3 ms·
They could be invasive, by monitoring even when there's nothing going on, but there are well-defined rules and strict protocols in place, and I have never heard
by netwanderer3 7y ago
They could be invasive, by monitoring even when there's nothing going on, but there are well-defined rules and strict protocols in place, and I have never heard any cases where they have used the data to attack anyone personally or are there?
- maxheadroom 7y agoNot sure if this[0] falls under the "attack anyone personally" umbrella but it definitely falls under the invasive, even when there's nothing going on, portion of your comment. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
- ionised 7y agoCertain employees were discovered to have been using these tools to spy on wives, partners, love interests, children etc. That's just the stuff we actually heard about.
- ibeckermayer 7y agoI never consented to have my data snooped on by some cabal of creeps out in Washington DC. If they suspect I’m up to something, then show sufficient evidence to get a warrant and be transparent about it. Whether they’ve acted on the data or not is irrelevant — they’re stealing what should be my property and building tools for tyranny.
- syshum 7y agoYou wont, because of a little thing called Parallel Construction. NSA finds something out illegally, unethically, they pass it to another agency so proceeds to figure out a way to "discover" what the NSA did in a way that is legal, or at least plausible to the courts, thus never having to admit the investigation started with the NSA
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]