrorists More Incompetent than Emo Teenagers (Score:5, Insightful)
So which is it? Is our police state so incomptent that it can't stop disturbed teens from shooting up schools, or are the terrorists so incompetent that they can't manage similar (or worse) carnage? And other than 9/11, it's not like we were swimming in attacks before they went all Stasi on us.
The Constitution is the law here, and the only criminals we need to be focused on are the ones in our own government. They gave away the freedoms that Al Qaeda could never take from us and that makes them worse in my book.
Easy Solution (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody ever seems to remember that the NSA falls under the Executive Branch. Congress doesn't have to do squat. There's this one guy who has the authority to tell the NSA "Don't do that," and they're required to stop.
Clue: He lives in a really big house with a boring paint job.
No Kidding (Score:3)
"'..."I don't believe so," Feinstein said during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press. "The president has very clearly said that he wants to continue to recieve the funding provided by the contractors who supply the equipment, software and bodies involved in this billion-dollar operation. So I think we would agree with him. I know a dominant majority of the - everybody, virtually, except two or three, on the Senate Intelligence Committee would agree with that." ... "A lot
of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still need massive
amounts of campaign funds going into this next election cycle", Feinstein said.
"We need to be prepared. Television spots and Youtube ads are frickin'
expensive!"'"
Re:Being a Californian (Score:5, Funny)
It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here....
I'm not sure any state would want her
Re:Being a Californian (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Being a Californian (Score:4, Insightful)
"It would do my heart good if she moved to another state so we can get back to business as usual around here...."
1) Why would you wish something so evil upon your neighbors?
2) Feinstein is business as usual for California, you keep electing her despite years of uninterrupted hypocrisy and disdain for the common citizen from her
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Being a Californian (Score:4, Insightful)
How does a democrat in ca who basically votes republican when possible, stay in office? I know how it works elsewhere, but those rules don't seem to apply. So how does she spin this at election time?
Or is she just the incumbent and that's good enough?
Re:Rape, burn, pillage, rape... (Score:5, Funny)
No,no, no! You pillage BEFORE you burn!
Amazing the number of people who get that wrong and do them out of order....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.
That you know of. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of collecting against citizens w/o a warrant.
Re:Terrorists will find other ways to communicate (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind that none of these programs have stopped any attack or plot.
That you know of. And, for the record, I'm not a fan of collecting against citizens w/o a warrant.
I am certain that should one of those programs (NSA or TSA) ever stop a terrorist plot, even by accident, such success would be trumpeted for years to come. The vague and general references to hundreds of terrorist plots is an indication that there is nothing real to talk about.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh they stopped plenty. For example a plot to do internal audit of CIA by Petraeus.
Re: (Score:2)
Pssh, yeah--inalienable human rights are so passe.
Re: (Score:3)
She doesn't dislike weapons; she's fine with 'the elite' and their guards having weapons. She dislikes the proles, like most left-wing politicians.