Battle lines drawn over US mass surveillance as senators probe NSA's bonfire of phone records A fight has begun over another of the US government's mass surveillance systems – with two Senators raising questions about an unusual data deletion by the National Security Agency (NSA). Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have sent a letter [PDF] to the NSA's inspector general asking him to look into the agency's …
These two may understand the issues. Actually, I'm pretty sure they do. However, as has been shown in the recent past, the rest of the Congress are basically tech idiots who: a) won't try to understand the issues, and b) don't care enough to understand the issues, and/or c) the rest of Congress is just scared to death of the NSA and the other 3-letter ones.
Or their own felony corruption activities, well past admitting private servers, hiring spies, sexting children (at least), selling uranium to the Russians - all admitted crimes - but there's a heck of a lot of smoke, and it's likely the US government serves at the pleasure of those who have the dirt. All of them, it's not a partisan thing - that's a false divide and conquer strategy for the usual news-reading idiots.
Ever wonder how these obvious idiots all retire as multimillionaires on fairly crap government pay?
Hard to find an exception. Follow the money and you'll find that this latest squirrel is just one of
many in a herd of cats.
"We did wrong, but don't worry, we'll just destroy the evidence now (snicker) - it's national security".
Not all oligarchs are friends of Vlad, not hardly (see: Magintsky act). But it seems they do run things, in the main.
If you are given authority to demand answers from a government agency without any means of coercition, it would seem that not answering your demands has become standard operating procedure.
If the investigative commission had any teeth, or balls as the case may be, then the response to such appalling lack of response should be :
"Fine, your continuous refusal to answer my questions is your prerogative, apparently. But I must say that, if you cannot convince me before <date> that American citizens are not being unlawfully spied upon, then I will conclude they are and that your Agency is in violation of the Consitution and I will have you all rounded up and put in prison. Your move."
@ Rich 11
"The more I hear libertarians espouse their views the less I like them."
Freedom? I can see why that would upset some people but usually the ones who want control. Of course there are extremes as there is with left/right politics. Far left is communism and socialism that killed and destroyed everything it touched. Far right you have arguably Nazis. But there is a large spectrum.
Do the same with libertarianism and authoritarianism. Extreme libertarianism could be chaos, extreme authoritarianism has most successfully been applied in N.Korea. Again there is a large spectrum.
Is it right to use anti-terrorism laws to target dog walkers and journalists? If the answer is yes that is authoritarianism while no is libertarianism. A white van man was fined for not littering but instead putting his trash in a carrier in his van. The 'reason' for the fine is he needed to apply for state approval to put his rubbish (from his lunch) in a carrier in his van. Is that a good thing? Yes=authoritarianism, no thats freaking nuts!=libertarianism.
"Too much opportunity for exploitation of the many and the entrenchment of wealth and power in the hands of the few for my taste."
That is almost certainly the outcome of authoritarians too throughout history and currently.
To the extent that there is ever a spectrum, referring to such is only meaningful within very limited context and even at that, not very useful.
Political stances of individuals are multi-dimensional. We would do well to remember this always.
Libertarianism gets a bad rap because it has come to be defined by various types of indiscriminate anti-government extremism. That's unfortunate, because one might think that some core beliefs of so-called libertarianism are compatible with social justice as characterized by those whom we might label as "left."
Freedom? I can see why that would upset some people but usually the ones who want control.
I have no problem with the personal liberty aspect. It's the deregulation and small government drive that goes with it. Look at the US and the ongoing removal of environmental preservation laws, the industrial fouling of rivers, strip mining and clear felling. It's all done to maximise profit now and pays no mind to the future. If you live downstream of a mining operation and the leachate gets into your water table, there's currently little recourse and Koch and his ilk are aiming for no recourse. Want low taxes? Of course you do. Then say goodbye to any form of social safety net and fuck the sick, the elderly and the poor. Doesn't matter because it's their fault for being poor because they didn't work hard enough, right? Or never managed to save any money because two minimum-wage jobs barely provides enough to pay the rent. Nothing to do with decades of schools being run down in areas of low property value, and definitely nothing to do with race because the US is a post-racial society now, right? Just put them all to work in prisons, where they'll be paid a dollar an hour and undercut local businesses (yes, prisons no longer make licence plates and mail bags; they run call centres and win ditch-clearing contracts). I once met an idiot who thought police and fire services should only be available to those paying for a contract with a given SLA; I soon found out he wasn't the only one.
Don't get even me started on healthcare, or the acceptance of quackery or the belief that desperate ill people have the right to be ripped off and die an early death, all in the name of freedom. Your piss-poor argument that exploitation via libertarianism doesn't matter because authoritarians do it too is hardly a clarion call for acceptance, is it?
@ Rich 11
"Your piss-poor argument that exploitation via libertarianism doesn't matter because authoritarians do it too is hardly a clarion call for acceptance, is it?"
Actually that makes for a fantastic argument. Because if both are undesirable then we dont desire either, and so as I say it is a spectrum and libertarian is total freedom and authoritarian is no freedom at their extremes.
We are all somewhere on the spectrum in our beliefs and I do note you avoided commenting on the examples I gave, probably because they show excessive authoritarianism breaching personal liberty.
"I have no problem with the personal liberty aspect. It's the deregulation and small government drive that goes with it."
You have just given a contradictory statement. Personal liberty is restricted by authoritarianism, it has to be that is exactly what it is. And to a point we want those rules to restrict personal liberty to protect others liberty. So I urge you to to address the examples I gave, they exist because of big government and over-regulation.
The idea of small government or even shrinking the government shouldnt seem too insane, they are the reason a sensible person not littering will probably be fined. Why journalists are treated as terrorists. Why your personal liberty is being cut down more and more.
"Want low taxes? Of course you do. Then say goodbye to any form of social safety net and fuck the sick, the elderly and the poor"
This is interesting in contrast to big vs small government which of course you have to pay for. All those salaries to fill out forms in triplicate. And of course we are aware of the governments competence at giving away the correct amounts of money which is literally the job of welfare and the big government cant even do that.
And yes people want low tax. People tend to like to get the reward for their work. How you equate that to no safety net and fuck *insert heart-string* removes legitimacy from your argument. Otherwise following to the logical conclusion we need 100% taxation for the safety net we both know is poorly delivered.
So back to reality- having less government than we do now, which I am hoping you can identify overreach, does not mean free for all fuck the poor 4 horsemen and whatever nonsense you wish to add. Instead we can find the balance where the gov focuses on what it should be doing.
"I once met an idiot who thought police and fire services should only be available to those paying for a contract with a given SLA; I soon found out he wasn't the only one."
He probably isnt the only one. On the flip side look at the number of people calling for socialism as if it ever worked through history or currently! Or complaining telephony and water should be nationalised when under state control it was badly under funded and had had major investment since privatisation. There are many idiot opinions in this world.
Libertarianism is freedom and authoritarian is the removal of freedom. That is the defining difference. We all want to find the right balance. You cant argue to be for personal liberty but against libertarianism without contradicting yourself. You cannot argue for regulation without it being authoritarian.
Once upon a time, a couple weeks ago, I was discussing a topic with a colleague. Their reputation includes being somewhat flexible with the factual truth. At one point, they took the position 'A' to overcome an objection. About a minute later they took the position 'not A' to overcome another objection. When I reminded them of 'A' and explained that my memory was capable of recalling such things, they became very upset. Stormed off in a huff.
Liars lie. They even lie about lying. Their perception of the world is quite inexplicable. It must be very weird living inside their skull. Like an inside-out head of Medusa; swarming with thousands of snakes where a brain would normally reside.
"Wow! The NSA has deleted 685 million phone calls and text messages. Privacy violations? They blame technical irregularities. Such a disgrace. The Witch Hunt continues!"
Who is in charge, again? What happened to "The buck stops here"? Who is hunting and who is the witch? From this tweet, I would guess that El Jefe is out looking for las brujas and they are everywhere. Happy hunting!
>>>
Section 215 is particularly controversial, because despite the F in FISA standing for Foreign, it can and has been used to indiscriminately vacuum up metadata on people in the US, which arguably violates their Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search. It was supposed to be used extremely sparingly in the pursuit of terrorists
<<<
I'm assuming terrorists might be extended to include "Enemies of the people" - so by current interpretation would this include most of the free press?
Would I be wrong in thinking the media might be subject to FISA warrants now?
Maybe someone can clarify for me....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
