NSA Still Funded To Spy On US Phone Records 362
Reader turp182 notes that the Amash Amendment (#100) to HR 2397 (DOD appropriations bill) failed to pass the House of Representatives, meaning it will not be added to the appropriations bill. turp182 writes "The amendment would have specifically defunded the bulk collection of American phone records." Americans can see how their representatives voted here.
Americans no better than foreigners (Score:5, Insightful)
Spy on everyone. Karma is a bitch, folks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Americans no better than foreigners (Score:5, Funny)
It's watchers . . . all the way down.
Sadly, this isn't even funny, but rather the reality.
Re:Americans no better than foreigners (Score:4, Funny)
Rather the sad thing is that reality is actually pretty fun when you're not busy with the reality of being sad about the unfunny realities of reality.
Re:Americans no better than foreigners (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to say I'm giving up, and hopefully neither is anyone else, but this seems like saying to someone who lost their house to a tsunami "Karma's a bitch: you should have prevented the tide from coming in."
Re: (Score:3)
but you voted for spying by not doing enough to have this amendment passed.
Like WHAT? What are we supposed to do that we're not doing now?
It's A Start (Score:5, Informative)
Not bad for a first try to rein in rogue agency.
We need to keep the pressure on, and support organizations and officials who think the principles of Constitutional government are more important than fear-mongering.
If we don't, the fight is over. The terrorists and our fascist "protectors" have won.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Interesting)
Rogue? Seems complicit to me.
What I wonder about right now are the NSA employees who - some surely being geeks who read Slashdot - are reading this comment. How do they sleep at night?
Do they speak like so many mid-20th century "soldiers", absolving themselves because they're only following orders? Have they been brainwashed into thinking that there's suuuuuuch a threat from terrorists to the American Way Of Life that what they do is essential? Or do they just enjoy the power trip in a dying empire? At least one such NSA employee will be reading this, and their conscience will twinge, just for a second.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're in a privileged position, and the vast majority will be lapping it up. It boosts their egos because they are legally above the law applied to everyone else. People in power very rarely want to give it up, they desire more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd regard not being able to achieve unless I deceive those who put their trust in me to be a grand admission of failure. Maybe some people just have low standards for themselves? Even the dullest person can get things done with a bottomless pit of money and lies.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is much simpler than that....more of a case of "Whatever pays the bills".
I mean, I'm 100% against this, but if they paid me enough money, I'd do it in a heartbeat without a backwards glance.
Most people would for the right price I do
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Interesting)
At least one such NSA employee will be reading this, and their conscience will twinge, just for a second.
No, no it won't. Cognitive dissonance will prevent it. They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever, and in order to protect that belief they will convince themselves that there is no way to achieve their goal but to ride roughshod over the constitution. Then they'll tell themselves that it's OK to violate the constitution as long as you're doing it to protect the constitution. Unfortunately, holding such a clearly contradictory belief is a kind of insanity.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Still is, last I heard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Close, but not quite.
While Snowden's actions should be commended for bringing this issue front and center, he wasn't an employee who saw what his company was doing and alerted the media (what most people think of with the term "Whistle-blower"). He had suspicions about what the US Government was doing, sought a job that would allow him to verify it, then went public with some proof (i.e. "investigative journalism").
The level of "spying" being performed by governments, and private organisations, around the
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Informative)
More [wikipedia.org] than [wikipedia.org] one. [wikipedia.org] More [wikipedia.org] than [wikipedia.org] one. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Skills? He was a system admin with physical access and the list of admin passwords.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Funny)
his name is Edward Snowden.
In death, members of Project Mayhem have a name.
Re: (Score:2)
They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever,
All people do this, and I am continually amazed when people make comments like GP, wondering how someone can live with certain actions.
Its as if they think the "big bads" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, et al) thought they were bad guys. Never underestimate the ability of humans to rationalize and justify their actions. Note that this means each person should be continually on guard for when they have convinced themselves that something abhorrent is actually justifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever,
All people do this, and I am continually amazed when people make comments like GP, wondering how someone can live with certain actions.
Oh, that's terribly defeatist. What makes you think it? It's certainly not been my observation at all.
Its as if they think the "big bads" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, et al)
Not sure why you slipped in that little list, but are you by any chance looking at this problem from quite far to the right? I've noticed a tendency of ideologues (rather than ethical pragmatists) to view everyone as evil hypocrites by nature, and to use that as an excuse for their worldview.
Re:It's A Start (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes you think it?
The number of times I have seen someone admit that they were wrong (without pressure / coercion) pales in comparision to the number of times someone has been wrong but has continued defending themselves.
It only takes a casual look around the world, and within one's own character, to realize this is true. Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him". This is part of human nature, and I havent really found anything to indicate that it isnt universal; though certainly some people are quite good at stuffing that defensive posture into the back of their mind and are more humble.
Not sure why you slipped in that little list, but are you by any chance looking at this problem from quite far to the right? I've noticed a tendency of ideologues (rather than ethical pragmatists) to view everyone as evil hypocrites by nature, and to use that as an excuse for their worldview.
I dont know if I'd say Im far right, because I can recognize that even "leftist" programs will accomplish some good (I just tend to think it not worth the cost), but yes, and its interesting you would say it like that. Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Folks on the right appear cold and unsympathetic in public policy because (If I can generalize) they DO tend to view the world cynically, as a cold and hostile place. We dont want publicly funded social welfare programs because we see the potential for abuse as through the roof, and the spending as driven by idealism rather than grounded in the reality of both budget and human nature.
Folks on the left (and this is how it seems to me) seem to want to assume the best; that cooperation is not only possible, but easily obtainable, and that we should not only aim for the stars, but actively work towards some ideal world that we surely can achieve. It appears to be a worldview that hopes and dreams that maybe a utopia that looks like communism could be possible, if only we could get rid of the elements that undermine it.
Im not sure how relevant any of that is, but I hope you find it interesting, and if you want to offer any corrections on how I view the leftist mindset, I would appreciate it; I think the hardest thing about really dialoging "across the aisle" is the huge difficulty in really understanding where someone is coming from at a visceral level.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him".
How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?
The important part is that you base your refutation in facts and logic, and not character assassination or misdirection.
Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Socialism is necessary not because everyone is good, but because everyone *is* self interested and self justifying. Without some sort of correcting mechanism(e.g. redistribution of wealth by the government), self-interest compounds upon self-interest, amplifying inequality and leading to atrocities that no one will admit are atrocities because of their self justifying nature.
That kind of works for math, but only math (Score:5, Insightful)
That works for math, some extent, because you can have objective, irrefutable proof. When someone says to me "you're being selfish", I can ALWAYS refute that and come up with some justification, no matter how right they are. The wise thing for me to do is to pause and ask "do they perhaps have a valid point?". "Am I indeed being selfish in some way?" Most of the time, they are at least half right, and my excuses don't change that fact.
The second half of your post is a great example. No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation. By the same token, no matter what success socialist regimes may have, I can refute your conclusion by pointing to their many failures. If I were wiser, I'd instead look to see what I can learn from your point of view. I might say "though your method of achieving the goal has always failed, perhaps the goal itself is worth pursuing". Indeed, that's often the case - leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked". Better that they look at where each other have a good point they are making. Putting their viewpoints together, you get "let's dream big dreams, then figure out how to actually accomplish some of them".
Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense. Then we can learn from each other and work together to implement your dreamy ideals in a way that actually works in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue the media organizations have overblown the terrorism angle so they can have 24/7 terror news coverage. Just yesterday with the spanish train derailment the radio broadcaster said "another train derailment happened a decade ago in Madrid, Spain, 350 miles from this trains location, it was connected to a terrorist attack. Authorities have claimed this incident, however, looks like an accident."
Why bring up a terrorist attack a decade and 300+ miles away? I doubt they are even on the same track,
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue the media organizations have overblown the terrorism angle so they can have 24/7 terror news coverage. Just yesterday with the spanish train derailment the radio broadcaster said "another train derailment happened a decade ago in Madrid, Spain, 350 miles from this trains location, it was connected to a terrorist attack. Authorities have claimed this incident, however, looks like an accident."
Why bring up a terrorist attack a decade and 300+ miles away? I doubt they are even on the same track, run by the same company, or in any other way related -- except by being trains in the same country.
You apparently don't read a lot of news - the only tie-in is that it's a train in the same country, and that's all the media thinks they need. My response, however, is for what you wrote below.
The public becomes afraid, and the public forces the government to do something.
The Patriot Act was largely unread by our representatives, and the People were fighting against it tooth and nail. This wasn't caused by the population saying, "Woe is me, come and save me grandaddy government!" it was the political cronies leveraging a horrible disaster in order to claim more power than they were e
Re: (Score:2)
Considering what they are allowed to read at work and how 'free' they feel to read at home i.e. compartmentalized.
This news will come as funding = legality. That feeling of retroactive telecom immunity vs say starting a next gen Church Committee.
This will never happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having acquired these powers over decades, no amount of voter insistence will be effective in removing them.
What needs to happen now is at the state level - the legislatures must be convinced to grant themselves greater oversight and control over federal activities.
Our representative democracy was designed in an era where (horse-drawn) transportation was problematic, and the decisions of a few were practical. These conditions no longer exist, and the few are now too easily swayed by money and power. More people need to participate in federal decisions if we wish to (re)establish the consent of the governed.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Those two agree in substance on everything (she's my rep). They only don't agree on the surface when there's a party-driven political battle at stake.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Insightful)
People in the "defense" industry typically respond with "I sleep just fine on a giant pile of money" or a slight variation of it, I'd expect the same from NSA stooges.
Re:It's A Start (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think, at least in their mind, there's any moral issue at all.
People in all law enforcement branches have the following two facts constantly being reinforced in their minds:
1. They're trying to catch bad guys.
2. No matter what they do, sometimes the bad guys get away.
Imagine working in such an environment. You're only human, so naturally you begin to think, "If only I had a little more power, I could do so much good with it."
So you make a grab for a little more power, and guess what? It does help to nab a few more bad guys. But it's still not enough. So you start to grab for a little more, then a little more, then a little more. There's nothing wrong with it, because you have the best intentions, right?
That's what's happened. The NSA has simply grabbed for more power, a little at a time, all in the name of trying to catch the bad guys. No one is telling them, "This steps over the line." The only results of their power grab, at least that they can see, is that they're more effective at doing a good thing.
So yes, it is possible that a decent, honest person could have no moral qualms about working at the NSA and recording all the communications of all Americans.
It doesn't mean they're right, of course. There are some lines they shouldn't cross. The problem is that all they can see are the reasons to cross those lines, never the reasons not to.
Re:It's A Start (Score:4, Interesting)
How do they sleep at night?
Can't speak for those at the NSA, but I grew up next to GCHQ, and knew a few people who worked there. Whenever the topic of GCHQ came up in conversation, it was pretty apparent that no one actually knew what they were doing. They are given small tasks from those higher up, but they have no idea what it's for, or why they're doing it. Someone might be writing speech regonition software, someone else might be processing some telephone numbers into a database, someone else might be writing some GPS software. No one is allowed to talk about their work to anyone else, and so no one gets the big picture as to what's actually happening. Individually the component libraries are innocent enough, but they turn positively orwellian when they are merged into a single tool (which is something the IT serfs will never see)
Re: (Score:2)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would give them any Los Angeles psychiatrist files with a few clicks:)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gemstone [wikipedia.org] of today would be quality sock puppets
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're getting paid well to perform a task, you naturally begin to view that task in a more positive light. This applies from the bottom of the power pyramid (where the pay is direct and official) all the way to the top (where the pay is indirect and unofficial).
Indeed -- and in a technical arena such as this, where you have access to all sorts of information that the "other side" doesn't have, you also can brush a lot off as "they just don't understand -- if they had the information I had, they'd behave the same way." This of course causes problems when the "other side" can't have access to the information for privacy reasons. The disconnect here is much easier to jump for the human mind than logic dictates.
Re:It's A Start (Score:4, Insightful)
I think many want to look at people in these situations in a very black-and-white way. If they're working for NSA then they must know how the information they are handling is being used. And since "we" consider it a bad thing, it must rest heavily on their conscience.
However, I would imagine more people are like myself than not. We come to work, make our widgets, and go home to our families. We don't spend any time worrying about the work itself as long as everything is functioning the way we are being paid to make it function. Using myself as an example, I get paid well with benefits and retirement packages to manage a small network. What the company does is irrelevant. I make my widgets and go home to my family. I'll leave the conscience decision-making for the armchair quarterbacks.
It's not privilege. It's not super pay scales. It's not patriotism. It's a job.
Indeed... if we expand the "How can they sleep at night" a bit, think about the following:
How can we sleep at night knowing that our "convenience" possessions are produced with the blood of impoverished nations?
How can we sleep at night knowing that our food choices are causing animal suffering, massive deforestation and health problems for the poor?
How can we sleep at night after playing the stock market and making a profit at the expense of someone who now has to default on their mortgage?
How can we sleep at night knowing that our clothing is made with forced child labor?
How can we sleep at night knowing that by wasting a large portion of the natural resources we have access to, we're really gumming things up for future generations?
How can we sleep at night when there are people in our area with no social security, no home, no friends, and no help?
And yet we seem to sleep at night just fine. Compared to these issues, some government employees supporting other government employees who have access to metadata about our daily communications seems a bit bland, and easy to sleep on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not bad for a first try to rein in rogue agency.
Just wait until the tech sector starts sending in the lobbyists in droves. Right about now, the implications are starting to hit home in Silicon Valley. All those government contracts in foreign countries are about to go bye-bye, along with a pretty good percentage of private contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My congressman will be getting a call today. (Score:5, Informative)
It's shameful. My district borders on two of my previous districts, and both of those districts voted aye. Both of those representatives are men I voted for in prior elections, and proudly so. My current congressman, on the other hand, has brought disgrace upon himself by voting against this amendment. To be fair, I voted against him...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My congressman will be getting a call today. (Score:5, Insightful)
*shrug* Doesn't matter, really. Unless I let my voice be heard, I may as well be a serf.
Of Course (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course it failed. What, you actually thought it might pass? It was obviously a hollow effort by some politicians to appear to be on the side of American privacy while knowing full well that nothing would change and the government would continue to have the ability to do what it's been doing. No surprise there.
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true, but you need to take the tally with a grain of salt. Everybody knows what the outcome will be before the vote is taken, so they each get to plan their votes according to what they think will get them re-elected. You could switch your vote when it's actually taken, but lying to the party whip is a good way to get yourself shut out of important meetings.
There were probably some who would have switched votes each direction if the tally were taken entirely in secret. I can't really say whether it would have gotten closer or further from passing, though I suspect the whips could take a stab at it.
wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't know your representative's name in a representative democracy, something's very broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know. I's NSA.
Seriously, how do we, or rather you americans, know NSA did not use blackmail?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i guess typing in your zip code is a bit much to ask
Re:wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
Whoops, broken link. Try this instead: Official House vote [house.gov]
quite possible (Score:3)
NSA sez... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll know who you called this Summer.
but I still can't sort out my own emails
Re: (Score:2)
but I still can't sort out my own emails
That's probably by design, for their own security... That way the courts can't force them to reveal it.
System works! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, Gibson, Sterling and other cyberpunk masters, you were truly prophetic back in your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Gibson, Sterling and other cyberpunk masters, you were truly prophetic back in your time.
Hardly; Heinlein predicted this shit in the early 60's.
Jury maundering at its finest. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the house is all the Jury Maundering.
Because of the majority, they will work to keep a hold of their majority, so they keep districts, where their threat of power isn't the other side, but people in your power who will claim you are not far enough into their camp. And because your district with a shape to hold your parties interest, means you can't even once vote across party lines.
In the House democracy has failed, in the area that is normal people, most direct say.
Re:Jury maundering at its finest. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He could have stopped it politically if the Republicans had the senate too. Or if the democrats were in charge of the house. However if he did that now, it would look like he is trying to strong arm the republicans out of power... And that will just get them more polarized.
If he were to fix that, he could have done that back when he got elected... However he wasted his time and effort on a health care bill, that in order of priorities that the Americans needed, was lower in the list than a lot of other th
113th congress (Score:5, Informative)
113th congress is the worst in history, which is sadly impressive given how bad the 112th was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress [wikipedia.org]
There have been a total 13 bills make it into law so far this Congress... and the ones that have made it into law are about items such as "Freedom to Fish".
It's at a complete stand still folks. You're representatives have finally dropped to the point they aren't even pretending to represent interests of voters over the interests of their corporate donors.
How bad does it have to get before something is done?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, them doing nothing is probably better, otherwise they will screw things up even more.
Re:113th congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, them doing nothing is probably better, otherwise they will screw things up even more.
False dichotomy. There's a third option: Undoing things. They can be invaliding prior acts, which is what we really need. We don't need to "fix" the U SAP AT RIOT act, we need to eliminate it. Examples abound.
Re:113th congress (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been a total 13 bills make it into law so far this Congress... and the ones that have made it into law are about items such as "Freedom to Fish".
Clearly you and I have different opinions on what qualifies as "worst" Congress. Considering all the harm they've been causing, them being completely ineffective in getting anything done is a marked improvement over what we've seen in previous years.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree totally with your point about the utter incompetence of the 113th Congress, this is an odd time to be pointing that out. This is probably the first and only time in their whole session where they made a good attempt at getting something productive and important done. They only came 7 votes shy of the goal, and it was frankly the first significant bipartisan effort I've seen in Congress since the Republicans took it over in 2010. Seriously, don't harsh all over the first tiny ray of sunshine we
Re: (Score:3)
Still don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:Still don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?
Re:Still don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?
Exactly -this is why it is a big deal arekin (GP). When the government pretty much knows everything about everyone - then there is no more ability to effectively and democratically reform society for the better, right injustices, fight to change the status quo etc. For example try and organize a rally, information drive, any form of community organization against or for [insert cause]. If it upsets those in power you will be picked up/harassed/fired/detained before any of your emails/chats/phone calls to organize democratically allowed protest even hit anyones inbox. This is not speculation, all these police state things have already happened. One recent example: if you care to look into the details of one particular movement called "Occupy" that threatened the heart of power and money by asking for those in wall street that broke laws to actually be punished for their crimes.
Allowing the surveillance state means any slippery sloped we are now on with just continue to get worse, no leaders in our community can take charge to organize others to resist/complain/pushback against [insert cause]. History has given us enough examples now to know that if we do not reject the surveillance state we now find ourselves living in, then we really do deserve everything that is coming...
Re:Still don't get it... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's interesting someone brought up COINTELPRO. The contrast between COINTELPRO and Watergate is instructive. Watergate took down one President who had gone too far - NOT in acting against, and lying to, the American people, but in acting against the other powerful faction in DC. That got reported and everyone has heard of it.
COINTELPRO was much, much worse, it was decades of continuous criminal action. But it was targeted at the people, rather than against a faction of the ruling class. Mainstream media has studiously ignored it more than not, many people have never even heard of it, and those who have mostly have no real idea what it involved.
The rot in this country isnt new, it's been rotting for quite awhile now, it's just that we are finally reaching the point where average folks can no longer avoid being aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again?
Perhaps you missed the FBI's work on the financial blockade against OWS?
Re:Still don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/07/07/tea-party-only-one-of-irs-targets.html [dispatch.com]
http://www.hannity.com/article/irs-targets-political-candidates/17710 [hannity.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-targets-conservative-groups/ [washingtonpost.com]
Seems they already started.
Congress *might* be rattled (Score:2)
I just called my representative to express my displeasure. The young woman who answered had an obvious prepared response about how Rep. Sinema has been working to protect the Fourth Amendment and this was a hard decision...but it didn't sound like her heart was in it.
That this amendment failed is a bad sign, that Congress would rather stand with the spymasters than with the citizenry. But there may still be a glimmer of hope for us to push hard enough to un-fuck ourselves.
It does make me wonder, though, wha
Re: (Score:2)
You representative is probably a typical politician, so here's the list of dirt they have on him/her.
- affair with interns
- hiring prostitutes
- taking bribes from government contractors
- getting top donors cushy political appointments (like ambassadorships)
- manipulating the Justice system to get friends out of jail
- insider trading. While still not illegal, is morally wrong
- etc.
Re: (Score:2)
- find the one member of the press who knows of the intern thing
- State jobs via Federal and private "government" contractors to take back to the electorate
- getting family members cushy jobs
- insider trading, legal now for staff
- Elite educational places found, huge fees altered to free scholarships.
- Offshore "trusts" permanently hidden from any US tax efforts
- etc.
For this gen insider trading seems to work well.
War not over yet (Score:4, Interesting)
I would also like to take a moment to sincerely apologize to the tin foil hat crowd: I have made fun of you in the past, only now I am sorry I was too blind to really listen. You were right all along.
Re: (Score:2)
You were right all along.
You don't know the half of it.
Re: (Score:3)
I would also like to take a moment to sincerely apologize to the tin foil hat crowd: I have made fun of you in the past, only now I am sorry I was too blind to really listen. You were right all along.
Reminds me of my favorite Heinlein quote:
"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
The people have spoken (Score:3)
And they want to be heard!
Darnit.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the NSA. We hear you loud and clear.
Re:The people have spoken (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks guys. Hey - listen my external USB drive got corrupted last night and I can't seem to repair it.
Can you direct me to the request form for an NSA restore of my data, please?
I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
Find out how your Rep voted (Score:3)
And let them know how you feel about it.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 [nytimes.com]
Will never happen (Score:3)
This will never pass for one simple reason. The same people who have access to the information and can use these intimate details of someone's life for personal or political gain, are the same ones who are voting on the funding of the same program. Why would the government shut it down, when they can use this to blackmail anyone they want? If had access to all this information and was a sociopathic politician, I would NEVER give the program up.
Remember the Petraeus scandal? Do you really think it was a coincidence that 1 month after Benghazi, the CIA director is found out to be having an affair? The United States is entering a phase known as the post-constitutional republic, where the rule of law is disregarded by the people who are "more equal than others". The Rule of Law offers no protection, because the same people who are supposed to enforce the law are the ones breaking the law.
Fortunately, the Founding Fathers gave the American People two amendments which are their best attempt at protecting the people from the post-constitutional republic. The 1st, allowing the people to speak about what is happening. And the 2nd, allowing people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Once the 1st and 2nd Amendment have been 100% usurped, it is time to start learning Chinese.
Surprisingly Close (Score:3)
217-205.
My representative, who voted for crap like CISPA even voted against this.
All that is needed is to change 7 votes.
Where was Ron Paul? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Next Election (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't Have Mattered (Score:3)
It would have been a great symbolic win, but the President would have vetoed it no question, and I doubt we could ever get a super majority, even if we could get it passed in the first place.
Bottom line: (Score:3)
Just as well... (Score:3)
Edward Snowden... (Score:3)
In one of Snowden's early public statements he said that one of his primary motivations was to inform the people of what the government was doing so that we could have a public discussion about it.
Does anyone think this vote would have happened without his actions?
In addition, ACLU has filed a new lawsuit against the NSA. An earlier lawsuit had been shot down on the grounds that they didn't have legal standing to sue because nobody could prove that they had been directly affected. Of course the proof could only come from government which refused to provide it. Now that we know more about what the NSA is doing, e.g. collecting data on ALL Verizon customers, the government might finally have to argue their case before a court and try to convince people that their actions are consistent with The Constitution.
Cheers to Edward Snowden, William Binney and alll of the other whistleblowers who have risked so much to reveal government malfeasance.
As a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Canadian I don't enjoy any protection from the spying because I'm not a Canadian citizen.
So let me be amongst the many who say "Fuck the United States."
This is precisely the kind of behaviour that leads to hatred of and terrorism against the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously I meant to say "I'm not an American citizen."
Political kabuki at its best. (Score:3)
Congress rejected this bill "very narrowly" (205-217) with 12 abstains. They split themselves into good cops and bad cops almost evenly. How convenient...
Something tells me this was carefully staged political reality show intended to convince people that they still have "some choice", yet it "didn't work out this time". Which is a big lie. They were all complicit in keeping NSA money flowing, they just chose among themselves who will act "good guy" and who will be "bad guy" in this episode.
Once again, there is no functioning democracy in the US these days. US government has gone full retard with spying everyone everywhere, setting up inconvenient folks [facebook.com] and even killing inconvenient journalists [yahoo.com] with enough audacity to warn others that it can happen to them [youtube.com] (at least this is how I interpret Richard Clarke's statement).
Your government chose to do bad, bad things that happen to be profitable for them and as their misconducts are becoming more and more blatant, they chose more and more opressions instead of less wrongdoings. Don't expect things to improve anytime soon, it's propably too late.
Re: (Score:2)
This amendment was expected to be voted down by a large margin, which is why it was allowed to be voted on. In light of that fact, the 205 to 217 result actually makes this a significant victory for privacy advocates.
Symbolically, yes. In spirit, maybe, there might have been some pandering by the representatives. But in fact, that still means that more than half of the house doesn't think much of their constituents.
The only upside is that now we know we have at least 217 traitors in the house. Unfortunately the senate and other branches remains an unknown, but non-zero, number.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, brilliant idea. A US organization threatening congress-- THAT would go well. Im not sure you realize the extent of the power that Congress has to make life difficult for the NSA if it wanted to.