4 ms·

I bet the NSA internal branding dept. will have a tough time coming up with clever names for the new programs. Maybe something in the lines of FOCUS or LIGHTSAB

I bet the NSA internal branding dept. will have a tough time coming up with clever names for the new programs. Maybe something in the lines of FOCUS or LIGHTSABRE ;) But seriously, these govt. programs have been closed and restarted under so many new codenames in the past, it's really tough to believe this. And even if it will happen, how will we find the trust? Closing down PRISM etc will be an admission of wrongdoing, and the subsequent lying about it. And the 'weasel' wording like Snowden mentioned; the distinction they make in wiretapping between 'information aggregation' and actually looking into it. Which obviously is the most absurd justification as all arguments against wiretapping still apply with this concept. With this kind of mindset, one must think they will just restart the programs and make them even more covert, not?

erichurkman 13y ago
If we're being cynical, the administration can just announce an "organized" shutdown and give a timeline, say 2 years. All government projects are delayed at least 50%, so let's say 4 years (government math). Four years from now a new president will be in office and can blissfully ignore the timeline and re-open the projects. Look at how long it took to exit Iraq, or how long it's taking to exit Afghanistan, or how long it's taking to shutter Guantanamo. Hell, if Guantanamo is any indication, the executive will blame the legislative for not passing laws allowing them to shutter the program, and the legislative will blame the executive for not closing the program down. Blame goes in a circle and the populace gets screwed.
- easy_rider 13y ago
  Sad but true. If those who in the end are responsible for allowing unconstitutional or straight-up criminal actions by government appointed commissions not being held accountable after they are relieved of their function, the justice system is evidently corrupt, and we could expect anything to happen. Yet, I'm really sad these days, for common sense is being ridiculed, and only a minority seems to notice. If you don't agree with absurd infringements of your privacy : you are not a patriot; if you are not a patriot then you are a traitor. I know it's a bit black/white, but these kind of speeches are reminiscent to that kind of status quo: "The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
- D9u 13y ago
  There are still US troops in Iraq. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/ http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troo... There are also around 5000 contractors in Iraq. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144198497/no-u-s-troops-but-an-army-of-contractors-in-iraq http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144198497/no-u-s-troops-but-an... It's not cynicism when you refuse to believe the people who have lied to you in the past. As "Dubya" once said... "...fool me once... Ah, er... Ya see, ya can't get fooled again..." (or something like that) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM
abecedarius 13y ago
I could believe it after an organizational death penalty, a post-mortem like the Stasi got, a new organization with believable independent oversight, and preferably real penalties for the people most responsible (powerful people, not scapegoats). I don't know exactly, but something along those lines. (The probability of this is infinitesimal, yes. But we're going to be offered some pittance, and it's worth thinking clearly in advance to tell how far it falls short.)

erichurkman 13y ago

If we're being cynical, the administration can just announce an "organized" shutdown and give a timeline, say 2 years. All government projects are delayed at least 50%, so let's say 4 years (government math). Four years from now a new president will be in office and can blissfully ignore the timeline and re-open the projects. Look at how long it took to exit Iraq, or how long it's taking to exit Afghanistan, or how long it's taking to shutter Guantanamo. Hell, if Guantanamo is any indication, the executive will blame the legislative for not passing laws allowing them to shutter the program, and the legislative will blame the executive for not closing the program down. Blame goes in a circle and the populace gets screwed.

easy_rider 13y ago
Sad but true. If those who in the end are responsible for allowing unconstitutional or straight-up criminal actions by government appointed commissions not being held accountable after they are relieved of their function, the justice system is evidently corrupt, and we could expect anything to happen. Yet, I'm really sad these days, for common sense is being ridiculed, and only a minority seems to notice. If you don't agree with absurd infringements of your privacy : you are not a patriot; if you are not a patriot then you are a traitor. I know it's a bit black/white, but these kind of speeches are reminiscent to that kind of status quo: "The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will,” Bloomberg said during a press conference on Monday. “And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”
D9u 13y ago
There are still US troops in Iraq. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/ http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troo... There are also around 5000 contractors in Iraq. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144198497/no-u-s-troops-but-an-army-of-contractors-in-iraq http://www.npr.org/2011/12/27/144198497/no-u-s-troops-but-an... It's not cynicism when you refuse to believe the people who have lied to you in the past. As "Dubya" once said... "...fool me once... Ah, er... Ya see, ya can't get fooled again..." (or something like that) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM

abecedarius 13y ago

I could believe it after an organizational death penalty, a post-mortem like the Stasi got, a new organization with believable independent oversight, and preferably real penalties for the people most responsible (powerful people, not scapegoats). I don't know exactly, but something along those lines. (The probability of this is infinitesimal, yes. But we're going to be offered some pittance, and it's worth thinking clearly in advance to tell how far it falls short.)