4 ms·

With each passing successful terrorist attack the effectiveness of this surveillance system will be questioned. It's already considered highly ineffective...

With each passing successful terrorist attack the effectiveness of this surveillance system will be questioned. It's already considered highly ineffective... http://bayesianbiologist.com/2013/06/06/how-likely-is-the-nsa-prism-program-to-catch-a-terrorist/ http://bayesianbiologist.com/2013/06/06/how-likely-is-the-ns... In the meantime keep protesting (to be seen and heard) and use technology to thwart said surveillance. Don't listen to the "if you use encryption they'll definitely watch you" logic. Your messages are still encrypted until they brute-force their way through (a very long process compounded by how many people are using encryption). If you don't use encryption they might not watch now you but when they do they'll see everything guaranteed. Privacy is a basic human right that cannot be granted or taken away by any institution, be it government or other.

threeseed 13y ago
What type of nonsense is this ? What that article fails to take into consideration is that ONE just ONE terrorist act can cause unprecedented damage to consumer and business confidence, economic outlooks, employment, tourism etc as was demonstrated during 9/11. It's like saying don't worry about keeping planes safe because the chance of one crashing is so small. And according to the NSA chief (who is unlikely to straight out lie to congress) said that more than 50 potential terrorist events have been thwarted because of these intelligence programs: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexand...
- deelowe 13y ago
  He said "more than 50," but Obama said "upwards of 50." I'm sure it all depends on how you frame the key words "stopped" or "prevented" and "terrorist." Also, he's straight out lied before with the statement that the NSA wasn't performing mass surveillance on civilians.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "according to the NSA chief (who is unlikely to straight out lie to congress)" Have you not been paying attention to the news lately? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-s... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-in... I suppose if you do enough mental acrobatics you can find a way to distinguish "the least untruthful" statement from a "straight out lie."

threeseed 13y ago

What type of nonsense is this ? What that article fails to take into consideration is that ONE just ONE terrorist act can cause unprecedented damage to consumer and business confidence, economic outlooks, employment, tourism etc as was demonstrated during 9/11. It's like saying don't worry about keeping planes safe because the chance of one crashing is so small. And according to the NSA chief (who is unlikely to straight out lie to congress) said that more than 50 potential terrorist events have been thwarted because of these intelligence programs: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-92971.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexand...

deelowe 13y ago
He said "more than 50," but Obama said "upwards of 50." I'm sure it all depends on how you frame the key words "stopped" or "prevented" and "terrorist." Also, he's straight out lied before with the statement that the NSA wasn't performing mass surveillance on civilians.
betterunix 13y ago
"according to the NSA chief (who is unlikely to straight out lie to congress)" Have you not been paying attention to the news lately? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-surveillance_n_3424620.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/james-clapper-nsa-s... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-intelligence-chief-criticism http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/james-clapper-in... I suppose if you do enough mental acrobatics you can find a way to distinguish "the least untruthful" statement from a "straight out lie."