SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK
Surprising absolutely no one, the Guardian reports that Keith Alexander was fully briefed and supportive of the GCHQ's plan to destroy Snowden-related computers at the Guardian's offices in London.
The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.
White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as "good news".
A Compromise with the NSA
"The NSA wants to know everything we do? Fine, but only if We the People see everything the NSA does. The real problem with the current mass surveillance is asymmetry."
Now we all know that the NSA is not going to open its doors and reveal its secrets - that would be foolhardy in the extreme and seriously endanger the US and its citizens. And despite the sincerely-held views of many of our members and others elsewhere, from the outside there doesn't appear to be anything like a groundswell of dissent in the US regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA's activities.
However, perhaps by being a little more open it might begin to win back the trust of those who currently doubt that the NSA is working in their interests. What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power? What amount of spying on allies and partners would be acceptable while remembering that each time such activity is discovered it weakens the trust of the ally and can have serious repercussions for US business? Would clearly stating which terrorist plots had been thwarted by intelligence gathered, in part at least, by the NSA be enough? Or have we already passed the point of no return?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:29AM
> I know it's fun to make fun of Americans as being violent thugs but gun ownership itself isn't a bad thing -- ask Switzerland
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in america involve handguns. Switzerland's deal is about rifles which also come with 18 weeks of training and seven 3-week re-training sessions over the next 10 years. Ammunition is kept in a government arsenal, not at home with the weapon.
Furthermore, half of american gun deaths are suicides. That's roughly 14,000 people. Gun suicides are predominately an issue of opportunity, some gets really worked up and impulsively kills themselves. The time it takes to find another means of suicide is more often then not enough time to reconsider. For every 1% decrease in household gun ownership there is a 0.5-0.9% net decrease in all forms of suicide. [slate.com] No matter your position on responsible gun ownership, those numbers pretty clearly indicate a bad thing is going on.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:20AM
Are you calling this Swiss government-issued small-arm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P220
a rifle??!?!?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:32AM
Well, there's no need to follow that link, as it's clearly going to be bogus. "Cause" is a very strong word.
Imagine the scenario where those with a slightly unstable disposition, and who will be more likely suicide threats, feel a greater need to own guns. I.e. being suicidal *causes* higher gun ownership.
Such a scenario would be statistically indistinguishable from a "gun ownership actually causes higher suicide rates" scenario, and I'm pretty sure both conclusions are equally derivable from the statistics in that so-called study.
And note, I am *not* saying that gun ownership *doesn't* cause higher suicide rates by the above comment. I'm simply highlighting that oh-so-often "shows" should just read nothing stronger than "supports", and in the absence of both falsifiability and subsequent attempts at falsification provides no certainty at all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves