5 ms·

In my honest opinion, I truly believe that this ship has sailed. It is too late to turn back now. Too much money and too much value has been had from these syst

• olalonde 13y ago
  In my opinion, the situation is much worse now because government can now openly use those tools without having to bear the cost of revealing their capabilities. Before PRISM came to light, they wouldn't have dared to use it for an IRS investigation because they would have ran the risk of revealing their spying activities. Now that everyone knows, they don't run this risk anymore.
• christoph 13y ago
  I'm not really sure why you've been down-voted for this? I agree - I can't imagine a scenario whereby these large scale systems are switched off. Even if we are told they have been switched off or the data destroyed, how would we (as everyday folk) ever verify this?
• monsterix 13y ago
  No it hasn't. And they'll have to budge, or go out. Too much money has been put (It's the tax-payers money) and value gained (doesn't it sound like finding terrorists this way is as bad as finding the next superstar for Hollywood?) is near-negligible in contrast to the value eroded: trust that's been destroyed - particularly in Internet companies - both inside and outside of US. Think again. > Our only choice is to accept this and live in the knowledge that we are always being watched, or go as dark as the modern world currently permits without hindering day to day life. You sound low here, but if the above were true then it'd mean that people are willing to live under a dictator too. That's simply untrue.
  • reinhardt 13y ago
    The problem is (most) people seem to be ok with the have-nothing-to-hide argument. Unless the public opinion on this is inverted, there's not much hope for change I'm afraid.
  • Ygg2 13y ago
    >You sound low here, but if the above were true then it'd mean that people are willing to live under a dictator too. That's simply untrue. It's true now. But it might be true in future. Hate to sound pessimistic but there are benefits (however perverse they are) to dictatorship. You aren't pestered every year to vote (unless it's a democratic dictator that rigs the elections). You aren't asked about lot of things. You don't have to worry about saving the environment or your impact, just what he does. Things most people dislike like gays or immigrants is taken care of by a dictator. As long as he doesn't piss off too many people or too influential people, he's golden (and even then). Also dictators are more predictable then a nation to deal with. Dictatorship are great if your nation is compromised of lazy, mostly irresponsible people.
  • jacoblyles 13y ago
    The American people would never stand for a dictator in name. But they would stand for powerful permanent bureaucrats that no elected official had the ability to push around. 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.
• Mordor 13y ago
  You could apply the same logic to Obama's tenure as president, but we all know he can resign any time.
• LatvjuAvs 13y ago
  la résistance
• pknight 13y ago
  What purpose do comments as these serve to you? Encourage other people to be sheep? Such a small minded attitude to have, if you ask me. And insulting to all the people throughout history that time after time have sought to bring change, successfully and unsuccessfully. We all have pessimistic attitudes, but to make pointless comments like these, to me, it's like pollution; better to be a leader, no matter how small or insignificant a person is in the large scheme of things. Anything can change, nothing can be fully predicted, this much is proven throughout history. It starts by not accepting the status quo.
  • junto 13y ago
    I'm being pragmatic. I would loved to be proved wrong, but history shows us otherwise.
    • wittyphrasehere 13y ago
      What do you mean by "history shows us otherwise?" Are you saying that all power structures created by humans have continued to rule indefinitely? History actually shows us the opposite, unless I misunderstood what you meant. Genuinely curious.
  • notacoward 13y ago
    I don't think it's a defeatist position. The first step to devising an effective strategy is to acknowledge and understand reality. "Anything can change" is simply not true. Strategies based on fantasy will fail. This reality of ubiquitous surveillance is not going to change. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can direct our energy toward changes that might actually be possible. It's not that outlandish to say that we can't prevent the information from being gathered. Can we exert some control over what's done with it? Can we add some meaningful accountability? Who watches the watchers, and how can they do so without invading people's privacy themselves? These are questions we should be addressing even if we think we can prevent or limit the data gathering, and if we can't then that vain hope will have distracted us from other approaches while those were still feasible. I am playing devil's advocate a bit here. I actually do believe that we can stop data gathering on this scale. However, I don't have the certainty that comes from ignorance, nor the hauteur to condemn someone else for reaching a different conclusion. Let others have their say, even if you disagree. The urge to quash dissent is exactly what we're fighting.
• TheCondor 13y ago
  Cost and value don't apply here. Honestly, I think they've provided very little value. The fundamental truth is that terrorists are still a tiny minority and while they may have disrupted an attack or even a few, they didn't stop Boston and there simply haven't been hundreds of legitimate plans. That leaves insane costs with little to no intentional value and tremendous risk for corruption. Hard to shutdown but not impossible.
  • junto 13y ago
    Their are a large number of secret 'fiefdoms' that have been created since 9/11. The people in those positions of power do not want to see those positions threatened. Therefore, when you have such power and knowledge about everyone, you can also threaten anyone, since everyone has something to hide. Including senators, judges and presidents.
• knorby 13y ago
  Large, multi-billion dollar projects have been cancelled by the US in the past for merely being over-budget for too long. The NSA does quite a bit that I doubt would even be at risk of going on the chopping block, though I really have no idea what the NSA budget looks like. Unclassified national supercomputing, for example, is pretty intertwined with the NSA, and I doubt that will be threatened, even if their data collection/storage efforts are. 'Those systems' aren't much more than data centers and people--things can change.
• lucian1900 13y ago
  As a non-American, this is in fact the only course of action. I both have no control over the NSA and am considered to have less rights. "No taxation without representation" or something?
• alan_cx 13y ago
  No one is suggesting that the NSA or these system should or would go, even many would like to see that happen. The whole point is over-sight, and making these spooks follow the laws of the land. See, the point is we can all see and debate these laws and rules. We don't need to know about the operations of the NSA as long as we have confidence in the rules, over-sight and enforcement. Here is my problem: When was the last time any of us, US or non US, heard of a senior spook employee sacked and jailed for breaking the laws governing their work, with out it becoming public first as an accusation in the media? The real problem is the closed loop shop which only respects the law one some one out side of the closed shop discovers the law breaking. The over sight is totally broken, and worse still there is literally zero incentive for it to be fixed.
• DennisP 13y ago
  I think the value is questionable. Much of the money could be recovered by selling off the hardware or reusing it for something else. It's probably just lots of commodity equipment.