- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Playing pong?
Halo 10 :lol:
Playing pong?
Precisely. Even then the data management is problematic - but the idea that somewhere someone is reading your email just because remains implausible unless you happen to have good reason to have someone reading your email.
To who? You? Do you not read and pay attention to what our agencies and top Internet companies say?
Are you unaware that the CIA collects all open-source intelligence available to it? Open Source Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010: Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring | Danger Room | Wired.com
Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring - ABC News
How the C.I.A. Perfects its Social Media Monitoring Technologies - Forbes
2011: CIA's 'Vengeful Librarians' Monitor Twitter, Facebook | Fox News
CIA's 'vengeful librarians' track Twitter, Facebook | The Digital Home - CNET News
CIA tracks global pulse on Twitter, Facebook - CBS News
CIA's 'vengeful librarians' stalk Twitter and Facebook - Telegraph
CIA's 'vengeful librarian' team monitor Facebook, Twitter and report to Obama | Mail Online
CIA tracking Twitter, Facebook
Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA. Seriously - CBS News
2012: https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...eeches-testimony/in-q-tel-summit-remarks.html
2013: CIA venture arm invests in Chicago-based maker of artificial intelligence technology - Chicago Tribune
That covers, obviously, just the CIA. At any rate, it should obliterate any lingering doubt you, or anyone else has on the matter.
It could be because the government views some of us as more of a threat than the Chinese. I'm not claiming that's true, but one could reach such a conclusion without straining credulity.My problem is that they are even attempting this. I realize that most emails are not worth their effort, but to put this much money into this KIND of effort is bothersome, to say the least. All the while, the Chinese are breaking into corporations and stealing away trade secrets and technology. Excuse me, but why aren't they using these acres of supercomputing to blow China's hacking out of the water?
It could be because the government views some of us as more of a threat than the Chinese. I'm not claiming that's true, but one could reach such a conclusion without straining credulity.
That's not why. So what do you think they're doing with ACRES of supercomputers? You know more than this whistleblower, so enlighten me please.
Did you know that your government was recording every single email, telephone call and text in the world? Did you, I sure as hell didn't know it had gone that far. It sure doesn't make me feel safer, it makes me feel that they've gone ****ing nuts.
Here's what I responded to as not being true:
Please cite your source.
....or it could be because CYBERCOM and entirely other elements of the IC already have those kinds of missions? :roll:
Here's what I responded to as not being true:
Please cite your source.
I hope we didn't buy two sets of computer acreage. :shock:
I thought that was the claim in the OP link.
They are acting under warrants issued by the FISA court in compliance with Congressional approval. I do not agree with current activities, but one is not enough to stop the activity...
Read more @: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk
And he is out. The man who revealed this **** storm. A hero and a great man that was not afraid to tell the truth and reveal something he thought was wrong. Whistle blowing is not a crime! [/FONT][/COLOR]
Playing pong?
I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat and that Congress should investigate the new revelations about the scale of surveillance reported based on the recent leaks. Having said that, I do not believe leaks of sensitive material are an adequate substitute for Congressional oversight. Congress should have actively been involved in oversight of the programs in question, especially as surveillance abuses had led to enactment of FISA and one could not discount the possibility of additional abuses in the realm of post-9/11 surveillance. I reserve judgment as to whether abuses occurred this time around, as one can't be sure unless the programs are reviewed. I do favor a transparent Congressional review (transparent meaning that the process is made public and the findings are made public, not that sensitive information is made public; sensitive information should be redacted from public disclosures).
If the leaker had moral qualms over the policies/surveillance gathering, a better recourse would have been to provide his concerns to Congress, particularly the members who serve on the relevant committees. In short, I don't find the leaker's actions "heroic."
On another point, while I believe contractors provide a lot of benefit to government departments and agencies, I do not believe contractors should be involved in actual intelligence-related functions. Support activities short of intelligence-related work for the security agencies would be appropriate. Perhaps this issue will afford an opportunity to examine whether intelligence functions should be contracted out.
I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat and that Congress should investigate the new revelations about the scale of surveillance reported based on the recent leaks. Having said that, I do not believe leaks of sensitive material are an adequate substitute for Congressional oversight. Congress should have actively been involved in oversight of the programs in question, especially as surveillance abuses had led to enactment of FISA and one could not discount the possibility of additional abuses in the realm of post-9/11 surveillance. I reserve judgment as to whether abuses occurred this time around, as one can't be sure unless the programs are reviewed. I do favor a transparent Congressional review (transparent meaning that the process is made public and the findings are made public, not that sensitive information is made public; sensitive information should be redacted from public disclosures).
If the leaker had moral qualms over the policies/surveillance gathering, a better recourse would have been to provide his concerns to Congress, particularly the members who serve on the relevant committees. In short, I don't find the leaker's actions "heroic."
On another point, while I believe contractors provide a lot of benefit to government departments and agencies, I do not believe contractors should be involved in actual intelligence-related functions. Support activities short of intelligence-related work for the security agencies would be appropriate. Perhaps this issue will afford an opportunity to examine whether intelligence functions should be contracted out.
NSA "Boundless Informant" Heat Map Shows Surveillance Areas Around The Globe - HotHardware
The link will show that a Congressional Committee tried to review this program and was denied that review by perjury by Clapper, head of NSA. I know your diplomatic "circle the wagons" rhetoric and suspect you always try to defend these law breaking functionaries by citing "security," "need to know," and other diplomatic nonsense. This is clearly an attempt to derail an investigation. Clapper committed perjury. Go directly to jail.
I have not, in any way, suggested that the scale of surveillance should not be investigated. Indeed, previously I wrote:
My opinion has been and remains that FISA is sufficiently robust and flexible to deal with the contemporary terrorist threat in a timely fashion, while safeguarding the basic constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, post-9/11 laws have made possible today's dramatic escalation of domestic surveillance, even if such laws were adopted with the best of intentions. Congress should launch a bipartisan and transparent investigation into the recent reports of far-reaching domestic surveillance, as it may raise profound constitutional issues in the absence of clear and firm restraints.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-u-s-internet-companies-2.html#post1061896656
In terms of James Clapper's recent testimony, it is fair game for Congress to look into its veracity wherever material discrepancies might exist between what Congress now knows and what Congress was told.
In short, my point is a narrow one, not the broad interpretation you give it. A leak to the media was not the best means for addressing the matter. The information should have been provided to Congress. Moreover, Congress should pursue a transparent and robust investigation into the domestic surveillance issue.
I find little if any reason to "trust Congress" at this time. Snowden acted as a Patriot.
And when, exactly, was this going to happen?That is a good point - the full extent of this program has not been released or discussed; only the sensational elements that are most newsworthy have thus far entered into the public discourse.