• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Actually 5 Zeta-bytes equates to the memory of 321 Billion I-Phones, and trust me, by your response you don't know much either.

1 Zetabytes equates to enough I-Phones stacked flat to exceed the distance of the moon.

lol? Did anyone dispute that?

(psst, if you wanna sound intelligent, know how to spell the unit of measure)

So, if your'e not going to be specific then I have to assume your ignorant.

Problem is ignorance is no excuse for indifference or apathy.

What? Did you just randomly go on about how large a unit of measure was that you misspelled, which no one had debated, and then call someone ignorant? lol that's awesome.
 
lol? Did anyone dispute that?

(psst, if you wanna sound intelligent, know how to spell the unit of measure)



What? Did you just randomly go on about how large a unit of measure was that you misspelled, which no one had debated, and then call someone ignorant? lol that's awesome.


Come on man, are you really going to resort to the 'grammar Nazi' approach to debate?

Now admittedly, I don't know much about technology, but can you tell me why I should let the government just collect all my data with no intent to use it? Do we have a 4th amendment anymore? Or a constitution for that matter?
 
Come on man, are you really going to resort to the 'grammar Nazi' approach to debate?

Uhhh...I just corrected him. He used it twice. The first time I assumed it was a typo, the second time, when he tried to play it as some type of trump card (...why would he even think that?), I thought he should really know. Now it's just kinda silly: "This guy disagrees with me and corrected my spelling!? I'm gonna keep spelling it wrong just to show him!"

Now admittedly, I don't know much about technology, but can you tell me why I should let the government just collect all my data with no intent to use it? Do we have a 4th amendment anymore? Or a constitution for that matter?

Well he's not talking about technology. He's just going on and on about some facility being built in Utah, which leads me to believe he has no idea what an NSA RSOC is, which makes me wonder why he's trying to speak intelligently about the subject at all.

To answer your question, we do have a 4th amendment. And this has been found by federal judges, the people paid to interpret the constitution, to be in accordance with it. If you disagree, that's fine. But what isn't fine is when people (hopefully not you) become convinced that somehow their interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone else is blatantly 'illegal' because they're not in agreement.

But that's almost beside the point to me. What would you prize higher: upholding the constitution or protecting Americans? Especially keeping in mind that the constitution was created to protect Americans...
 
Uhhh...I just corrected him. He used it twice. The first time I assumed it was a typo, the second time, when he tried to play it as some type of trump card (...why would he even think that?), I thought he should really know. Now it's just kinda silly: "This guy disagrees with me and corrected my spelling!? I'm gonna keep spelling it wrong just to show him!"



Well he's not talking about technology. He's just going on and on about some facility being built in Utah, which leads me to believe he has no idea what an NSA RSOC is, which makes me wonder why he's trying to speak intelligently about the subject at all.

To answer your question, we do have a 4th amendment. And this has been found by federal judges, the people paid to interpret the constitution, to be in accordance with it. If you disagree, that's fine. But what isn't fine is when people (hopefully not you) become convinced that somehow their interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone else is blatantly 'illegal' because they're not in agreement.

But that's almost beside the point to me. What would you prize higher: upholding the constitution or protecting Americans? Especially keeping in mind that the constitution was created to protect Americans...

I'd like to think that I value my freedom more than security promised by a corrupt nanny state. But, we are going to have to see more...It's almost like one of those twilight zone's from my childhood, where an ever increasing security state takes more and more rights in the name of security, and before you know it, it's Germany 1932. Or better yet someone realizes the out of control spiral, and calls a halt, and nothing bad happens.

Now, I don't know you personally OWO, and for the record you seem like a pretty smart guy even though on a lot of political matters we probably don't agree. But if you can sit there and type that you thought that it was fine when congress instituted the patriot act that caused this during the last administration as well, then I can better understand where you are coming from.

But, know this, I defended Bush, and the patriot act in the early '00s and as this power is being abused more and more, I have come to realize that I was wrong and admitted it. So, no sir. If the state suspects me of something, let them prove it. They can't, or shouldn't be able to do it with dragnets....
 
An odd thing is happening in the world's self-declared pinnacle of democracy. No one -- except a handful of elected officials and an army of contractors -- is allowed to know how America's surveillance leviathan works.

For the last two years, Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have tried to describe to the American public the sweeping surveillance the National Security Agency conducts inside and outside the United States. But secrecy rules block them from airing the simplest details.

Over the last few days, President Barack Obama and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have both said they welcome a national debate about the surveillance programs. But the president and senator have not used their power to declassify information that would make that debate possible.

In the initial years after September 11, the focus on thwarting another major domestic terrorist attack was understandable. Twelve years later, there have been only two major al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks inside the United States: the 2009 killing of 13 soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, and the April Boston marathon bombing that killed three. No evidence has emerged of terrorist groups infiltrating American executive, intelligence or defense agencies.

Yet documents released by Snowden show that the amount of surveillance information that the government collects is ballooning. The American public has no clear sense of how the metadata is used by the government, how long it is held and which agencies have access to it.

The culture of secrecy that pervades Washington borders on the absurd. The White House refuses to release the legal memo it used it used to justify the killing of an American citizen in a drone strike in Yemen. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court will not publish summaries of the rulings that made data mining legal.

From drone strikes to eavesdropping to water boarding, the American public is not allowed to know the rules and results of U.S. counterterrorism policies.

At the same time, a sprawling secrecy industrial complex does. More than 4.9 million Americans now have government security clearances. Another 1.4 million have "top secret" clearance.

As always, politics lies beneath the surface. For a Democratic or Republican president, another major terrorist attack in the United States would be politically devastating. Erring on the side of overzealous counterterrorism and under-zealous disclosure is smart politics.

But as Obama himself argued in a speech two weeks ago, the time has come for the United States to move forward. A "perpetual war," he said, "will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways." So will perpetual fear and perpetual secrecy.

The Security-Industrial Complex - David Rohde - The Atlantic

4.9 million snoopers, every one of em a potential snowden...

stay tuned
 
What would you prize higher: upholding the constitution or protecting Americans

obama: false choice
 
ap yesterday:

When Lying Is Acceptable, The Public Loses | RealClearPolitics

WASHINGTON (AP) — A member of Congress asks the director of national intelligence if the National Security Agency collects data on millions of Americans. "No, sir," James Clapper responds. Pressed, he adds a caveat: "Not wittingly."

Then, NSA programs that do precisely that are disclosed.

It turns out that President Barack Obama's intelligence chief lied. Or as he put it last week: "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, 'No,' because the program was classified."

The White House stands by him. Press secretary Jay Carney says Obama "certainly believes that Director Clapper has been straight and direct in the answers that he's given." Congress, always adept at performing verbal gymnastics, seems generally unmiffed about Clapper's lack of candor. If there have been repercussions, the public doesn't know about them.

Welcome to the intelligence community, a shadowy network of secrets and lies reserved, apparently, not only for this country's enemies but also for its own citizens.

Sometimes it feels as if the government operates in a parallel universe where lying has no consequences and everyone but the people it represents is complicit in deception. Looking at episodes like this, it's unsurprising that people have lost faith in their elected leaders and the institution of government. This all reinforces what polls show people think: Washington plays by its own rules.

Since when is it acceptable for government — elected leaders or those they appoint — to be directly untruthful to Americans? Do people even care about the deception? Or is this kind of behavior expected these days? After all, most politicians parse words, tell half-truths and omit facts. Some lie outright. It's called spin.

And yet this feels different.

The government quite legitimately keeps loads of secrets from its people for security reasons, with gag orders in effect over top-secret information that adversaries could use against us. But does that authority also give the government permission to lie to its people in the name of their own safety without repercussions? Should Congress simply be accepting those falsehoods?

Consider the results of 2012 surveys.

One from the Public Affairs Council found that 57 percent of Americans felt that public officials in Washington had below-average honesty and ethical standards. Another from the Pew Research Center found 54 percent of Americans felt the federal government in Washington was mostly corrupt, while 31 percent rated it mostly honest.

Trust in government has dropped dramatically since the 1950s, when a majority of the country placed faith in it most of the time. But by April 2013, an Associated Press-GfK poll had found just 21 percent feeling that way.

senator udall: "that is the type of surveillance i have long said would shock the public if they knew about it"

ron wyden: "the american people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives"

clapper: my "least untruthful" answer "may have been too cute by half"

Whatever else it does, the episode illuminates a conflict in our system — one that we dance around whenever the subject of secrets comes up.

The Obama administration says it wants the American people to allow the NSA to do what it must to protect the nation. The president himself has assured Americans that Congress has been in the loop, making sure the NSA isn't going too far. But it's hard to see how a real check on that power is possible if Congress is unable or unwilling to provide actual oversight, much less take action when a key official involved in the program isn't straight with lawmakers.

In this case, it nudges accountability further into the shadows — and gives the American public even less of a stake in the security of the open society that we say we hold so dear.

secrets, spies and lies...

do you trust people like this to handle, for example, your tax dollars?

your health care needs?

stay tuned
 
Uhhh...I just corrected him. He used it twice. The first time I assumed it was a typo, the second time, when he tried to play it as some type of trump card (...why would he even think that?), I thought he should really know. Now it's just kinda silly: "This guy disagrees with me and corrected my spelling!? I'm gonna keep spelling it wrong just to show him!"



Well he's not talking about technology. He's just going on and on about some facility being built in Utah, which leads me to believe he has no idea what an NSA RSOC is, which makes me wonder why he's trying to speak intelligently about the subject at all.

To answer your question, we do have a 4th amendment. And this has been found by federal judges, the people paid to interpret the constitution, to be in accordance with it. If you disagree, that's fine. But what isn't fine is when people (hopefully not you) become convinced that somehow their interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone else is blatantly 'illegal' because they're not in agreement.

But that's almost beside the point to me. What would you prize higher: upholding the constitution or protecting Americans? Especially keeping in mind that the constitution was created to protect Americans...

Sometimes it's good to have a reminder of what the Founders had to say about all of this, and what they said then usually holds true today.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin.

Here's more from Ben, if you're interested. Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote
 
Sometimes it's good to have a reminder of what the Founders had to say about all of this, and what they said then usually holds true today.
Here's more from Ben, if you're interested. Benjamin Franklin - Wikiquote

I'll never get over how some people consider the founders to be saints that could never be wrong. Regardless, who knew having a storehouse of your phones metadata was essential? Who knew that the threat of non-state actors is only temporary?

Learn something new every day.
 
I'd like to think that I value my freedom more than security promised by a corrupt nanny state.

Freedom and security are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I think you know that. Whether it's corrupt or not is almost besides the point. Is the military corrupt? The NSA falls under the DoD.

But, we are going to have to see more...It's almost like one of those twilight zone's from my childhood, where an ever increasing security state takes more and more rights in the name of security, and before you know it, it's Germany 1932. Or better yet someone realizes the out of control spiral, and calls a halt, and nothing bad happens.

I don't think it's 'ever increasing'. For awhile in the 90s, technology far outpaced the government's ability to keep up with it. Now the government is catching up. That's the way it's always been.

Now, I don't know you personally OWO, and for the record you seem like a pretty smart guy even though on a lot of political matters we probably don't agree. But if you can sit there and type that you thought that it was fine when congress instituted the patriot act that caused this during the last administration as well, then I can better understand where you are coming from.

I did think it was a good idea. I still do.
 
I'll never get over how some people consider the founders to be saints that could never be wrong. Regardless, who knew having a storehouse of your phones metadata was essential? Who knew that the threat of non-state actors is only temporary?

Learn something new every day.

Most don't think of them as 'saints' but as good men who managed to put together some ideas and documents that lasted people from all cultures and levels of society for well over two centuries.

Ben Franklin also said "A great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges". We can see that happening with the abuses of the 4th, 6th and 10th Amendments until they mean little anymore and soon the rest will slowly disappear as well, with the 1st and 2nd also under the greatest jeopardy.
 
Most don't think of them as 'saints' but as good men who managed to put together some ideas and documents that lasted people from all cultures and levels of society for well over two centuries.

Ben Franklin also said "A great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges". We can see that happening with the abuses of the 4th, 6th and 10th Amendments until they mean little anymore and soon the rest will slowly disappear as well, with the 1st and 2nd also under the greatest jeopardy.

I doubt it. They got their ideas from the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, who had some awesome ideas and some that weren't so great. Ideas adapt or they die. The lionization of the guys is fine, the lionization of their ideas as still being the possible thoughts ever, two to three hundred years later is a bit silly.

Anyway, as mentioned, even were you to subscribe to the original Franklin quote you shared, no two people will agree on exactly what is 'essential' and what is 'temporary' so the quote becomes nothing more than a nice turn of the phrase, that everyone would agree with in general but not in specific.
 
You think you know about data capacity? You don't know how many people work for the NSA or what their budget is, but someone told you something about zetabytes (sic, the word is zettabyte) and you believe it.

*facepalm*

"something about zetabytes and you believe it" ... as if it were real.... hint: IT IS A REAL... this is no goddammed conspiracy, the zettabyte is a real unit of measurement, a real multiple of the byte.

1 ZB = 1,073,741,824 TB = 1,099,511,627,776 GB -> consumers have the capacity to store a small fraction of this amount of data.
5 ZB = 5,368,709,120 TB = 5,497,558,138,880 GB -> consumers have the capacity to store an even small fraction of this amount of data.'

Now, I am not gonna guess what the NSA could possibly want to do with almost 5.5 trillion gigabytes of storage space.

Given some of the hypercompression algorithms that do exist - with the ability,albeit very slowly for the average consumer/the average computer - to compress a few GB to tens of MB [and given how those algorithms improve over time, and computers are getting both faster and more powerful over time], you could store a mind-blowing amount of data here [and hypercompression increases that amount significantly.

Now I'm just curious curious - if you hypercompressed every piece of data going on 5 ZB worth of space as much as each piece of data could be compressed, how much data could be stored in that 5 ZB of space compared to uncompressed? I would imagine a ridiculous amount. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Well, that is the thing about jumping to conclusions. Sometimes the conclusions will be right. :)

You're dealing with a knowitall here, supposed spy master. Step aside and marvel at his knowledge.
 
*facepalm*

"something about zetabytes and you believe it" ... as if it were real.... hint: IT IS A REAL... this is no goddammed conspiracy, the zettabyte is a real unit of measurement, a real multiple of the byte.

No one said it wasn't?

1 ZB = 1,073,741,824 TB = 1,099,511,627,776 GB -> consumers have the capacity to store a small fraction of this amount of data.
5 ZB = 5,368,709,120 TB = 5,497,558,138,880 GB -> consumers have the capacity to store an even small fraction of this amount of data.

lol. thanks? I'm Net+, Sec+, and A+ qualified, I think I knew that, but alright?

Now, I am not gonna guess what the NSA could possibly want to do with almost 5.5 trillion gigabytes of storage space.

Are you gonna guess as to why you think you know the NSA wants it to begin with? To reiterate, you don't know their budget or personnel strength, because it's classified, but you're presuming to believe a news report on how much hard drive space one of their facilities has?

Given some of the hypercompression algorithms that do exist - with the ability,albeit very slowly for the average consumer/the average computer - to compress a few GB to tens of MB [and given how those algorithms improve over time, and computers are getting both faster and more powerful over time], you could store a mind-blowing amount of data here [and hypercompression increases that amount significantly.

Okay, again I don't know why you presumed to think that that figure was any more true than anything else you might've heard.

Now I'm just curious curious - if you hypercompressed every piece of data going on 5 ZB worth of space as much as each piece of data could be compressed, how much data could be stored in that 5 ZB of space compared to uncompressed? I would imagine a ridiculous amount. :2razz:

I'm curious- if you hypercompressed every piece of data going into a googleplex worth of space as much as each piece of data could be compressed, how much data could be stored in that googleplez of space compared to uncompressed? I would imagine a ridiculous amount. :2razz:
 
Freedom and security are on opposite sides of the spectrum, I think you know that.

Is there anything that says that we can't have both? I think it is a false choice being offered America now.

Is the military corrupt?

Seeing some of the military's leaders get in front of congress and openly equivocate, and in some cases outright lie, makes that case.

The NSA falls under the DoD.

I am aware of the structure.

I don't think it's 'ever increasing'. For awhile in the 90s, technology far outpaced the government's ability to keep up with it. Now the government is catching up. That's the way it's always been.

Do you think it is possible that we know the full extent of what the government has in terms of technology programs? Further, do you trust the government to always tell you the truth these days? I don't.

I did think it was a good idea. I still do.

I did too when it started. But, now I am realizing that different administrations can use that power in different ways, that may not be so benign.....
 
Is there anything that says that we can't have both? I think it is a false choice being offered America now.

I absolutely disagree. If you have absolute complete freedom to do anything you want, what type of protection (security) do I have from you beating the **** out of me? None. I just have to hope I can fight you off. If Microsoft had had complete freedom to expand in the ways and methods they wanted to in the mid 90s, what security would we have from them creating a monopoly and forcing us to pay whatever they wanted us to pay? None. All societies give up some manner of freedom for some security, going back for...hell, as long as there have been societies. Humans are prevented from acting in some ways in order to provide security for them.

If this is too far towards security and away from freedom for your liking, that's fine, but the spectrum does exist.

Seeing some of the military's leaders get in front of congress and openly equivocate, and in some cases outright lie, makes that case.

If you're talking about lying to prevent classified answers from being given in an open meeting, I have no complaint with them doing that. I think most people in intelligence tell lies, either of omission or commission, on a daily basis. That goes part and parcel with doing something that not everyone can know about. Remember George Washington said that "“(U)pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises…and for want of it, they are generally defeated.”

Do you think it is possible that we know the full extent of what the government has in terms of technology programs? Further, do you trust the government to always tell you the truth these days? I don't.

I don't see what that has to do with what I said, but I agree. The point is 'ever increasing' is misleading. The US used to open mail back in Washington's day (it's partially how they caught Benedict Arnold), now they're collecting cellphone metadata. Have things really been increasing that much?

I did too when it started. But, now I am realizing that different administrations can use that power in different ways, that may not be so benign.....

Maybe. That's all hypothetical.
 
Duh, but rather irrelevant.

lol, I'm not sure you're in a state to decide what is irrelevant and what is not. To refresh your ailing memory:

Been approved by all 3 branches, but flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment?

You're not more qualified than federal judges to interpret the constitution. I'm sorry.

Compared to a person who has never read or studied the document, I am more qualified.

Compared to any other layman (non lawyer) who has read and studied the document, I am ordinary, or maybe a cut above.

Sure. But federal judges have. And you're unqualified in comparison.

You said something was clearly unconstitutional, I told you you weren't qualified enough to make that judgment- not compared to the people who've already deliberated on it and found your interpretation incorrect.

Thankfully, you just agreed. With a 'duh', no less.
 
Duh, but rather irrelevant.

Here's a little enlightenment.Who'd a thunk it, the same ol', same ol'
Where Uncle Sam Ought to Be Snooping
"But Americans have more on the surveillance front to worry about than overzealous government agents. Government personnel aren’t actually doing the snooping the 29-year-old Snowden revealed. NSA officials have contracted this snooping out — to private corporate contractors.

These surveillance contracts, in turn, are making contractor executives exceedingly rich. And none have profited personally more than the power suits who run Booz Allen Hamilton and the private equity Carlyle Group.

Whistle-blower Snowden did his snooping as a Booz Allen employee. Booz Allen, overall, has had tens of thousands of employees doing intelligence work for the federal government.

Booz Allen alumni also populate the highest echelons of America’s intelligence apparatus — and vice versa. The Obama administration’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, just happens to be a former Booz Allen exec. The George W. Bush intelligence chief, John McConnell, now serves as the Booz Allen vice chair.

All these revolving doors open up into enormously lucrative worlds. In their 2010 fiscal year, the top five Booz Allen execs together pocketed just under $20 million. They averaged 23 times what members of Congress take home.

But the real windfalls are flowing to top execs at the Carlyle Group, Booz Allen’s parent company since 2008. In 2011, Carlyle’s top three power suits shared a combined payday over $400 million.

More windfalls will be arriving soon. Carlyle paid $2.54 billion to buy up Booz Allen. Analysts are now expecting that Carlyle’s ultimate return on the acquisition will triple the private equity giant’s initial cash outlay.

What do all these mega millions have to do with the massive surveillance that Edward Snowden has so dramatically exposed? Washington power players, from the President on down, are insisting that this surveillance has one and only one purpose: keeping Americans safe from terrorism."
 
Here's a little enlightenment.Who'd a thunk it, the same ol', same ol'
Where Uncle Sam Ought to Be Snooping
"But Americans have more on the surveillance front to worry about than overzealous government agents. Government personnel aren’t actually doing the snooping the 29-year-old Snowden revealed. NSA officials have contracted this snooping out — to private corporate contractors.

These surveillance contracts, in turn, are making contractor executives exceedingly rich. And none have profited personally more than the power suits who run Booz Allen Hamilton and the private equity Carlyle Group.

Whistle-blower Snowden did his snooping as a Booz Allen employee. Booz Allen, overall, has had tens of thousands of employees doing intelligence work for the federal government.

Booz Allen alumni also populate the highest echelons of America’s intelligence apparatus — and vice versa. The Obama administration’s top intelligence official, James Clapper, just happens to be a former Booz Allen exec. The George W. Bush intelligence chief, John McConnell, now serves as the Booz Allen vice chair.

All these revolving doors open up into enormously lucrative worlds. In their 2010 fiscal year, the top five Booz Allen execs together pocketed just under $20 million. They averaged 23 times what members of Congress take home.

But the real windfalls are flowing to top execs at the Carlyle Group, Booz Allen’s parent company since 2008. In 2011, Carlyle’s top three power suits shared a combined payday over $400 million.

More windfalls will be arriving soon. Carlyle paid $2.54 billion to buy up Booz Allen. Analysts are now expecting that Carlyle’s ultimate return on the acquisition will triple the private equity giant’s initial cash outlay.

What do all these mega millions have to do with the massive surveillance that Edward Snowden has so dramatically exposed? Washington power players, from the President on down, are insisting that this surveillance has one and only one purpose: keeping Americans safe from terrorism."

Exactly right! The crony capitalism opportunities in the war on terror are boundless.

OWO simply kids himself into thinking they do not exist.
 
I doubt it. They got their ideas from the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, who had some awesome ideas and some that weren't so great. Ideas adapt or they die. The lionization of the guys is fine, the lionization of their ideas as still being the possible thoughts ever, two to three hundred years later is a bit silly.

Fashions of the day can certainly be "quite silly" but there are some truths involving the freedom of the individual which must be continuous if we are to stay free.
Anyway, as mentioned, even were you to subscribe to the original Franklin quote you shared, no two people will agree on exactly what is 'essential' and what is 'temporary' so the quote becomes nothing more than a nice turn of the phrase, that everyone would agree with in general but not in specific.

No two people may agree on what is essential but the important thing is that they are allowed to disagree, and that is covered in the First Amendment. That should never be taken as 'temporary'.
 
Exactly right! The crony capitalism opportunities in the war on terror are boundless.

OWO simply kids himself into thinking they do not exist.

lol what? Who said anything about that?,

You seem to have thoroughly confused relevant and irrelevant . You thought something pertinent was irrelevant and something no one talked about was relevant. Medication, medication.
 
I absolutely disagree. If you have absolute complete freedom to do anything you want, what type of protection (security) do I have from you beating the **** out of me? None. I just have to hope I can fight you off.

Like or not that is what you have now....Ask a police officer, they are not there to protect you from crime, but rather to find out who did what, and bring the law breaker to account for their actions...Now you can say that certain punishments are designed to be a deterrent, but that doesn't stop the hard core with malicious intent from carrying out the actions.

If Microsoft had had complete freedom to expand in the ways and methods they wanted to in the mid 90s, what security would we have from them creating a monopoly and forcing us to pay whatever they wanted us to pay?

Sure doesn't seem like anything done slowed Gates down any....A more apt description of any restraint that Microsoft experienced was the explosion of Apple products that took the public eye off of Microsoft.

All societies give up some manner of freedom for some security, going back for...hell, as long as there have been societies. Humans are prevented from acting in some ways in order to provide security for them.

While that may be true, it doesn't mean that it can't be corrupted.

If this is too far towards security and away from freedom for your liking, that's fine, but the spectrum does exist.

Again, I am not saying that we don't...So I really don't know why you are arguing that with me.

If you're talking about lying to prevent classified answers from being given in an open meeting, I have no complaint with them doing that. I think most people in intelligence tell lies, either of omission or commission, on a daily basis. That goes part and parcel with doing something that not everyone can know about. Remember George Washington said that "“(U)pon Secrecy, Success depends in Most Enterprises…and for want of it, they are generally defeated.”

Well, I think that quote is a little out of context for this conversation, but, my answer is NO, I don't accept that lying to congress, under oath is acceptable in any manner, for any reason. It has already been pointed out that many other answers can be given without lying, but once we accept lying the door is open, and accountability is gone....Maybe that is fine for you, not me.

I don't see what that has to do with what I said, but I agree. The point is 'ever increasing' is misleading. The US used to open mail back in Washington's day (it's partially how they caught Benedict Arnold), now they're collecting cellphone metadata. Have things really been increasing that much?

Yeah, I don't think things really have increased that much...At least according to President Obama, the WoT has been winding down, and is all but over, so why the increased collection of data on domestic targets, and with the wide net? Nah, this look authoritarian to me.

Maybe. That's all hypothetical.

And maybe it's not, which is why we must hold those testifying to congress accountable when they lie.
 
lol? Did anyone dispute that?


(psst, if you wanna sound intelligent, know how to spell the unit of measure)



What? Did you just randomly go on about how large a unit of measure was that you misspelled, which no one had debated, and then call someone ignorant? lol that's awesome.

Oh wow you can spell Zeta-Byte, it means you have access to a online dictionary.

What else can you tell us about that technology ? Seems your so intelligent ( not too intelligent, your'e defending a corrupt administration ) , you should be able to expand on your abillity to use spell-check.
 
Back
Top Bottom