SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday at the Center for Strategic & International Studies' Global Security Forum, John Brennan, Director of the US' Central Intelligence Agency, spoke about the recent bombings in Paris. In what many commentators took as a reference to Edward Snowden, but could instead refer to the Church Committee, Brennan predicted that finding the attackers will be more difficult than it would have been, had intelligence services been left unchecked:
In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of hand-wringing over the government's role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging.
I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities.
[...]
There are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult both technically as well as legally for intelligence security services to have insight that they need to uncover it.
Brennan's complete remarks are available in video via C-SPAN.
[Additional coverage after the break]
- Politico
- Politico
- Foreign Policy
- Daily Mail
- Jerusalem Post
- Guardian
- Time
- Time
- RT
- Sacramento Bee
- CBS News
- Newsweek (limited access; requires Javascript)
- Breitbart News
- Democracy Now!
- Reason blog
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:36PM
Freedom is more important than safety. Not only are their claims that Snowden is somehow at fault completely false, but even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Unethical unconstitutional democracy-destroying mass surveillance would remain intolerable even if it did keep us safe. People who say otherwise are cowards and don't really want to live in a free country; they want to live in a bubble where their life is meaningless and all they can do is simply live. Freedom usually carries with it some risks, and taking those risks to have freedom is definitely worth it. I wish more people would understand this.
But these claims are ridiculously for another reason. No matter what, we're never going to be able to stop all acts of terrorism, because perfect safety doesn't exist. So when some terrorist successfully strikes, the government always demands to be given powers it should not have. Due to the fact that perfect safety doesn't exist, they can continue this forever. It's shameful that a lot of people fall for it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:57PM
Freedom is more important than safety.
Hell, if we're giving up freedoms for safety why don't we all just convert to Islam and get it over with? That would be the safest we could possibly get, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:03PM
Hell, if we're giving up freedoms for safety why don't we all just convert to Islam and get it over with? That would be the safest we could possibly get, right?
No, because once all the infidels are dead it's back to killing each other. And really, it wouldn't matter what religion everyone converted to, the end result would be the same.
(Score: 1) by saltycraig on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:09PM
My piousness is more pious than yours, kill him!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 19 2015, @01:29AM
No, because once all the infidels are dead it's back to killing each other.
You say "back" as if it ever stopped! Hell, it's never even been the minority.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday November 18 2015, @07:13PM
You beat me to it...
+1 for your post.
The US government is subverting the Constitution, and a way of life. The terrorists have won.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday November 19 2015, @12:04AM
Yeah, because we have all seen exactly how well the Sunni, Shi'ah, Ahmadiyya and Khawarij sects all get along with each other. :|
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @03:24AM
People who say otherwise are cowards and don't really want to live in a free country; they want to live in a bubble where their life is meaningless and all they can do is simply live.
Um, I would prefer not to be hit by technically sophisticated terrorists intent on murdering as many Westerners as possible, and if Internet and phone communications have to go through an NSA filter then that seems like a small price to pay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:43AM
Then move to North Korea, coward. This is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave", and yet you reject freedom in favor of some trivial notion of safety. That's neither free nor brave. You're the type of person who would rather live on your knees than die on your feet. You're the type of person who enables oppression by giving it your aid and consent.
You also neglect to take into account that the government itself cannot be trusted. Power corrupts. No government throughout history did not oppress its people in various ways, with horrendous results. That includes the US government, which did 'amazing' things like try to intimidate MLK into committing suicide and put Japanese people into internment camps, among countless other acts of oppression. Now, if you think that, despite all of that, people in the government become perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or abusing their powers simply by virtue of being in the government, you are an ignorant fool. To believe that human nature ceases to apply to those in the government is to be delusional.
Make no mistake: Mass surveillance is a tool to destroy freedom and democracy. [gnu.org] It will be used to oppress those who challenge the status quo (such as MLK), stop whistleblowers who would tell us of the government's wrongs (and therefore hinder democracy, since the people won't know what the government is doing), and occasionally random people will get caught in the crossfire.
Additionally, by allowing the government to violate people's fundamental freedoms, the constitution, and our principles in the name of security, you help corrupt what is supposed to be a noble entity that serves the people, which is a significantly worse result than anything terrorists could ever do.
People who love freedom would rather be free than safe. I'd take liberty over safety and stability any day. That's clearly not the case with you, and for that, you are an enemy to freedom itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @02:55PM
Then move to North Korea, coward.
In other words, unless I think exactly like you and almost everyone else who posts here, making the content of your posts completely predicatable and redundant, then I should be deported. Or "voluntarily deport myself", as a Presidential candidate said four years ago.
Freedom means something different to me than it does to you.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:09PM
then I should be deported.
You should try your best to voluntarily move to North Korea, where the government will better serve your needs. That is what I meant.
Freedom means something different to me than it does to you.
It also meant something different to the countless oppressive governments throughout history, and means something different to the ones that exist right now. Countries which exist in part because of people like you who do not care one bit about freedom. No one should respect your opinion, because it promotes authoritarianism, the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, ignorance of history, and a terrible understanding of human nature.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 19 2015, @07:16AM
Actually it is always a trade off. Your freedom to shoot at targets in the direction of my house is trumped by my safety. The freedom to drive through the school bus stop at 50 mph is trumped by the freedom of my child to get safely on the bus. And on and on.
Freedom is important but it is not endless. Shit if the government was trustworthy and capable, I might even agree with the mass surveillance.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:44PM
Actually it is always a trade off.
When you speak of it this way, you only help the government spread its nonsensical propaganda. They want to pretend there is some nonexistent "balance" that needs to be met, and of course the "balance" is actually unbalanced so that freedom has a lower priority than something shallow like safety.
And if it is a trade off, then I'm perfectly happy trading off safety for freedom, thanks. Technically, I think we can have both, but I am merely making my priorities known.
And on and on.
You might as well say, "Your freedom to shoot me in the head is trumped by my freedom to be safe." But I don't believe in the freedom to shoot people in the head, or the freedom to do many of the crazy things you could come up with, so all of what you said is irrelevant. What I speak of are fundamental liberties like freedom of speech and a government that actually follows the highest law of the land. Safety is shallow and cannot be more important than those things.
Shit if the government was trustworthy and capable, I might even agree with the mass surveillance.
Violating my privacy is bad in and of itself even if the information is never abused in some tangible way. Furthermore, mass surveillance violates the constitution, which I guess you're (maybe) fine with.
So to me, a government that is conducting mass surveillance is a government that is *necessarily* untrustworthy and bad.