2 ms·

Not to dissuade or disagree with your thoughts, but your opinion about evilness of this program will change over time. For example, when you get stuck (God for

Not to dissuade or disagree with your thoughts, but your opinion about evilness of this program will change over time. For example, when you get stuck (God forbid) in an unwarranted situation or a legal hassle and then the same NSA program you passively protect now is used to check back on your past data/behavior and then pull out useful subjective information and taint you with phrases like "infamous former contractor" and so on ... Have you thought about this? Objectivity is a logical illusion.

dylangs1030 13y ago
Well...I agree personal experience can be a powerful motivator for changing opinions. But what I'm saying is what I have found through researching it. As to my feelings for whether or not the NSA should be preserved vs. destroyed entirely - yes, I could see how personal experience could skew this. I, thankfully, haven't had such interference in my life. But I also want to point out I'm not protecting the NSA's PRISM et al. programs. I think they're too strong, and too obscured. But I do believe the NSA can replace them with more functional, transparent tools that will achieve the same goals. I also believe people are being swayed by big headlines and pathos arguments that prevent them from examining the NSA critically instead of passionately - I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it seem.
- D9u 13y ago
  (Ad hominems?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178980 You're assuming that I haven't actually done my homework and am making an off-the-cuff statement based upon media exposure, when the facts of this matter are that I have done my homework on this topic. (Obama on domestic surveillance, 2007) http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A (Why we don't trust the government) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_trust.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_tru... (The Terrorism Delusion) http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pdf http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pd... As the facts are, and looking at the situation objectively, the sustained reaction to the 9/11 incident is uncalled for, especially when the US has gone through previous decades which had seen exponentially more terrorist (lots of bombs) activity on US soil than any time since, yet back then the government didn't overreact and implement such excessive measures as we see today, in commercial airports where passengers are treated like criminals in a prison, in our electronic communications, and our financial records. I, personally, have never called for the abolition of the NSA, but rather would like to see less intrusive measures employed instead of what they're doing now. Where is the probable cause for the interception, collection, and storage of my electronic communications? Where is the probable cause showing that I might be a terrorist? There are conditions which are supposed to be met when the government wants to violate my 4th Amendment rights, and to add an exception for "National Security," where no exception exists, equates to denial of civil rights, so when it's done on as massive a scale as we see case now it's a gross breach of the public trust and people have a right to voice their displeasure with the actions of their government. To simply sweep this under the rug would be the most unpatriotic thing you could do, and justifying this obviously unpopular program by citing terrorism is disingenuous when viewed from a chronological perspective.

dylangs1030 13y ago

Well...I agree personal experience can be a powerful motivator for changing opinions. But what I'm saying is what I have found through researching it. As to my feelings for whether or not the NSA should be preserved vs. destroyed entirely - yes, I could see how personal experience could skew this. I, thankfully, haven't had such interference in my life. But I also want to point out I'm not protecting the NSA's PRISM et al. programs. I think they're too strong, and too obscured. But I do believe the NSA can replace them with more functional, transparent tools that will achieve the same goals. I also believe people are being swayed by big headlines and pathos arguments that prevent them from examining the NSA critically instead of passionately - I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it seem.

D9u 13y ago
(Ad hominems?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178980 You're assuming that I haven't actually done my homework and am making an off-the-cuff statement based upon media exposure, when the facts of this matter are that I have done my homework on this topic. (Obama on domestic surveillance, 2007) http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A (Why we don't trust the government) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_trust.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_tru... (The Terrorism Delusion) http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pdf http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pd... As the facts are, and looking at the situation objectively, the sustained reaction to the 9/11 incident is uncalled for, especially when the US has gone through previous decades which had seen exponentially more terrorist (lots of bombs) activity on US soil than any time since, yet back then the government didn't overreact and implement such excessive measures as we see today, in commercial airports where passengers are treated like criminals in a prison, in our electronic communications, and our financial records. I, personally, have never called for the abolition of the NSA, but rather would like to see less intrusive measures employed instead of what they're doing now. Where is the probable cause for the interception, collection, and storage of my electronic communications? Where is the probable cause showing that I might be a terrorist? There are conditions which are supposed to be met when the government wants to violate my 4th Amendment rights, and to add an exception for "National Security," where no exception exists, equates to denial of civil rights, so when it's done on as massive a scale as we see case now it's a gross breach of the public trust and people have a right to voice their displeasure with the actions of their government. To simply sweep this under the rug would be the most unpatriotic thing you could do, and justifying this obviously unpopular program by citing terrorism is disingenuous when viewed from a chronological perspective.