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: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @09:55AM
And yet despite that positivity in one context, I'm very anti second-amendment. Shock horror! I said it! It needs rewording, that's all. Nobody in their right mind can agree with a 100% literal interpretation of it. "Terrorists going about their dastardly plots" is a subset of "people", for a start. I disagree with almost all of the argumentation about it historically (OK, I'm only familiar with the stuff that's bubbled up to SCOTUS, and I've not yet caught up with the March changes yet, that will be some evening reading when I get some time), because everyone is too frightened to say "it needs rewording", and instead applies some twisted logic to squeeze their argument to fit the wording, or the interpretation of the wording to fit their argument. And this works both ways, both the pro-gun conclusions and the pro-control conclusions - all conclusions have been arrived at using, at least in part, flawed premises, and even if the conclusions are (morally) "right"[*], as a pure mathematician at heart I view the justification of the conclusion to be unsound. And that is why there's never-ending debate over this. Of course every step in one direction will be countered 10 years later by a step in the other direction - precisely because nothing is unassailable (apart from, apparently, the quirky not-modern-english wording of the amendment text itself). And before you (collectively) stew and steam and ask why do I, an outsider, think I have useful insights into this topic - it's *because* I am an outsider, I have *absolutely* no skin in the game.
(Oh, if anyone has a list of the dozen or so pre-signing revisions and rewordings, please post it. Someone posted it about a year ago, and I forgot to take a copy. It's a really enlightening insight into the worries, agendas, biases, and what-have-you of the signatories, as wordings were tweaked, and clauses were added and removed. It may have come up in the context of Heller (one of the *logically* sounder decisions, IMHO), but I can't find it at Cornell. Cheers.)
[* I am a staunch moral relativist, do not attempt to read any meaning into me making reference to something being morally right, I simply had to use those terms as those are the terms that others like to apply. Hence the quote marks, but I don't think the implications of that markup are clear enough, hence this disclaimer.]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves