3 ms·

The NSA is watching, but they are not censors.

asquabventured 9y ago
The problem is that the NSA is watching us all, and we know it, so we self censor. The question is: Do you trust your/any government in 'x' years to not treat your communication and thoughts sent today as criminal in the future?
- johncolanduoni 9y ago
  If people are self-censoring their opinions about the US government currently, it's hard to imagine how strongly they really feel.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " so we self censor." I don't. I mean - you'd have to literally indicate you wanted to cause harm to a government official to get in trouble with the US Feds - and it's not unreasonable they do come after you as that is rightly a crime. But you can say almost anything you want against Trump or the US Government otherwise, and nobody will care.
code_duck 9y ago
The NSA collects the data - they're not the ones who take action about it. They supply the info to the CIA, FBI, DEA, and so forth. Their data sharing was expanded just before Obama left office: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more... "Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information. Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions."
- opportune 9y ago
  Constitutionality aside, while this does make some sense for the FBI and CIA - because they have people skilled enough to analyze the data and "legitimate" uses in counter-terrorism - it makes no sense to give all that data to agencies like Homeland Security and the DEA, and I also have little confidence that their agents are good enough to even make sense of basic raw data. Just imagine some TSA agent finding a knife you left in your bag and then getting passed to some moron who detains you for hours because he saw that you liked some communist memes on FB and your friend sent you a 9/11 joke.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  The CIA, FBI, DEA etc are not 'censors' either. They are law enforcement. Censorship of US citizens for the purposes of state propaganda is a whole other different thing than anything the CIA/FBI/DEA does. And FYI the CIA may be proactively involved involved in propaganda, like helping some Hollywood movies ... but they are not running around tell you not to say bad things about Trump on Facebook, is my point.
  - code_duck 9y ago
    My point is that if there were to be any censor/like actions conducted by the government, it would not be the NSA carrying it out. It would be law enforcement.

The problem is that the NSA is watching us all, and we know it, so we self censor. The question is: Do you trust your/any government in 'x' years to not treat your communication and thoughts sent today as criminal in the future?

johncolanduoni 9y ago
If people are self-censoring their opinions about the US government currently, it's hard to imagine how strongly they really feel.
alexasmyths 9y ago
" so we self censor." I don't. I mean - you'd have to literally indicate you wanted to cause harm to a government official to get in trouble with the US Feds - and it's not unreasonable they do come after you as that is rightly a crime. But you can say almost anything you want against Trump or the US Government otherwise, and nobody will care.

code_duck 9y ago

The NSA collects the data - they're not the ones who take action about it. They supply the info to the CIA, FBI, DEA, and so forth. Their data sharing was expanded just before Obama left office: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more... "Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information. Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions."

opportune 9y ago
Constitutionality aside, while this does make some sense for the FBI and CIA - because they have people skilled enough to analyze the data and "legitimate" uses in counter-terrorism - it makes no sense to give all that data to agencies like Homeland Security and the DEA, and I also have little confidence that their agents are good enough to even make sense of basic raw data. Just imagine some TSA agent finding a knife you left in your bag and then getting passed to some moron who detains you for hours because he saw that you liked some communist memes on FB and your friend sent you a 9/11 joke.
alexasmyths 9y ago
The CIA, FBI, DEA etc are not 'censors' either. They are law enforcement. Censorship of US citizens for the purposes of state propaganda is a whole other different thing than anything the CIA/FBI/DEA does. And FYI the CIA may be proactively involved involved in propaganda, like helping some Hollywood movies ... but they are not running around tell you not to say bad things about Trump on Facebook, is my point.
- code_duck 9y ago
  My point is that if there were to be any censor/like actions conducted by the government, it would not be the NSA carrying it out. It would be law enforcement.