Snowdon is a dummy

@izzythepush,

I don't expect anyone to do anything.

I am sharing my feelings on this contentious issue...and I am acknowledging that you and others have the right to think the way you want.

There is nothing absurd about my position.

What is your problem with that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your argument is based on nothing but faith. That's an argument you ridicule on other threads.

If there was any evidence that mass surveillance worked it would have been shouted from the rooftops. No data breach needed, they could just say in the case of X data trawling helped secure a conviction.

It doesn't work, and it diverts funding from procedures that do work.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No...my argument is not "based on nothing but faith", Izzy.

I can think of many reasons why they would not shout "it works" from the rooftops...primarily because doing so could easily make it much less efficient.

When you Brits finally broke Enigma...you did not shout "it works" from the rooftops. You folk did everything you could to protect anyone finding out that you were able to read their messages.

For you to say the surveillance doesn't work...is a guess.

For me to say it may work...and I am willing to take the word of the agencies charged with doing the job that it does...is not a guess. It is a decision.

But considering your generally negative attitude toward the United States...maybe you are (consciously or unconsciously) trying to get us to let our guard down so that we make ourselves more vulnerable.

Hope that is not the case. /b]

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The degree of certainty people like JPB have that these programs do nothing to prevent terrorist attacks or terrorist planning...is amazing and absurd, Oralloy. And they think nothing of citing other people who are just as amazingly and absurdly certain the programs do nothing to prevent and protect.

They may be tremendously helpful in fulfilling the protection and prevention duties assigned to the agencies who want them...and there is no way the efficacy of the programs will ever be announced.

The claim that the phone metadata did little good is based on the assumption that a program is useful only if it leads directly to knowledge about a terrorist.

However, if the only thing a program does is confirm what people already know, or tell them that a given line of inquiry is likely to be a dead end, that alone is very useful. The government has limited resources, and it is helpful to make sure that those resources are being directed usefully.

According to the media (who say they talked to people in a position to know), the phone metadata program was like that. It did not directly uncover any terrorists, but it was quite useful in helping everyone stay focused on the proper targets.

Worse though, this stunt in the Senate also disrupted even more critical programs, like roving wiretaps. Even if it were possible to credibly argue that the phone metadata was of no use, these other programs are vital.

Frank Apisa wrote:

As for the loss of privacy being substantial...that seems to be mostly fantasy on the part of people who just want to complain about these programs.

I don't see the validity of any loss of privacy arguments. The government was only accessing the phone metadata after getting a warrant from a judge.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, I hope the congress gets its ducks in a row and gets past this nonsense being thrown at it by Rand Paul.

They did, sort of. The roving wiretaps are authorized and are back on track. However, the "compromise legislation" appears to have completely destroyed the usefulness of the phone metadata program.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's not absurd. There's good data on the lack of effectiveness of these programmes, not least from the commission appointed by the white house.

Actually the view seems to be universal that the roving wiretaps are critical.

There also seems to be strong support for the surveillance of likely lone wolf attackers.

And even though the phone metadata program didn't directly uncover a terrorist, it was quite useful in telling investigators whether or not they were on the right track on who they were investigating.

Olivier5 wrote:

Rand Paul is right on this one.

The terrorists certainly appreciate all of his help.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

After having implemented this surveillance program in complete secrecy

The program was authorized by public legislation.

InfraBlue wrote:

and circle-jerk collusion throughout all of the branches of government

Was it bad that they got warrants from judges before they accessed the data???

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

When you Brits finally broke Enigma...you did not shout "it works" from the rooftops. You folk did everything you could to protect anyone finding out that you were able to read their messages.

That's no comparison, we were at war and nobody knew we'd built colossus. Everyone knows about mass data trawl

Frank Apisa wrote:

]For you to say the surveillance doesn't work...is a guess.

No it's not, it's based on lack of evidence, none whatsoever. Considering the amount of pressure they're under, if there was any they would have made it known. It's been used for industrial espionage and spying on allies and private citizens.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But considering your generally negative attitude toward the United States...maybe you are (consciously or unconsciously) trying to get us to let our guard down so that we make ourselves more vulnerable.

That's very low even for you. Mass data trawling didn't stop the Boston bombers but enriched American companies. If the money had been spent on targeted surveillance they could have stopped him.

I don't think that it's acceptable for children to be killed as long as the CEOs of multinationals are made considerably richer. I used to think you thought the same. I want the terrorists to be stopped, that means limited resources should be spent properly. Making the mega rich even richer is not a good use of said resources.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

We differ on this issue, Izzy.

I suspect if I were telling you what the British government ought to do...you would not be taking kindly to it.

I think the agencies that are asking for the surveillance are making a reasonable request...and I understand that other think I am wrong in thinking that.

Fine...that is a part of the democratic process.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

We are of the same mind on this issue, Oralloy.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You really like to distort things. I'm not saying what any government should do, and in this the American and British government are in cahoots. GCHQ receives your tax dollar, so like it or not, I'm involved.

I'm pointing out the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that mass data trawling does any good at all and diverts resources from where they could be better used.

Your forelock tugging belief that your masters know what's best for you isn't exactly compelling. And when you start sucking up to Oralboy any vestiges of credibility you may have had go flying out of the window.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No, I do not distort things...and I haven't done so here.

Despite what you are suggesting in this last post...you ARE saying what the American government should do.

Quote:

I'm pointing out the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that mass data trawling does any good at all and diverts resources from where they could be better used.

I am pointing out that a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. The mass data trawling MAY be doing all sorts of good...and the use of funds this way may be of much, much more value than the things you are supposing the money could be better used for.

Quote:

Your forelock tugging belief that your masters know what's best for you isn't exactly compelling.

To use your words, Izzy...that is low even for you. Under any circumstances, I am thinking I should trust the judgement of the agencies charged with defending America more than I should trust your judgement...even if someone like you might find that inconceivable.

Quote:

And when you start sucking up to Oralboy any vestiges of credibility you may have had go flying out of the window.

I doubt even Oralloy conceives of my agreement with him on this as "sucking up"...but I guess you are in one of your raging moods, and there is no reasoning with you when you are.

Oralloy's thoughts are the same as my own on this issue. Sorry you are of the impression that if someone disagrees with you on an issue...you must disagree with them on all issues. Not a particularly intelligent perspective on your part, I'd say.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're the one not thinking, assured that your masters know what's best. A very supine position to take, and one that requires no thinking whatsoever.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You're the one not thinking, assured that your masters know what's best. A very supine position to take, and one that requires no thinking whatsoever.

Take a B12 cap, Izzy...and chill out. Try to understand that different people think differently about different issues. You do not get to determine how I must feel about this issue. And if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that I am subordinating myself to masters...go for it. It makes you look foolish...but go for it.

Interesting that you apparently think I should consider your take on this subject to be more informed than the take of the agency heads.

Oh, well. Sometimes there is no accounting for people like you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
After having implemented this surveillance program in complete secrecy

The program was authorized by public legislation.

Not explicitly. The regime justifies its surveillance program, PRISM, by way of its 2008 amendment to the, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, but it isn't in that amendment.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
and circle-jerk collusion throughout all of the branches of government

Was it bad that they got warrants from judges before they accessed the data???

It's bad that the judiciary won't even consider this program's legality on the basis that no one has demonstrated that they've been directly harmed by this program. They're issuing warrants through a program of dubious, to say the least, legality.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Umm...then don't.

But don't tell me that I can't.

If you want to trust Rand Paul...trust him.

I don't.

I didn't tell you that you can't, and this has nothing to do with Rand Paul who is merely a part of this regime.

You stated that we should give this regime the benefit of the doubt. I expressed my disagreement with your opinion.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Umm...then don't.

But don't tell me that I can't.

If you want to trust Rand Paul...trust him.

I don't.

I didn't tell you that you can't, and this has nothing to do with Rand Paul who is merely a part of this regime.

You stated that we should give this regime the benefit of the doubt. I expressed my disagreement with your opinion.

Respectfully, Blue...I do not read that you did that at all.

What you said was:

Quote:

After having implemented this surveillance program in complete secrecy and circle-jerk collusion throughout all of the branches of government we're supposed to trust them with it? Um, no.

That was a flippant way of dealing with what I had said...and perhaps I responded in kind. If you consider that wrong...I apologize. But perhaps you should not do it either.

I feel the people charged with the responsibilities the various agencies do the best they can. THEY seem to be saying they want this ability to maintain surveillance. To me, the surveillance does not seem as intrusive as some of you others seem to deem it.

So I am supporting them.

If you do not want to...as Rand Paul does not want to...don't.

I do not see the big deal here. We disagree on whether the program should be allowed...and we disagree on our trust of government...that's all.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank you started to look foolish a very long time ago, and distraction techniques don't help matters. If anyone disagrees with you they've got anger issues. That's something else that's got old very quickly.

We're left with the situation where you prefer his master's voice over evidence. That's what it is.

Btw, the actions of your government along with mine impact on me, so I have every right to have an opinion on that despite not being an American citizen.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Frank you started to look foolish a very long time ago, and distraction techniques don't help matters. If anyone disagrees with you they've got anger issues. That's something else that's got old very quickly.

I am not angry, Izzy...I am simply answering your questions. You on the other hand are entering a phase you seem to enter in almost every discussion...one where you get increasingly insulting. I expect it from you...and usually deal reasonably with it.

Quote:

We're left with the situation where you prefer his master's voice over evidence. That's what it is.

This "master's voice" is an example of that increasing insult. I do not consider my government to be my enemy...as some people do theirs. Most government officials are doing jobs that put them between a rock and a hard place...and they always have millions upon millions of bosses looking over their shoulders.

I trust the people entrusted with the responsibilities in keeping the nation safe...and I certainly trust their opinions on the needs for the surveillance more than I do yours.

If that bothers you that I do not trust your opinion more than theirs...it simply is something you will have to endure.

Quote:

Btw, the actions of your government along with mine impact on me, so I have every right to have an opinion on that despite not being an American citizen.

Fine. Then do it. And if I tell you I disagree with you...accept that I disagree with you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

We wouldn't know about mass data trawling if it were not for Snowden. There is no evidence it works, absolutely none. What it does do is make it a lot easier for intelligence agencies to spy on us without good reason. Intelligence/police agencies always want more power. Such powers should not be given without good reason.

No good reason has been given for mass data trawling, absolutely none. What's worse is it takes resources away from methods that do work.

The fact that you're getting into bed with Oralboy over this would give a reasonable man pause for thought.

Trusting the powers that be to do the right thing is no substitute for proper judicial oversight.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Get back under control...become a bit more respectful...and get back to me.

We can discuss it.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know