9 ms·

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

by 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.

ISL 13y ago
It's hard for NSA to say anything without being attacked for it at the moment. A few attempts at drafting a superior response led me to realize that, in the present situation, there's almost nothing NSA can say. If those in power were to admit that past actions were wrong and move forward to reduce the scope of surveillance, their opponents would crucify, imprison, and sue them. For us to move forward, a little forgiveness would go a long way. We have to make change possible. After all, NSA is doing exactly what the electorate has asked for: moved to prevent small groups and individuals domestic and abroad from taking actions that hurt and kill innocent civilians. Sweeping surveillance is a powerful tool to achieve that end. It's also a long-term structural risk for our society. We have to propose tools with similar performance, or get society to accept a small risk of attack. When someone brings the first independently-developed biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to bear in a coordinated attack, alternative defensive solutions and a civil libertarian populace can provide bulwarks to resist the temptation of always monitoring everyone. If surveillance is the only option, it will be used.

by alexvr 13y ago

ISL 13y ago

It's hard for NSA to say anything without being attacked for it at the moment. A few attempts at drafting a superior response led me to realize that, in the present situation, there's almost nothing NSA can say. If those in power were to admit that past actions were wrong and move forward to reduce the scope of surveillance, their opponents would crucify, imprison, and sue them. For us to move forward, a little forgiveness would go a long way. We have to make change possible. After all, NSA is doing exactly what the electorate has asked for: moved to prevent small groups and individuals domestic and abroad from taking actions that hurt and kill innocent civilians. Sweeping surveillance is a powerful tool to achieve that end. It's also a long-term structural risk for our society. We have to propose tools with similar performance, or get society to accept a small risk of attack. When someone brings the first independently-developed biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to bear in a coordinated attack, alternative defensive solutions and a civil libertarian populace can provide bulwarks to resist the temptation of always monitoring everyone. If surveillance is the only option, it will be used.