Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:02PM   Printer-friendly

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]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:26AM

    by Ezber Bozmak (764) on Thursday November 19 2015, @05:26AM (#265263)

    I am not interested in spending long periods of time 'educating' you about trivial things, no

    I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.

    . Are you someone who promotes religion?

    I've always been and will always be an atheist. But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings." But you don't seem willing to make any sort of examination of those ideas so I won't bother you any longer. I will leave you to your utopia of a science of ethics that transcends utilitarianism.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:18PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday November 19 2015, @04:18PM (#265387)

    I'm sorry. I guess I thought that since you were so adamant and confident about it that it wasn't trivial to you.

    Trivial in the sense that it was obvious what I meant from the start, and easy to understand if you bother to think about it. If you wanted someone to explain such a thing to you in-depth, I am definitely not the person for that, because I have little patience for such things.

    But as someone who minored in sociology and philosophy in college

    Truly amazing.

    I learned that 'religion' is a complex cultural topic that can't adequately be boiled down to "all powerful magical beings."

    Religions make many claims. Many of them are downright crazy (though those must merely be metaphorical, even when there is zero evidence of that), but they are certainly not limited to magical sky daddies. I know this. Yet still, most of the believers of these types of religions believe in magical sky daddies along with a host of other nonsense, which I consider a problem.

    And no matter how "complex" religions are, what I ultimately care about is truth. I don't care about how happy religion makes some people, or any other such nonsense.