5 ms·

>why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society I think this framing is a bit naive. It also implies—without evidence—some malice on the part of L

>why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society I think this framing is a bit naive. It also implies—without evidence—some malice on the part of LE. The suggestion is that this activity is known to be ineffective for the stated purpose, so continues to be conducted for some other purpose, which by definition would be nefarious. But, there is no proof of this, except that some would like to see more perp walks that reveal sources and methods. And, as much as people sound the alarm, we've seen relatively little-to-no abuse of these epanded powers. Americans are not being prosecuted at-scale, if at all, over information that may have been incidentally captured. The truth is that powers had to be expanded to keep pace with changes in technology, and a changing world in general. Without this our LE wouldn't stand a chance. Now one might argue about degree and balance, but that's not what I generally hear. Instead, it's mostly vague alarmism and mistrust about the very idea of any expanded powers.

Voultapher 2y ago
Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. We have ample evidence that mass surveillance not only has massive issues but also that it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits, at all. http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/ http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-... Want a grim reality check on "what they say vs reality", then go read this https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ... . Particularity interesting is this section: "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:"
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. This is another vague allusion. Consolidate power for whom? How exactly does it do so? What, specifically, is this "power" and how is it used against American citizens? >it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits The article referenced here is from 2014, so not exactly up-to-date. And, in multiple instances, the authors acknowledge that they don't even know whether the programs were used. In still other cases, they acknowledge the programs' use in prosecuting terrorists, but casually cast them aside as a low percentage. OK. But, who wants to sign up for "just a few terror incidents"? >Want a grim reality check Another report from 2014, and additionally has nothing to do with the subject. "Someone in the government did something wrong in this completely unrelated way 10 years ago" is not a valid argument.

Voultapher 2y ago

Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. We have ample evidence that mass surveillance not only has massive issues but also that it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits, at all. http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/ http://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-... Want a grim reality check on "what they say vs reality", then go read this https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publ... . Particularity interesting is this section: "The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:"

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>Surveillance is there to consolidate power, safety is a smokescreen. This is another vague allusion. Consolidate power for whom? How exactly does it do so? What, specifically, is this "power" and how is it used against American citizens? >it doesn't deliver on the parroted benefits The article referenced here is from 2014, so not exactly up-to-date. And, in multiple instances, the authors acknowledge that they don't even know whether the programs were used. In still other cases, they acknowledge the programs' use in prosecuting terrorists, but casually cast them aside as a low percentage. OK. But, who wants to sign up for "just a few terror incidents"? >Want a grim reality check Another report from 2014, and additionally has nothing to do with the subject. "Someone in the government did something wrong in this completely unrelated way 10 years ago" is not a valid argument.