House votes to continue NSA spying on citizens

[TheLastDays]

People aren't entitled to know everything. Joe Blow down the road doesn't need to know specific details about the U.S. nuclear capability.

Why? Who said that? Whose decision is that?

[rvg]

Citizens United v. the FEC. That decision was as wrong as wrong decisions get.

Their reasoning is logical enough. What's your beef exactly?

This is the information age. Stupid axioms about something being as old as civilization itself ignores the fact that we live in an era of change and expanding possibilities. If the American people fail to try for a better option, the alternative is not for things to stay the same, but to get worse in a way that you don't foresee. What started with the Patriot Act and has continued (even thrived) under Obama's administration is the beginnings of a police state that threatens everything. Screw the rhetoric, look at the facts. The infrastructure is there, thanks to tax-payer dollars. We now live in a free society at the mercy of unelected spooks. Fuck that.

Bla bla bla big brother bla bla evil feds bla bla I must know everything the CIA knows, does, plans or thinks. You know what, no. NO. There are things you don't need to know.

Why? Who said that? Whose decision is that?

The state, thank God. It's common sense really.

[TheLastDays]

Their reasoning is logical enough. What's your beef exactly?

Bla bla bla big brother bla bla evil feds bla bla I must know everything the CIA knows, does, plans or thinks. You know what, no. NO. There are things you don't need to know.

The state, thank God. It's common sense really.

Alright, so who is "the state"? I thought that's the people... Now I do overreact to make a point, just to make that clear, but the problem is that today we experience an age where we move from a people that knew mostly about the state and therefore cared about it to a small elite that removes more and more from "necessary public knowledge" and thus creates their own secret society. The voter, who is supposed to decide the "future of the land" doesn't know what he needs to know to even make informed decisions.

And if I don't need to know everything the CIA does then why in the world are they allowed to know everything I do?

[rvg]

Alright, so who is "the state"? I thought that's the people...

The state is the people. At least the representative democracy is.

The voter, who is supposed to decide the "future of the land" doesn't know what he needs to know to even make informed decisions.

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

And if I don't need to know everything the CIA does then why in the world are they allowed to know everything I do?

Because they're the CIA. The state has allowed them to do that.

[TheLastDays]

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

Alright, now we're talking. So why does everyone still believe democracy is the way to go?

Because they're the CIA. The state has allowed them to do that.

Not my state.

[rvg]

Are you totally opposed to the idea of reforming the intelligence apparatus, rvg, or do you firmly believe that people should behave like sheep and just listen to their betters?

You're presenting me with a false dilemma.

[Montmorency]

True democracy died with the ancient Athens.

No, it died with the Germanic "barbarians".

But anyway, this is equivocation.

You're presenting me with a false dilemma.

What other options are there than: to reform, or not to reform?

Anyway, it's at least nice to know that they aren't wasting too much on trying to store all this data.

[Gregoshi]

The state is the people. At least the representative democracy is.

The average voter is a moron who shouldn't be trusted with a safety scissors, let alone something important.

Impressive back-to-back comments.

[Greyblades]

I'm presenting you with the real dilemma, going on in America, right now.

I think he means a false dichtomy, translation: he thinks the two options you said arent the only options.

[drone]

Anyway, it's at least nice to know that they aren't wasting too much on trying to store all this data.

I wonder how high a price tag that new taxpayer-funded server farm in Utah has.

The only way the program will be shut down is when it is used to spy on a serving member of Congress for election dirty tricks. And this will happen eventually.

[rvg]

Impressive back-to-back comments.

Look at Congress. Those clowns represent America.

[Papewaio]

General Petraeus.

Was found out by an email trail. Was it really the FBI who found this out or was it an NSA background check?

Was it legit or did someone in NSA have a score to settle with the CIA head?

[Montmorency]

I wonder how high a price tag that new taxpayer-funded server farm in Utah has.

$3 billion, $5 billion, I dunno - but at least some bang for the buck I figure.



Hopefully, this is a long-enough term investment that, assuming most of the data is flushed regularly, and assuming the technology used is sufficiently secret and/or cutting-edge and will be periodically upgraded, there will be no need for such constructions for many decades.

For this specific purpose, at least...

The only way the program will be shut down is when it is used to spy on a serving member of Congress for election dirty tricks.

What if they already do that to all of them? What if that's part of why Congress hasn't been all that upset by the NSA's policies?

[rvg]

Exactly. These programs mean that the line between tin-foil-hat-stuff and legitimate concerns is now absurdly blurry. That's a huge problem that threatens to rightly undermine our entire government. We're at a cross-roads, and Congress took the wrong road when they voted down that amendment.

So punish them. If the congressman voted "nay", don't vote him next time . If the the popular sentiment is truly so anti-NSA, then none of naysayers should survive the 2014 election cycle. If they do survive then people likely don't care about this issue as much as you do.

[Papewaio]

Problem is the US has a history of secret dossiers held by the intelligence community that is used to blackmail politicians.

So what will win anti-NSA concerned citizens or politicians who are worried that they might be revealed.

It doesn't even have to be a direct threat. It is just the idea that they will make you the next Petraeus or Weiner.

I'm sure a large chunk of the yes voters have a mistress or some other juicy tit bit.

[drone]

What if they already do that to all of them? What if that's part of why Congress hasn't been all that upset by the NSA's policies?

If it leaks that a serving member has been scoped, Congress will put an end to it very quickly. You can't rely on them for much of anything, but the threat of losing their seats (be they R or D) is one surefire way to wake them up. But I'm sure Congress hasn't really thought through any of the implications. Rule #1, never vote to give a branch power that you don't want the opposition to have.

The temptation to run a scan on the opposition's presidential candidate or political dissidents will be too much for someone to resist. That is the problem with these programs, the smear campaigns write themselves.

[rvg]

Load of dookey. Most of them aren't going anywhere because of Gerrymandering and lack of public involvement. My representative voted Aye, and both of my Senators are against this program. Unfortunately, I come from a state that doesn't really get a say in anything, so its up to the rest of the country to do the right thing.

Perhaps the rest have a different perspective.

Problem is the US has a history of secret dossiers held by the intelligence community that is used to blackmail politicians.
So what will win anti-NSA concerned citizens or politicians who are worried that they might be revealed.
It doesn't even have to be a direct threat. It is just the idea that they will make you the next Petraeus or Weiner.
I'm sure a large chunk of the yes voters have a mistress or some other juicy tit bit.

Hearsay, hearsay and more hearsay. Besides, politicians do not elect themselves, even before the general election they have to win the primary. Neither party would nominate a candidate that is a clear political liability even too keep them under control. If a republican knows something, chances are that there's a democrat that knows the same exact thing. There might be others too, but they do not matter.

[Papewaio]

Right and j edgar hoover was a fictional character.

[rvg]

Hearsay my ass.

The FBI tried to take down the civil rights movement. The Red Scare was as much a weapon against the American poor as it was a national defense tool. Nobody "in the know" was afraid of the USSR after the later '60s when the "Missile Gap" was exposed to be not only false, but a backwards view of the strategic environment. The CIA imported crack for profit, and has always been used for illegal financial gain by whoever is in power. The list goes on, and I shudder to think about the stuff that hasn't or never will be revealed. So screw your rosy-tinted glasses, some stuff needs to change.

I think you just need to accept the fact that you're in the minority on this one. It's no big deal really: I'm in minority on great many things, you don't see me flipping out over that. By November 2014 nobody will remember/care about NSA, Snowden, Manning, Assange, whatever. Nobody will give a crap. Well maybe not nobody, but not enough for it to matter in any way whatsoever. You can't change the world, dude. Once you accept that and concentrate on things you can change, you'll become a much happier person.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think you just need to accept the fact that you're in the minority on this one. It's no big deal really: I'm in minority on great many things, you don't see me flipping out over that. By November 2014 nobody will remember/care about NSA, Snowden, Manning, Assange, whatever. Nobody will give a crap. Well maybe not nobody, but not enough for it to matter in any way whatsoever. You can't change the world, dude. Once you accept that and concentrate on things you can change, you'll become a much happier person.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

[rvg]

Oh shut up. There's a big difference between being in the minority on an issue that doesn't matter, and being in the minority on an issue regarding the fundamental nature of freedom.

What makes you think that I'm can't be in the minority on an important issue?

I don't think I am in the minority, I just don't think most people are aware of the crap that has gone on or continues to go on.

As you said, this is the digital age. Information finds you even if you don't go out looking for it. Heck, it finds you even if you actively hide from it. Ignorance is no longer a plausible explanation.

People assume the myths about stuff the CIA has done are just myths, or things from the distant past, but the reality is that our freedoms are abused by these agencies every day. If you think that is okay, that's not just you expressing your opinion on a political matter, that's you expressing a desire to not be free.

I believe things that can be proven. I can even believe things that are light of factual proof as long as there's solid logical reasoning behind any particular theory. Most conspiracy theories do not pass the lithmus test.

[Montmorency]

It's not a matter of reason, it's a matter of power.

I believe things that can be proven. I can even believe things that are light of factual proof as long as there's solid logical reasoning behind any particular theory. Most conspiracy theories do not pass the lithmus test.

Is it really such a kooky theory that things similar to what has happened in the past are happening in the present?

[rvg]

Is it really such a kooky theory that things similar to what has happened in the past are happening in the present?

It really is. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it is happening. A great many things can happen. It's not too much to ask for some evidence, some telltale signs that can prove that it's happening.
Sorta like saying that since aliens may exist, they must exist.

I did not quote one incident that wasn't proven already. Sure, lots of redactions, but you're cool with that right? Then again, how old are you? Why haven't you done this research on your own already? Why the hell am I explaining this to you?

You know what, I'll leave you to your outrage. Go ahead and fume.

[a completely inoffensive name]

RVG must have some stake in the game. I don't blame him, there is an entire complex and the government money flows generously.

[Montmorency]

Sorta like saying that since aliens may exist, they must exist.

Sorta like saying, the sun rose yesterday so it might rise again - quite a preponderance of evidence for that, actually...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorta like saying, the sun rose yesterday so it might rise again - quite a preponderance of evidence for that, actually...

You fool, induction does not prove anything.

[Montmorency]

Neither does deduction, ultimately.

But you seem to have missed the point as well. Compare my example to rvg's example and note the similarities.

[rvg]

Damnit man, that's not the point. The point is that there are no safeguards to make sure bad things aren't happening with the billions of dollars we throw at black budgets every freaking year.

Of course there are no safeguards, but you can't place a watchdog behind everyone, because you'll also have to place another watchdog behind every watch dog and yet another watchdog behind that one for good measure. At some point you have to believe that not everyone in the government is gonna screw up and piss away all that money. If you have zero trust in the entire structure of the government and if you're actually correct in your lack of trust, than it's too late already. The game's over and we've lost.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Neither does deduction, ultimately.

But you seem to have missed the point as well. Compare my example to rvg's example and note the similarities.

I'm not actually a participant here. I'm just trying to bait people.

[Montmorency]

If you have zero trust in the entire structure of the government and if you're actually correct in your lack of trust, than it's too late already. The game's over and we've lost.

Well, couldn't there be a space between 'Basically good enough, no need to rock the boat' and 'Game over, man!'?