5 ms·

Statement on planned Fourth of July demonstrations

77 points by sethbannon 13y ago

joshdotsmith 13y ago
I like that they felt the need to preemptively defend their work as "lawful." This feels like a whole lot of doublespeak.
- fleitz 13y ago
  Gulags were lawful. It's not doublespeak. The problem is not the NSA, it's the whole system. If baseball isn't interstate commerce, but growing your own wheat is for your own consumption, you know the whole state is rotten to the core. There is no objectivity it's just do whatever you want and if you're powerful justify it later.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    If it's ruled unconstitutional, then it wasn't lawful surely.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      If you can take someone's land to build a mall, I'm pretty sure the court will have no problem with this... Even if the have a problem with it I'm sure they'll carve out a minor exception, and no one will face any consequences...
pstuart 13y ago
How do we know if the NSA is acting lawfully? Why can't we have better oversight and transparency? <sarcasm> After all, they have nothing to hide, right? </sarcasm>
ape4 13y ago
I assume they record the IP-address of everyone who visits that page. And then watches activity to/from that IP-address for ten years.
- jchung 13y ago
  Is this conjecture helpful?
- keithpeter 13y ago
  Watching IP addresses allocated to routers from a pool for the current session?
- datalus 13y ago
  I would think the majority of IPs would be dynamic... If you're really worried about it, clone or spoof a new MAC address after powering off your modem. Then just power it on :p
MWil 13y ago
I like how they called the Constitution a clock
koops 13y ago
"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." From an organization that spies on the world, that sounds sinister. As in "if we did object, we could do something about your 'lawful' protest."
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  How does that follow? I know the NSA is enemy number 1 around HN right now, but how does saying they don't object to lawful protests imply that if they did object to the lawful protests they would disrupt them somehow? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    I think the OP is just speaking to the NSA's capability and their activity that has recently come to light.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    It's like me telling you that I don't object to you teaching your kids about any particular religion. When the hell did I even enter the equation? It's the implication that the right to protest might even have to be clarified that shows the NSA is either very presumptious about its authority or really is as politically motivated as we all like to think it is.
pfortuny 13y ago
"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." Come on: is it possible that anyone has felt the need to write this seriously on the corporate web page of the NSA? AMAZING. I hope (but I do not know, they do not say) the NSA also does not object to free speech, to private property, to freedom of press, to freedom of economic initiative, to freedom of religion... EDIT: Come to think of it, it is possible that they had internal conversations like what are we going to do with these people?. And then the chiefs said: "hey, we do not object to these demonstrations!". Scary...
- malandrew 13y ago
  Everyone in the NSA swears to uphold the Constitution, not objecting to lawful, peaceful protests should be a no brainer that goes without saying[0]. Hopefully they post this on an internal bulletin board for their employees as well. It would have been nice if they had made a statement to the effect that they will not collect any information on people participating in the protests. [0] First Amendment excerpt: "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ..."
  - mikeash 13y ago
    It's like saying, "I will not kill you today." The literal meaning is innocent, but the fact that it was stated at all has terrifying implications.
  - lsiebert 13y ago
    I doubt they can avoid hoovering people, protesters or not. Plus, even if they don't, other government groups may. I would recommend turning off your phone before heading to a protest. Well before, maybe leave it at home even, as turning off your phone nearby to a protest may be just as noticeable as having your phone there.
- alexvr 13y ago
  Haha, yes. Their "We don't mind if you exercise your rights this time" attitude is unnerving. Actually, it's pretty funny. What's the other option (besides not even acknowledging the demonstrations, which is the most sensical, I think)? Saying, "We strongly object to protests"? I would love to see them say something like that. It's almost like they think we care what they think of us, or maybe they are so delusional that they think they have the authority to call off a protest. Or maybe they're getting at "We don't mind if you protest; while you do that, we'll carry on as usual. Your efforts are futile." That's not so funny.
monkeynotes 13y ago
Please stay in your free speech zones while 'lawfully' protesting.
xelipe 13y ago
This is how I read between the lines and understood their statement: The Fourth of July reminds us as Americans of the freedoms and rights all citizens of our country are guaranteed by our Constitution. Among those is freedom of speech, often exercised in protests of various kinds. NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest but be advised that we will be monitoring your freedom of speech and anything you say or ever had said may be used against you in a secret court of law.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Also "We shall test your American citizenship by tossing a 1% loaded coin. If it shows tails, you are American, otherwise you are a foreigner and can be lawfully, legally, constitutionally, military and otherwise politically surveilled." It would be good if they clarified that as well.
  - jchung 13y ago
    I think this is really one of the most important discussions we should be having as a society. What obligations ought we hold our government to as far as the rights of non-citizens? Right now the obligations of the government to non-citizens is likely very minimal (IANAL, But I'd love to hear a Constitutionalist's expert opinion on this front). What limits ought we to establish on our government(s) with regard to the rights of citizens of other nations?
    - kzrdude 13y ago
      I think it's better to leave citizenship out, or focus on treating your own citizens. The rest should follow (this is also what Scahill says in the following story): American citizenship does not protect you from targeted assassination. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_secret_story_behind http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_sec...
      - rayiner 13y ago
        No, American citizenship does not great a blanket protection against being killed by the military while waging war against the U.S. It guarantees you nothing more and nothing less than "due process." What process is "due" (literally, "warranted") is an inherently context-sensitive question. What process is "due" to someone who spent a decade waging war against the U.S. while refusing to submit to the justice system of any country?
e3pi 13y ago
" NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock..." That's right, remind us in every public statement of you're constantly 365/7/24 surveillance of our face, speech, writings, and body.
sethbannon 13y ago
I bet the NSA is going to love the inbound referrals from "Hacker News".
- eli 13y ago
  I'm quite certain at least a few NSA members are regular readers. The NSA is not an evil monolith.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - lsiebert 13y ago
    I don't think that most people who think about it believe that the NSA is evil. But what it is doing for ostensibly good reasons are actions that can be labeled as evil. But the truth is, it does those activities because the White House says it should, and Congress is ok with it. The NSA will never not obey politicians. You want change, write to your Congressional representatives. Write to the major party Committees, and tell them that you will only support and donate to candidates that explicitly seek to change the surveillance of Americans. Find your local party headquarters and your convention delegates, and have respect for privacy added to the party platform. Protesting the NSA is good because it organizes people, but then they need to be targeted where they will have an effect. But any real change will come from the political process. The NSA doesn't object. The NSA also isn't going to change anything because of the protests.
javajosh 13y ago
Thank goodness the NSA clarified that peaceful protesting is A-OK with them. Since they have no respect for the 4th amendment it is heartening that they at least retain some respect for the 1st. Of course, the cynic in me realizes that an organization that shreds the 4th would really, really love the 1st, and indeed encourage people to communicate electronically AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
- tobylane 13y ago
  Without the first amendment how else would yesterday's banal conversations exist to implicate you in next decades' fortieth deadliest planned and thwarted attack?
late2part 13y ago
Okay. Great. Our rulers are going to allow us to protest. They're not even going to constrain us to a free speech zone. Thanks!
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Okay. Great. Our rulers are going to allow us to protest. They're not even going to constrain us to a free speech zone. Thanks! If "our rulers" were not going to allow protest, or to restrict the time place and manner, the vehicle for those restrictions wouldn't likely be the NSA anyway, so a statement that the NSA doesn't object is somewhat tangential.
MarcScott 13y ago
"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." But we will be monitoring those that organise and participate, and attach nice little red flags next to their names. "NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock, to protect the nation and its people." I disagree with only one word of the above sentence.
- fexl 13y ago
  I disagree with two words. :)
  - datalus 13y ago
    Or just negate two words ;)
hugogee 13y ago
Its a little distorted to me at least, that the very people we employ would take a perspective of granting concent to its employers.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jchung 13y ago
I'm growing increasingly concerned about the tone here in HN whenever something is posted about the NSA. This statement on July 4th demonstrations is essentially non-news. Why isn't it more likely that the NSA was getting a ton of media requests for a statement and decided to make it official that they wouldn't make a public objection to the protests? I'd like to see us (the HN community) continue to engage in thoughtful discussions, but the reactions I'm seeing right now are distractions from that. Let's not derail the conversation. Stick to facts where you can, request information where you don't have facts, and make your position known on what we would like to see our government(s) put in place to secure our freedoms and protect us. Let's not muddy the waters any further. Happy 4th.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  The news is that in a democratic society such as ours, the government shouldn't have to "not object" to people exercising their legally protected rights. And, given the fact that many feel that the NSA, in particular, has been trampling those rights, their statement comes off as particularly egregious. In total, some may interpret this as the NSA claiming itself the arbiter of our rights: what it can do to us, and what we can do in response.
- ccernaf 13y ago
  Agreed. If the headline was "NSA refuses to comment on the Restore the Fourth protests", people would just comment that the NSA wasn't recognizing the protests, and that protesting would be useless, as the NSA would stick to their current attitude. I really don't know how the NSA could have responded better, besides actually promising to listen to the arguments of the protesters. It seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-type situation for the NSA. If one accepts that the NSA is /fundamentally/ flawed, which I doubt it is, nothing it says can change ones mind, including a public statement of it respecting people's rights to protest. The fact that it even has to release a statement though is good - it means that the NSA has realized that there is a backlash against their tactics. I would like of course for the NSA to change some of its practices... but the amount of hate it is getting on HN is ridiculous.
logn 13y ago
Excellent. I thought we were granted the right to protest by God, so at least we know the NSA isn't standing in the way of God. Hopefully they'll let us know if/when that changes and we can assist the NSA in their new set of goals.
andyl 13y ago
That's a nice constitution ya got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
dynamic99 13y ago
That is the most generic statement ever...
ispolin 13y ago
I don't want to sound apologetic for the actions of NSA as a whole, and those who surely pressured them into those actions, and those that were aware of them but did not object, but I did take heart in the first sentence, "The Fourth of July reminds us as Americans of the freedoms and rights all citizens of our country are guaranteed by our Constitution." I hope this is a sign that at least some people in the NSA recognize that what happened was an egregious breach of the spirit of our constitution, and the principle of government by public consent. It would be nice if it meant that some of NSA's members welcome, for their organization, public accountability, clear limits on power afforded to them, and recourse for pressure from other parts of the government to violate these things. Regardless of whether this is just wistful thinking or not, we should continue to bring awareness to this issue, and take action. I hope the form of this action will be public awareness, peaceful protests, crowd-funding representatives, and holding those elected representatives legally accountable for their campaign promises (because I do not see how we can have a representative democracy if the words of the representatives before they are elected are so divorced from their actions after). I hope the result will be legal safeguards and public oversight to make sure that no federal agency can violate the constitution, and act against public consent, no mater how secret their mission. (edited to include the bit about public awareness)
tokenadult 13y ago
A much more simple explanation of the NSA statement is that press organizations asked for a statement in relation to the protests planned for today (one of which I will attend, as I have mentioned in recent Hacker News comments) and the NSA's press officers provided a statement. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Yes, NSA officers, like all officers of the federal government, take oaths to uphold the United States Constitution. Most take those oaths very seriously and cherish the constitutional system of the United States. I will be out protesting in public this evening (and I don't care who knows that, as I am not afraid to express my opinions on public policy) to indicate my family's support for the Bill of Rights and desire that all NSA programs be overseen effectively by Congress and fully in accord with the law. That said, I don't begrudge the thousands of NSA employees the opportunity to join me in saying that all Americans have the right of peaceful protest and that is a right we can all cherish as Americans. See http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html for free, downloadable resources in a variety of languages about what you can do to support the worldwide movement for transitions from dictatorship to democracy. Don't be afraid to do your part to make the world a better place.
hedonist 13y ago
NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest. Especially when it gives us an opportunity to build a geo-associational database of potential troublemakers cross-referenced with surveillance cam data, social media breadcrumbs and other applicable metadata sources. You know, for the day when things get serious.

77 points by sethbannon 13y ago

I like that they felt the need to preemptively defend their work as "lawful." This feels like a whole lot of doublespeak.

fleitz 13y ago
Gulags were lawful. It's not doublespeak. The problem is not the NSA, it's the whole system. If baseball isn't interstate commerce, but growing your own wheat is for your own consumption, you know the whole state is rotten to the core. There is no objectivity it's just do whatever you want and if you're powerful justify it later.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  If it's ruled unconstitutional, then it wasn't lawful surely.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    If you can take someone's land to build a mall, I'm pretty sure the court will have no problem with this... Even if the have a problem with it I'm sure they'll carve out a minor exception, and no one will face any consequences...

pstuart 13y ago

How do we know if the NSA is acting lawfully? Why can't we have better oversight and transparency? <sarcasm> After all, they have nothing to hide, right? </sarcasm>

ape4 13y ago

I assume they record the IP-address of everyone who visits that page. And then watches activity to/from that IP-address for ten years.

jchung 13y ago
Is this conjecture helpful?
keithpeter 13y ago
Watching IP addresses allocated to routers from a pool for the current session?
datalus 13y ago
I would think the majority of IPs would be dynamic... If you're really worried about it, clone or spoof a new MAC address after powering off your modem. Then just power it on :p

MWil 13y ago

I like how they called the Constitution a clock

koops 13y ago

"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." From an organization that spies on the world, that sounds sinister. As in "if we did object, we could do something about your 'lawful' protest."

Kylekramer 13y ago
How does that follow? I know the NSA is enemy number 1 around HN right now, but how does saying they don't object to lawful protests imply that if they did object to the lawful protests they would disrupt them somehow? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I think the OP is just speaking to the NSA's capability and their activity that has recently come to light.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  It's like me telling you that I don't object to you teaching your kids about any particular religion. When the hell did I even enter the equation? It's the implication that the right to protest might even have to be clarified that shows the NSA is either very presumptious about its authority or really is as politically motivated as we all like to think it is.

pfortuny 13y ago

"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." Come on: is it possible that anyone has felt the need to write this seriously on the corporate web page of the NSA? AMAZING. I hope (but I do not know, they do not say) the NSA also does not object to free speech, to private property, to freedom of press, to freedom of economic initiative, to freedom of religion... EDIT: Come to think of it, it is possible that they had internal conversations like what are we going to do with these people?. And then the chiefs said: "hey, we do not object to these demonstrations!". Scary...

malandrew 13y ago
Everyone in the NSA swears to uphold the Constitution, not objecting to lawful, peaceful protests should be a no brainer that goes without saying[0]. Hopefully they post this on an internal bulletin board for their employees as well. It would have been nice if they had made a statement to the effect that they will not collect any information on people participating in the protests. [0] First Amendment excerpt: "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ..."
- mikeash 13y ago
  It's like saying, "I will not kill you today." The literal meaning is innocent, but the fact that it was stated at all has terrifying implications.
- lsiebert 13y ago
  I doubt they can avoid hoovering people, protesters or not. Plus, even if they don't, other government groups may. I would recommend turning off your phone before heading to a protest. Well before, maybe leave it at home even, as turning off your phone nearby to a protest may be just as noticeable as having your phone there.
alexvr 13y ago
Haha, yes. Their "We don't mind if you exercise your rights this time" attitude is unnerving. Actually, it's pretty funny. What's the other option (besides not even acknowledging the demonstrations, which is the most sensical, I think)? Saying, "We strongly object to protests"? I would love to see them say something like that. It's almost like they think we care what they think of us, or maybe they are so delusional that they think they have the authority to call off a protest. Or maybe they're getting at "We don't mind if you protest; while you do that, we'll carry on as usual. Your efforts are futile." That's not so funny.

monkeynotes 13y ago

Please stay in your free speech zones while 'lawfully' protesting.

xelipe 13y ago

This is how I read between the lines and understood their statement: The Fourth of July reminds us as Americans of the freedoms and rights all citizens of our country are guaranteed by our Constitution. Among those is freedom of speech, often exercised in protests of various kinds. NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest but be advised that we will be monitoring your freedom of speech and anything you say or ever had said may be used against you in a secret court of law.

pfortuny 13y ago
Also "We shall test your American citizenship by tossing a 1% loaded coin. If it shows tails, you are American, otherwise you are a foreigner and can be lawfully, legally, constitutionally, military and otherwise politically surveilled." It would be good if they clarified that as well.
- jchung 13y ago
  I think this is really one of the most important discussions we should be having as a society. What obligations ought we hold our government to as far as the rights of non-citizens? Right now the obligations of the government to non-citizens is likely very minimal (IANAL, But I'd love to hear a Constitutionalist's expert opinion on this front). What limits ought we to establish on our government(s) with regard to the rights of citizens of other nations?
  - kzrdude 13y ago
    I think it's better to leave citizenship out, or focus on treating your own citizens. The rest should follow (this is also what Scahill says in the following story): American citizenship does not protect you from targeted assassination. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_secret_story_behind http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/23/jeremy_scahill_the_sec...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, American citizenship does not great a blanket protection against being killed by the military while waging war against the U.S. It guarantees you nothing more and nothing less than "due process." What process is "due" (literally, "warranted") is an inherently context-sensitive question. What process is "due" to someone who spent a decade waging war against the U.S. while refusing to submit to the justice system of any country?

e3pi 13y ago

" NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock..." That's right, remind us in every public statement of you're constantly 365/7/24 surveillance of our face, speech, writings, and body.

sethbannon 13y ago

I bet the NSA is going to love the inbound referrals from "Hacker News".

eli 13y ago
I'm quite certain at least a few NSA members are regular readers. The NSA is not an evil monolith.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lsiebert 13y ago
  I don't think that most people who think about it believe that the NSA is evil. But what it is doing for ostensibly good reasons are actions that can be labeled as evil. But the truth is, it does those activities because the White House says it should, and Congress is ok with it. The NSA will never not obey politicians. You want change, write to your Congressional representatives. Write to the major party Committees, and tell them that you will only support and donate to candidates that explicitly seek to change the surveillance of Americans. Find your local party headquarters and your convention delegates, and have respect for privacy added to the party platform. Protesting the NSA is good because it organizes people, but then they need to be targeted where they will have an effect. But any real change will come from the political process. The NSA doesn't object. The NSA also isn't going to change anything because of the protests.

javajosh 13y ago

Thank goodness the NSA clarified that peaceful protesting is A-OK with them. Since they have no respect for the 4th amendment it is heartening that they at least retain some respect for the 1st. Of course, the cynic in me realizes that an organization that shreds the 4th would really, really love the 1st, and indeed encourage people to communicate electronically AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

tobylane 13y ago
Without the first amendment how else would yesterday's banal conversations exist to implicate you in next decades' fortieth deadliest planned and thwarted attack?

late2part 13y ago

Okay. Great. Our rulers are going to allow us to protest. They're not even going to constrain us to a free speech zone. Thanks!

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Okay. Great. Our rulers are going to allow us to protest. They're not even going to constrain us to a free speech zone. Thanks! If "our rulers" were not going to allow protest, or to restrict the time place and manner, the vehicle for those restrictions wouldn't likely be the NSA anyway, so a statement that the NSA doesn't object is somewhat tangential.

MarcScott 13y ago

"NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest." But we will be monitoring those that organise and participate, and attach nice little red flags next to their names. "NSA and its employees work diligently and lawfully every day, around the clock, to protect the nation and its people." I disagree with only one word of the above sentence.

fexl 13y ago
I disagree with two words. :)
- datalus 13y ago
  Or just negate two words ;)

hugogee 13y ago

Its a little distorted to me at least, that the very people we employ would take a perspective of granting concent to its employers.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jchung 13y ago

I'm growing increasingly concerned about the tone here in HN whenever something is posted about the NSA. This statement on July 4th demonstrations is essentially non-news. Why isn't it more likely that the NSA was getting a ton of media requests for a statement and decided to make it official that they wouldn't make a public objection to the protests? I'd like to see us (the HN community) continue to engage in thoughtful discussions, but the reactions I'm seeing right now are distractions from that. Let's not derail the conversation. Stick to facts where you can, request information where you don't have facts, and make your position known on what we would like to see our government(s) put in place to secure our freedoms and protect us. Let's not muddy the waters any further. Happy 4th.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
The news is that in a democratic society such as ours, the government shouldn't have to "not object" to people exercising their legally protected rights. And, given the fact that many feel that the NSA, in particular, has been trampling those rights, their statement comes off as particularly egregious. In total, some may interpret this as the NSA claiming itself the arbiter of our rights: what it can do to us, and what we can do in response.
ccernaf 13y ago
Agreed. If the headline was "NSA refuses to comment on the Restore the Fourth protests", people would just comment that the NSA wasn't recognizing the protests, and that protesting would be useless, as the NSA would stick to their current attitude. I really don't know how the NSA could have responded better, besides actually promising to listen to the arguments of the protesters. It seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-type situation for the NSA. If one accepts that the NSA is /fundamentally/ flawed, which I doubt it is, nothing it says can change ones mind, including a public statement of it respecting people's rights to protest. The fact that it even has to release a statement though is good - it means that the NSA has realized that there is a backlash against their tactics. I would like of course for the NSA to change some of its practices... but the amount of hate it is getting on HN is ridiculous.

logn 13y ago

Excellent. I thought we were granted the right to protest by God, so at least we know the NSA isn't standing in the way of God. Hopefully they'll let us know if/when that changes and we can assist the NSA in their new set of goals.

andyl 13y ago

That's a nice constitution ya got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

dynamic99 13y ago

That is the most generic statement ever...

ispolin 13y ago

I don't want to sound apologetic for the actions of NSA as a whole, and those who surely pressured them into those actions, and those that were aware of them but did not object, but I did take heart in the first sentence, "The Fourth of July reminds us as Americans of the freedoms and rights all citizens of our country are guaranteed by our Constitution." I hope this is a sign that at least some people in the NSA recognize that what happened was an egregious breach of the spirit of our constitution, and the principle of government by public consent. It would be nice if it meant that some of NSA's members welcome, for their organization, public accountability, clear limits on power afforded to them, and recourse for pressure from other parts of the government to violate these things. Regardless of whether this is just wistful thinking or not, we should continue to bring awareness to this issue, and take action. I hope the form of this action will be public awareness, peaceful protests, crowd-funding representatives, and holding those elected representatives legally accountable for their campaign promises (because I do not see how we can have a representative democracy if the words of the representatives before they are elected are so divorced from their actions after). I hope the result will be legal safeguards and public oversight to make sure that no federal agency can violate the constitution, and act against public consent, no mater how secret their mission. (edited to include the bit about public awareness)

tokenadult 13y ago

A much more simple explanation of the NSA statement is that press organizations asked for a statement in relation to the protests planned for today (one of which I will attend, as I have mentioned in recent Hacker News comments) and the NSA's press officers provided a statement. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Yes, NSA officers, like all officers of the federal government, take oaths to uphold the United States Constitution. Most take those oaths very seriously and cherish the constitutional system of the United States. I will be out protesting in public this evening (and I don't care who knows that, as I am not afraid to express my opinions on public policy) to indicate my family's support for the Bill of Rights and desire that all NSA programs be overseen effectively by Congress and fully in accord with the law. That said, I don't begrudge the thousands of NSA employees the opportunity to join me in saying that all Americans have the right of peaceful protest and that is a right we can all cherish as Americans. See http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html for free, downloadable resources in a variety of languages about what you can do to support the worldwide movement for transitions from dictatorship to democracy. Don't be afraid to do your part to make the world a better place.

hedonist 13y ago

NSA does not object to any lawful, peaceful protest. Especially when it gives us an opportunity to build a geo-associational database of potential troublemakers cross-referenced with surveillance cam data, social media breadcrumbs and other applicable metadata sources. You know, for the day when things get serious.