4 ms·

"Valid role" is a meaningless term in the context of the NSA, which has broken the law for at least a decade with no consequences. The head of the NSA has lied

by x220 8y ago

"Valid role" is a meaningless term in the context of the NSA, which has broken the law for at least a decade with no consequences. The head of the NSA has lied to congress (which would put an ordinary man in prison). The NSA has spied and continues to spy on Americans in violation of several laws and court rulings. If the founding fathers were still alive, they'd be stacking bodies by now.

mr_overalls 8y ago
I mean that the conducting of signals intelligence against national adversaries is a useful/common mission for any country's intelligence agencies. There seems to be little doubt - as you point out - that the NSA has also abused their mandate a bit by spying on Americans.
- x220 8y ago
  >the NSA has also abused their mandate a bit by spying on Americans The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans. This is done without legitimate, meaningful oversight or probable cause. Most of their measurable activity is illegal and violates the rights of Americans. The difference between data collection in the PRC and in the USA is that the USA hasn't extensively acted on this information against its own citizens so far. This overall tone and emphasis is similar to hand-waving away mass police brutality and oppression by saying "buuuuut they keep us safe".
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    > The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans. Could you provide a citation on this? > Most of their measurable activity is illegal and violates the rights of Americans. This is a useless metric: it's true of both healthy and unhealthy spy agencies; the former because we wouldn't hear about the useful and legal things they do, only the occasional whistleblowing, while the latter because of the point you're trying to make. (I also disagree it's true.) However, without a solid metric on their total classified activity, there's no way to determine if it's unhealthy or healthy.
    - craftinator 8y ago
      1) Read the Snowden dump 2) Good job pointing out that those shady assholes keep their nasty actions as secret as possible. They do that so that we don't have solid metrics, so we have to go on the information available. See (1)
      - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        Please cite something specific -- as in, a specific document within the Snowden dump, a news article which reaches that conclusion based on multiple documents, etc. Waving your hands and mouthing the word "Snowden" doesn't support just any defamatory statement you want to make about the government spy agencies -- and making up allegations cheapens the legitimate charges against them.
        craftinator 8y ago
        I would assume that you'd read the relevant documents prior to commenting. Scroll down to "United States", click on the reference links next to each illegal domestic surveillance programs. If the link yields another wiki page, keep clicking on the reference links util you find the relevant documents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surv...
        NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        > If the link yields another wiki page, keep clicking on the reference links util you find the relevant documents. Neither snark nor a Wiki labyrinth are a specific citation for what you said: "The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans." Nothing on that Wikipedia page supports that claim, and certainly not with a citation from the Snowden documents. You're just bullshitting, and you're bullshitting on a serious topic like national security. It's transparent you're doing so, because you're citing non-specific things like a general Wikipedia page on the topic, after alleging a very serious thing was supported by the Snowden documents. If you were serious, and being honest, you'd have cited a specific document. Or set of documents. Or an analysis which supported your position. But you're not. (Nor is that Wiki page: several things listed as mass surveillance are nothing of the sort, and just regular ol spy work against foreign targets.)
- craftinator 8y ago
  "a bit"? They have run major projects, spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, with the sole purpose of wholesale domestic espionage on the citizens of the USA. I'd post a reference, but jeez, I don't even need to, we all already know the details. It is currently one of their top 5 missions FFS. The only reason they exists is that we as citizens have to recourse channels, and not enough spine to physically remove those parasites.

by x220 8y ago

mr_overalls 8y ago

I mean that the conducting of signals intelligence against national adversaries is a useful/common mission for any country's intelligence agencies. There seems to be little doubt - as you point out - that the NSA has also abused their mandate a bit by spying on Americans.

x220 8y ago
>the NSA has also abused their mandate a bit by spying on Americans The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans. This is done without legitimate, meaningful oversight or probable cause. Most of their measurable activity is illegal and violates the rights of Americans. The difference between data collection in the PRC and in the USA is that the USA hasn't extensively acted on this information against its own citizens so far. This overall tone and emphasis is similar to hand-waving away mass police brutality and oppression by saying "buuuuut they keep us safe".
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  > The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans. Could you provide a citation on this? > Most of their measurable activity is illegal and violates the rights of Americans. This is a useless metric: it's true of both healthy and unhealthy spy agencies; the former because we wouldn't hear about the useful and legal things they do, only the occasional whistleblowing, while the latter because of the point you're trying to make. (I also disagree it's true.) However, without a solid metric on their total classified activity, there's no way to determine if it's unhealthy or healthy.
  - craftinator 8y ago
    1) Read the Snowden dump 2) Good job pointing out that those shady assholes keep their nasty actions as secret as possible. They do that so that we don't have solid metrics, so we have to go on the information available. See (1)
    - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      Please cite something specific -- as in, a specific document within the Snowden dump, a news article which reaches that conclusion based on multiple documents, etc. Waving your hands and mouthing the word "Snowden" doesn't support just any defamatory statement you want to make about the government spy agencies -- and making up allegations cheapens the legitimate charges against them.
      - craftinator 8y ago
        I would assume that you'd read the relevant documents prior to commenting. Scroll down to "United States", click on the reference links next to each illegal domestic surveillance programs. If the link yields another wiki page, keep clicking on the reference links util you find the relevant documents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surveillance_projects https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surv...
        NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        > If the link yields another wiki page, keep clicking on the reference links util you find the relevant documents. Neither snark nor a Wiki labyrinth are a specific citation for what you said: "The largest share of the data they collect is about Americans." Nothing on that Wikipedia page supports that claim, and certainly not with a citation from the Snowden documents. You're just bullshitting, and you're bullshitting on a serious topic like national security. It's transparent you're doing so, because you're citing non-specific things like a general Wikipedia page on the topic, after alleging a very serious thing was supported by the Snowden documents. If you were serious, and being honest, you'd have cited a specific document. Or set of documents. Or an analysis which supported your position. But you're not. (Nor is that Wiki page: several things listed as mass surveillance are nothing of the sort, and just regular ol spy work against foreign targets.)
craftinator 8y ago
"a bit"? They have run major projects, spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, with the sole purpose of wholesale domestic espionage on the citizens of the USA. I'd post a reference, but jeez, I don't even need to, we all already know the details. It is currently one of their top 5 missions FFS. The only reason they exists is that we as citizens have to recourse channels, and not enough spine to physically remove those parasites.