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: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:47AM
no, its not, the lack of adequate training and responsibility is a very bad thing though. people who leave loaded weapons lying around in areas where their children play are especially bad, but my biggest pet peeve will always be muzzle control - do not point your weapon at anything you don't plan on shooting, it doesn't matter if you think its unloaded, i'm not willing to bet my life on your bad judgement; it also needs to be drilled into people that the first thing you should do any time you pick up a weapon is check the chamber, and thats just basic safety stuff.
this is why i choose to interpret the 2nd amendment to require militia participation (which is what it says), to ensure all firearms owners are adequately trained. speaking of the 2nd, i really want to propose amending it, changing it to remove the militia wording since thats the cause of so many disagreements. if militia participation has nothing to do with it, why is it mentioned? lets amend it and remove the awkward, unclear wording and make it clear. i have a feeling that the NRA and other groups dont want to do this though, because if the people didn't vote for the amendment to remove the unclear wording, militia participation would be a requirement for firearms ownership, and thats a gamble they don't want to make. and dont say "oh the supreme court already decided it" because thats just usurping authority from the people, where it belongs. it should've been decided by the people from the start; anybody who doesn't want the people deciding is scared that the result wont be what they want, and probably knows they're using a faulty interpretation and feel guilty about it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:06AM
It's what it weakly implies. The use of an ablative (others call it nominitive, but I learnt latin, so it's ablative to me) absolute construct is a rhetorical (poetic, even) device which has no place in modern day law-making.
Modern day American English does support your assertion more strongly - for example, this "authoritative" text from 1996:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080728061355/http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/001.html
But you'll notice that that is an authoritative text about *contemporary* English, and hence does not apply to #2.
For plenty of words of strong agreement with the rest of your post, see my reply to Ethanol-Fueled's.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves