Snowdon is a dummy

@revelette2,

Sadly to a great degree the FBI is creating the terrorists that they then arrested for taking part in plots that would never had been but for the FBI and their informants own actions in promoting them.

Perhaps some of the people that they have trap in this web would have gone on by themselves to become real terrorists but for the most part I do not think so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I hesitate to say, but, I agree. I think they should cut out the practice.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

I hesitate to say, but, I agree. I think they should cut out the practice.

Along with mass spying where 99.9999 percents of the people who information end up in databases have nothing to do with any illegal behaviors let alone terrorism.

Just because something can be done with enough funding does not mean or imply it is either wise or useful to do.

More then enough information was available without massive spying programs to end stop 911, the problem was putting it all together.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I disagree with surveillance being cut out. Perhaps be reformed and/or revamped to be more efficient, but I honestly think it is a useful tool to track terrorist. I understand you disagree, it may be that it will be cut out altogether, if I does, it does.

We all have stated our beliefs on this subject of "to spy or not to spy" for well over a year. I haven't seen anything to change my mind, it seems you and others here who think like you do haven't seen anything to change your mind.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

The point is that mass spying will never be efficient. And it is dangerous for the US democracy and diplomacy.

4 Replies

Olivier wrote:

Quote:

The point is that mass spying will never be efficient.

"Mass spying" (which apparently is what some people are calling what the NSA is doing)...may already be efficient.

It may already have produced needed intelligence that cannot realistically be obtained any other way.

We do not know for sure.

Categorically saying that it is not efficient and that it never will be...is illogical.

Quote:

And it is dangerous for the US democracy and diplomacy.

People who dislike and distrust the US will dislike and distrust the US no matter what.

I don't think America's "democracy" is suffering from what is happening...and diplomacy continues even during wars. My opinion is that it will not suffer significantly.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

We do not know for sure.

WE don't know it at all - a few others will have a better knowledge.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Categorically saying that it is not efficient and that it never will be...is illogical.

As it is the way around.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Categorically saying that it is not efficient and that it never will be...is illogical.

As it is the way around.

Absolutely.

I would NEVER say it IS efficient...because that would be illogical.

Saying it is not efficient and never will be...also is illogical.

So we agree.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
We do not know for sure.

WE don't know it at all - a few others will have a better knowledge.

Sorry, Walter...but I do not know what you were trying to say here.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We do not know for sure.

I'm quite sure mass spying is not efficient presently, and cannot be made so in the future, at least if the assessment criteria relates to terrorism. It may be efficient to keep the US populace on its toes, to spy on Airbus, or to prevent any progress on climate change in global conferences...

Quote:

My opinion is that [the US democracy] will not suffer significantly.

My opinion is that it's best not to take any chance with that.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The point is that mass spying will never be efficient. And it is dangerous for the US democracy and diplomacy.

Beside costing US firms tens of billions of dollars a year, by their own claims, as there is now a worldwide lack of trust in using US companies to handle and or store information.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
We do not know for sure.

I'm quite sure mass spying is not efficient presently

There were people in the 60's who were "quite sure" that The Beatles would never make it big time.

It is impossible to be "quite sure" that mass spying is not efficient presently...and in this conversation, the assertion requires that what the NSA is doing must be defined as "mass spying."

Quote:

... and cannot be made so in the future, at least if the assessment criteria relates to terrorism.

It is impossible to be "quite sure" it cannot be made so in the future.

Quote:

It may be efficient to keep the US populace on its toes, to spy on Airbus, or to prevent any progress on climate change in global conferences...

Not sure what your point is here, Olivier.

Quote:

Quote:
My opinion is that [the US democracy] will not suffer significantly.

My opinion is that it's best not to take any chance with that.

Fine. Have that opinion.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is impossible to be "quite sure" that mass spying is not efficient presently...and in this conversation, the assertion requires that what the NSA is doing must be defined as "mass spying."

It's called "mass collection of data" officially by the NSA and the US-administration. But we here in Europe call it colloquially "mass spying".

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It is impossible to be "quite sure" that mass spying is not efficient presently...and in this conversation, the assertion requires that what the NSA is doing must be defined as "mass spying."

It's called "mass collection of data" officially by the NSA and the US-administration. But we here in Europe call it colloquially "mass spying".

I understand that, Walter.

I certainly could make a case for it being "spying"...just as I could make a case for it being something less, like "collection of data"...(a collection of data which may be very useful).

I just wanted my answer to include the notion that when we use "mass spying" in this discussion...we are talking about what the NSA is doing.

Anyone who wants to consider it "mass spying" is certainly free to do so.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'm entitled to my informed opinion, and you're entitled to your uniformed opinion.

Quote:

That mass spying's real value may lie in other things than anti-terrorism... such as controlling political radicals, collecting industrial secrets, or sabotaging UN processes when the US don't like them, such as on climate change...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The point is that mass spying will never be efficient.

didn't it work brilliantly for China and East Germany and the USSR and ...

oh wait

it didn't pan out, did it

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I haven't seen anything to change my mind, it seems you and others here who think like you do haven't seen anything to change your mind.

well, actually, some people did change their minds - in particular, the person who started the thread

it's been a useful thread in that way

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I was thinking specifically of you Bill. You seem to go for the antiamerican crowd so I just thought you thought him a hero. And than there is the fact you have said he is neuromas times.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Nobody is anti-american here, except you maybe.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know