4 ms·

If it has no impact then: 1) Why are we wasting money collecting and storing it? 2) Why are we wasting time looking at it? This does not muddy the waters to

by pyre 13y ago

If it has no impact then: 1) Why are we wasting money collecting and storing it? 2) Why are we wasting time looking at it? This does not muddy the waters to anyone with critical-thinking skills. Why does this invasion of my privacy need to happen if it is unable to achieve its own stated goals? Edit: My point was that people should be asking these questions, and these aren't hard questions to ask. Even just asking "if this has no impact then why are we wasting money" should be an easy question to ask for fiscal conservatives. I really don't see many people going the route of thinking, "this is ineffective, therefore we should just keep doing it because the metadata doesn't matter." I don't understand why people see me asking these questions and automatically assume that I'm attacking them and defending the NSA or something.

fit2rule 13y ago
Totalitarianism. Understood?
marcosdumay 13y ago
It has no impact on catching terrorists. That's the article claim. It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it.
- pyre 13y ago
  The impact may not be much though. People have wasted much time, money and effort on endeavors based on faulty premises just because they never took the time to evaluate their situation.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    At a guess, it is a measurement tool for analysing cause and effect with the aim of not being caught out by political mass movements. If you want to model a society thermodynamically, you need a lot of data. But then I have always been a fan of Asimov's Foundation.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it. Its impact is in the government's ability to rule people by fear, once they decide to flip the switch of outright totalitarianism. That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. It's not about catching "terrorists", it's about keeping the general populace in check.
  - pyre 13y ago
    > That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. That may be the eventual place that it ends up, but the road to hell is easily paved with good intentions. Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country are drunk on the information that the fire hose provides, and fear what tidbit of info they might miss if it is turned off?
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Unfortunately I can't do that, since I don't know what they're up to :p > Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" You want to hear a "no", yes? :p But let's consider another question: Is whatever the NSA is doing up to Obama personally? Did Obama order the NSA to surveil the whole world? -Doubtful, especially since it started before his first term. > Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country Responsibility, you say? Tell me, who exactly are they responsible to, for anything they do? -You? What power do you personally hold over the NSA? -What about any other ordinary person? Furthermore, if you're talking about the NSA protecting the country, how many other countries would be foolish enough to attack the world's prevalent Empire with the most massive army in the history of the world? Do you think the "protection" the all-encompassing surveillance (directed at the masses of ordinary people) is necessary?

by pyre 13y ago

fit2rule 13y ago

Totalitarianism. Understood?

marcosdumay 13y ago

It has no impact on catching terrorists. That's the article claim. It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it.

pyre 13y ago
The impact may not be much though. People have wasted much time, money and effort on endeavors based on faulty premises just because they never took the time to evaluate their situation.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  At a guess, it is a measurement tool for analysing cause and effect with the aim of not being caught out by political mass movements. If you want to model a society thermodynamically, you need a lot of data. But then I have always been a fan of Asimov's Foundation.
whatevsbro 13y ago
> It obviously has some impact somewhere, otherwise nobody would lose time creating it. Its impact is in the government's ability to rule people by fear, once they decide to flip the switch of outright totalitarianism. That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. It's not about catching "terrorists", it's about keeping the general populace in check.
- pyre 13y ago
  > That's the real purpose of the all-encompassing surveillance. That may be the eventual place that it ends up, but the road to hell is easily paved with good intentions. Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country are drunk on the information that the fire hose provides, and fear what tidbit of info they might miss if it is turned off?
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > Statements like yours make it sound like you're about to break out into tales of the Illuminati (or whatever secret society you choose) and their designs to rule the world that stretch back to Medieval times. Unfortunately I can't do that, since I don't know what they're up to :p > Do you really believe that (e.g.) President Obama says, "Let me implement this, so that we may control the general populace through fear?" You want to hear a "no", yes? :p But let's consider another question: Is whatever the NSA is doing up to Obama personally? Did Obama order the NSA to surveil the whole world? -Doubtful, especially since it started before his first term. > Or maybe could it be that those with the responsibility to protect (e.g.) their country Responsibility, you say? Tell me, who exactly are they responsible to, for anything they do? -You? What power do you personally hold over the NSA? -What about any other ordinary person? Furthermore, if you're talking about the NSA protecting the country, how many other countries would be foolish enough to attack the world's prevalent Empire with the most massive army in the history of the world? Do you think the "protection" the all-encompassing surveillance (directed at the masses of ordinary people) is necessary?