Snowdon is a dummy

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And if we give our word not to spy on them...it is reasonable to assume we will not spy on them.

Well, you won't give that word for Germany. It least that what is officially said - perhaps, secretly you promised never to do it again?

And if we do give our word...you will feel more secure that we will not do so???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And if we do give our word...you will feel more secure that we will not do so???

No, I don't think so. (To be honest: I don't feel threatened in my security by our government and its officials. Nor by any other German.)
But in such a case, it will be the good feeling to live again in a free and democratic country and not in a country similar to the former GDR.

1 Reply

If the intelligence community thought there were reasons to spy on you good folk before…what has happened (other than getting caught at it) that would change their commitment to those reasons? None that I can see.

There is a possibility that the Snowden revelations will cause spying to go even further underground and become more pervasive…rather than curb such activity or cause it to become more transparent.

Those who think Snowden is a hero who performed a much-needed public service…may get a very rude awakening at some point.

Things may get (what to their mind’s is) much worse.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Our word, "if you have insurance, you can keep what you have."

It's now engraved in stone. Mr. Green

0 Replies

The world wants “assurances.”

But anyone who is assured by anything that is said (by any country) is too naive to be taken seriously.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I really think (and do have some experience with police agencies and well with those who spy) that any of those agencies has tried to act outside the law ... because such is much easier to do.
But fortunately, laws give here limits.
And if they don't ... well, perhaps we'll become a fiefdom of the USA and the UK again like after WWII.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I really think (and do have some experience with police agencies and well with those who spy) that any of those agencies has tried to act outside the law ... because such is much easier to do.
But fortunately, laws give here limits.
And if they don't ... well, perhaps we'll become a fiefdom of the USA and the UK again like after WWII.

I hope that doesn't happen, Walter...and I suspect it won't. I think this is another of those things that comes up and generates lots of heat...and then dies down.

We spied; you guys spied; all the other guys probably spied also.

The world went on.

Some privacy was invaded...and my guess (and expectation) is that more privacy will be invaded tomorrow...and more the day after that.

Machines have taken over huge amounts of the manufacturing process...and the need to pay people good salaries to do manufacturing jobs is gone for good.

In the same way...the expectation of privacy is gone.

If our country can find out what you guys secretly plan to do...ABOUT ANYTHING...we will will find it out if we can.

Same thing on your side.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I understand what you are saying, Bill. You are saying our intelligence agencies should restrict their spying only to people they know intend to harm us.

No I mean they should focus on people likely to posed a threat not our own soldiers talking to their loves one back home or even the bulk of the US population.

Such programs are a complete waste of resources as the results of the bulk phone data base had shown and as outrage invasion of all our privacy.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

It hasent occurred to you that people who are spying on us are stationed in the U S of A?

You find and focus on them not use a shotgun on everyone.

Quote:

Remember 9/11. They were in the U S of A and did their planning here. If we had had this program maybe we might have stopped it before it happened

There was plenty of warning even to the point of a fly school calling the FBI to expressed concerns over having students that was not concern about learning to take off or land.

If you flood the system with worthless information concerning everyone you are even more likely to missed the important bits of information need to stop an attack.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

Quote:

If our country can find out what you guys secretly plan to do...ABOUT ANYTHING...we will will find it out if we can.

Why does any government have to know when any couple has sex?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is a possibility that the Snowden revelations will cause spying to go even further underground and become more pervasive…rather than curb such activity or cause it to become more transparent.

The last I hear NSA have a direct and indirect workforce of 800,000 people with 1200 private firms and good luck now that everyone in the world had been warn in big letters good luck in them hiding more large programs in the future.

Quote:

http://blogs.voanews.com/digital-frontiers/2013/08/16/the-nsas-contractor-problem/

“At the same time Hayden was building his empire within Fort Meade, he was also creating a shadow NSA: of the $60 billion going to the intelligence community, most of it– about $42 billion, an enormous 70 percent– was going to outside contractors,” says Bamford.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I understand what you are saying, Bill. You are saying our intelligence agencies should restrict their spying only to people they know intend to harm us.

No I mean they should focus on people likely to posed a threat not our own soldiers talking to their loves one back home or even the bulk of the US population.

Such programs are a complete waste of resources as the results of the bulk phone data base had shown and as outrage invasion of all our privacy.

If you are excluding large populations of people from surveillance, Bill, you are excluding them.

A few years back, one of "our soldiers" opened fire on his fellow soldier... 13 dead...40 wounded.

You seem to think you can run our intelligence services more intelligently and more efficiently than the people who are running them now.

I disagree.

I also disagree with the implications of your policy...which reduces to: Only spy on the people who intend to harm us.

And I think you know why I disagree with it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank,
Quote:
If our country can find out what you guys secretly plan to do...ABOUT ANYTHING...we will will find it out if we can.

Why does any government have to know when any couple has sex?

Beats me. But I'd rather have the intelligence agencies deciding what they want to check out rather than you or some of the other people complaining about what has gone on.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
There is a possibility that the Snowden revelations will cause spying to go even further underground and become more pervasive…rather than curb such activity or cause it to become more transparent.

The last I hear NSA have a direct and indirect workforce of 800,000 people with 1200 private firms and good luck now that everyone in the world had been warn in big letters good luck in them hiding more large programs in the future.

Thank you for that, Bill. I wish them good luck also. All decent Americans probably do.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

A few years back, one of "our soldiers" opened fire on his fellow soldier... 13 dead...40 wounded.

An like the 911 attack there was plenty of warnings that the military should be concern about him and I can not see how any more information beyond what they already knew at the time would had change the outcome.

It was not a lack of information but a lack of will to act that allowed him to carry out his attack.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
A few years back, one of "our soldiers" opened fire on his fellow soldier... 13 dead...40 wounded.

An like the 91 attack there was plenty of warnings that the military should be concern about him and I can not see how any more information beyond what they already knew at the time would had change the outcome.

It was not a lack of information but a lack of will to act that allowed him to carry out his attack.

The fact that YOU cannot see how any more information can be obtained..or used...is not particularly significant. You are not that special.

The intelligence community thinks they need a much larger volume of information than you do...and I trust their opinion a hell of a lot more than yours.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Beats me. But I'd rather have the intelligence agencies deciding what they want to check out rather than you or some of the other people complaining about what has gone on.

An you have so must faith in their judgment no matter how many times even when allowed to do what the hell they wish to do they have drop the ball due to what?

Adding far more streams of mostly worthless information is going to help them do better in picking out the real threats in what manner?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, you won't give that word for Germany. It least that's what is officially said - perhaps, secretly you promised never to do it again?

As long as Germany makes us feel like they might secretly be on the side of the terrorists, we will never stop spying on them.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

FACT: Collecting billions of private communication is not going to stop terrorists. Most mass killings in the US are done without any outward warnings. Nobody can "catch" these killers by the mass collection of private communication data. The cost doesn't justify the benefit.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Beats me. But I'd rather have the intelligence agencies deciding what they want to check out rather than you or some of the other people complaining about what has gone on.

An you have so must faith in their judgment no matter how many times even when allowed to do what the hell they wish to do they have drop the ball due to what?

Due to the fact that our enemies are not idiots...and even with all the intelligence in the world...a judgement to act on it is not always easy (seldom is easy) to make.

You of all people. You want excellence in intelligence...and you want to tie their hands so they do not get to know what kind of movies you watch.

Gimme a break!

Quote:

Adding far more streams of mostly worthless information is going to help them do better in picking out the real threats in what manner?

I do not know...and neither do you. I say...let them do their jobs as best they can. If you think you can do better...go apply for a job.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know