Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

[autigeremt 6,970]

Then you have all this popping up.... http://www.guardian....vacy-guarantees and this http://www.huffingto..._n_3405467.html and this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-prism-uk-government and this http://rt.com/news/hague-prism-sharing-baseless-488/

[homersapien 11,812]

How about pulling out the relevant parts? I don't have time to look for them and it's not my job to do your homework.

(Please be sure to include the parts linking the NSA)

And you didn't acknowledge my correction of your mistake characterizing my question on eliminating the NSA, etc.

[telling tiger 156]

Then you have all this popping up.... http://www.guardian....vacy-guarantees and this http://www.huffingto..._n_3405467.html and this http://www.guardian....m-uk-government and this http://rt.com/news/h...g-baseless-488/

Your first link is nothing but what every successful marketer, merchandiser, advertising and demographic information mnager in almost any area of politics, social entertainment and consumer goods specifically , is doing. Demographic experts can tell you within a 1.5 % degree of accuracy, in any postal code in the US what the political and social breakdown is. To pretend that is anything but good work, is ridiculous. Electronic tagging is done from something as simple as your local Publix store when you pay with credit, check or debit. Misrepresentation. I'll quote you from your own article, " The Romney campaign, looked on with awe". One was good , one wasn't.

[autigeremt 6,970]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Then you have all this popping up.... http://www.guardian....vacy-guarantees and this http://www.huffingto..._n_3405467.html and this http://www.guardian....m-uk-government and this http://rt.com/news/h...g-baseless-488/

Your first link is nothing but what every successful marketer, merchandiser, advertising and demographic information mnager in almost any area of politics, social entertainment and consumer goods specifically , is doing. Demographic experts can tell you within a 1.5 % degree of accuracy, in any postal code in the US what the political and social breakdown is. To pretend that is anything but good work, is ridiculous. Electronic tagging is done from something as simple as your local Publix store when you pay with credit, check or debit. Misrepresentation. I'll quote you from your own article, " The Romney campaign, looked on with awe". One was good , one wasn't.

Your opinion. Glad you have that option.

[autigeremt 6,970]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338499/Prism-Photograph-used-secretive-NSA-programme-logo-taken-British-broadcaster-Adam-Hart-Davis.html

[AUGradinTX 0]

I was wondering how long it would be before the Red Scare set in.

This is a man who has admitted that he will likely never see his country again and did what he did because he felt it was wrong. In this instance I agree with him. Either way it takes balls and determination.

Well that's certainly one way to describe someone who betrayed his / our country

Did he betray his country? Or did he blow the whistle on our country betraying us?

[telling tiger 156]

It was the opinion of the Romney campaign, too. Glad they had they option, lol. AU is teaching people the tech, on a daily basis, to compile, use and manage that information. The real world. Come on in. That isn't my opinion, that is the real activity of campaign management. Considering a popular candidate around here, got 1 million national votes in the POTUS race, which is 4 x's less than the losing candidate received in the Feinstein district race, I have no doubt that some don't know the technology or how to apply it.

[homersapien 11,812]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

No, my only responsibility is to call your statements absolute BS, which is just a polite way of calling you a liar.

You're the one who jumped in with the wild-assed claims. It's not my job to chase down 4 or 5 links to find the evidence for your claims. If you aren't willing to back them up, don't make them.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I'm familiar with the "real world", and I know what people are capable of when given power they shouldn't have. I don't give a damn what the Romney Campaign stated. I didn't vote for him.

[autigeremt 6,970]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

No, my only responsibility is to call your statements absolute BS, which is just a polite way of calling you a liar.

You're the one who jumped in with the wild-assed claims. It's not my job to chase down 4 or 5 links to find the evidence for your claims. If you aren't willing to back them up, don't make them.

I can make whatever claim I wish because I do so as my opinion. If you wish to read into every word I say as fact then that's your fault, not mine.

[telling tiger 156]

Well, I can never be accused of having done that with any of them, I'm good.

[homersapien 11,812]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

No, my only responsibility is to call your statements absolute BS, which is just a polite way of calling you a liar.

You're the one who jumped in with the wild-assed claims. It's not my job to chase down 4 or 5 links to find the evidence for your claims. If you aren't willing to back them up, don't make them.

I can make whatever claim I wish because I do so as my opinion. If you wish to read into every word I say as fact then that's your fault, not mine.

OK, that's fair.

If I take anything you post seriously, it's "my fault". From now on, I will never assume anything you post has any basis in fact. I will assume as a default that you are either spouting BS or just flat out lying.

But if you say something I feel is worth pursuing, please don't get so offended when I ask you for evidence. :-\

[shabby 1,960]

Shabby is ok with it, but he wasn't in 2002.

What was being done in 2002 was wiretapping. see the difference now?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Obama got it right. Gee, we are all sssooo surprised you would say that...NOT!

There will always be trade offs between security and privacy. That is why process is so important. And if that process is violated, there should be serious repercussions. Cant believe you actually said that one. So far, you are the only member on this board blindly and i mean BLINDLY supporting the Administration in every bit of this.

But doing away completely with this sort of program, no matter the civil safeguards, in the name of privacy is a very poor trade off IMO.

HS, what the hell are you talking about? NO ONE, i mean NO ONE wants to "do completely away with this sort of program." I have read and read about this stuff, i have yet to hear one soul that wants them to go away. We just want them to be run by grownups and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

[autigeremt 6,970]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

No, my only responsibility is to call your statements absolute BS, which is just a polite way of calling you a liar.

You're the one who jumped in with the wild-assed claims. It's not my job to chase down 4 or 5 links to find the evidence for your claims. If you aren't willing to back them up, don't make them.

I can make whatever claim I wish because I do so as my opinion. If you wish to read into every word I say as fact then that's your fault, not mine.

OK, that's fair.

If I take anything you post seriously, it's "my fault". From now on, I will never assume anything you post has any basis in fact. I will assume as a default that you are either spouting BS or just flat out lying. ;)/>

But if you say something I feel is worth pursuing, please don't get so offended when I ask you for evidence. :-\/>

No one brings me the information. I have to look for it, and I don't always believe everything I read in the MSM. History has proven that my approach has merit. Even if you don't agree with it.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Shabby is ok with it, but he wasn't in 2002.

What was being done in 2002 was wiretapping. see the difference now?

There is no difference. Wiretapping is no longer needed. Today they use cyberspace and advanced platforms created by people who used to wiretap. This thing is so broad there's no way it can be explained in just one story.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Shabby is ok with it, but he wasn't in 2002.

What was being done in 2002 was wiretapping. see the difference now?

There is no difference. Wiretapping is no longer needed. Today they use cyberspace and advanced platforms created by people who used to wiretap. This thing is so broad there's no way it can be explained in just one story.

You dont need a wiretap for VOIP anyway.

[shabby 1,960]

Shabby is ok with it, but he wasn't in 2002.

What was being done in 2002 was wiretapping. see the difference now?

There is no difference. Wiretapping is no longer needed. Today they use cyberspace and advanced platforms created by people who used to wiretap. This thing is so broad there's no way it can be explained in just one story.

Wiretapping allows for the listening of conversations and has names and personal information of American citizens attached to it. That is vastly different than what is happening under the Obama administration. There are no names attached or conversations monitored without a warrant. Now you may choose to believe that is happening and if so, I'd have a problem with it as well, but in practice, I await for something to be uncovered before attacking administrations without merit.

[homersapien 11,812]

You are not my professor, and I don't owe you squat. It's not my job to read or parse for you. Get real! It's your responsibility.

No, my only responsibility is to call your statements absolute BS, which is just a polite way of calling you a liar.

You're the one who jumped in with the wild-assed claims. It's not my job to chase down 4 or 5 links to find the evidence for your claims. If you aren't willing to back them up, don't make them.

I can make whatever claim I wish because I do so as my opinion. If you wish to read into every word I say as fact then that's your fault, not mine.

OK, that's fair.

If I take anything you post seriously, it's "my fault". From now on, I will never assume anything you post has any basis in fact. I will assume as a default that you are either spouting BS or just flat out lying. ;)/>

But if you say something I feel is worth pursuing, please don't get so offended when I ask you for evidence. :-\/>

No one brings me the information. I have to look for it, and I don't always believe everything I read in the MSM. History has proven that my approach has merit. Even if you don't agree with it.

OK. Whatever.

But I want to clarify my comments about "lying". I used that term only to emphasize my point. In no way do I think you are lying or even would lie.

You are no more a liar than I am an idiot.

I've got your back too.

WDE!

[homersapien 11,812]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

[homersapien 11,812]

Obama got it right. 1) Gee, we are all sssooo surprised you would say that...NOT!

There will always be trade offs between security and privacy. That is why process is so important. And if that process is violated, there should be serious repercussions. 2) Cant believe you actually said that one. So far, you are the only member on this board blindly and i mean BLINDLY supporting the Administration in every bit of this.

But doing away completely with this sort of program, no matter the civil safeguards, in the name of privacy is a very poor trade off IMO.

3) HS, what the hell are you talking about? NO ONE, i mean NO ONE wants to "do completely away with this sort of program." I have read and read about this stuff, i have yet to hear one soul that wants them to go away. We just want them to be run by grownups and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

1. Do you know exactly what statements I am referring to? If so, do you disagree?

2. I am not "blindly" supporting anything, What I support has been well documented. There may be things that come to light that I would not support, but I am willing to wait for them before I get crazy.

You are blindly making accusation which have not been supported with any evidence. You are thinking with your "fast" brain and I am thinking with my "slow" brain. (It comes with age)

3. Good. Seems we agree. Care to point out exactly what you would change?

[DKW 86 7,726]

Obama got it right. 1) Gee, we are all sssooo surprised you would say that...NOT!

There will always be trade offs between security and privacy. That is why process is so important. And if that process is violated, there should be serious repercussions. 2) Cant believe you actually said that one. So far, you are the only member on this board blindly and i mean BLINDLY supporting the Administration in every bit of this.

But doing away completely with this sort of program, no matter the civil safeguards, in the name of privacy is a very poor trade off IMO.

3) HS, what the hell are you talking about? NO ONE, i mean NO ONE wants to "do completely away with this sort of program." I have read and read about this stuff, i have yet to hear one soul that wants them to go away. We just want them to be run by grownups and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

1. Do you know exactly what statements I am referring to? If so, do you disagree?

2. I am not "blindly" supporting anything, What I support has been well documented. There may be things that come to light that I would not support, but I am willing to wait for them before I get crazy.

You are blindly making accusation which have not been supported with any evidence. You are thinking with your "fast" brain and I am thinking with my "slow" brain. (It comes with age)

3. Good. Seems we agree. Care to point out exactly what you would change?

Good job not answering...

I have already asked for the statements, if you had any, you would have provided them...

What you support is not documented at all. You are blindly buying EVERYTHING the WH says without challenge.

You overlook the NYT, the Wapo, Maddow, etc and take the word of some random bloggers?

Who is responsible for all this? No one at the WH. Its amazing watching as we find out that they are not responsible for anything, anywhere, any time.

And you buy it all hook line and sinker...

[telling tiger 156]

What irony it is seeing some now point to the NYT , WAPO and Maddow as sudden full fledged members of the press, funny as hell. Lamestream to prescient in 1000mph, lol.