The US House "Representatives" says NSA Spying... here to STAY

From Washington Post: The House of 'Representative' vote NOT TO end NSA Surveillance/Spying on US Citizens.

Oh, big f*cking shocker that one. What?! The Federal Government is spying on me? Oh really?? You don't say. Must be for me own goooood, it must ....

Nice to see both the right and left wing of the Federal Government can actually come together and vote in unison on something when it matters - to them. So, when confronted with the Bill of Rights, and following MASSIVE gift-giving and lobbying by the White House / POTUS O-blah-blah, the House came together and decided to get rid of that pesty Bill of Rights and continue to fully fund Spying on Americans.

How lovely, yes, it's a good thing we're all focused on Hispanic fat boy. Yes, thank the Gods these 'Representatives' are looking out for us. I mean, the chances of dying by lighting strike are about 1000 times greater than by Terrorist, but hey, let's not take the chance and just give up our rights. Woo Hoo sure glad these bailer-outers of the 1% are protecting me from Apple Inc and Toyota, gee whiz, wouldn't know what to do without these little Federal weasels. Yes, it's quite clear, Government cares about me and my Civil Liberties and is only there to protect me from River's on Fire, because, you know, we're too dumb to sue the guy who polluted the river. Morphy morphy morph......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Owell

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Orwell in deed :S

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The NSA awarded Dr. Joseph Bonneau, a computer engineer employed at Google, with Best Scientific Cybersecurity Paper of 2012, which is an award the National Security Agency cooked up to legitimize itself (I find many award start this way) and gave out at it's first annual “Science of Security Competition”.

Here was his reply:

In accepting the award I don’t condone the NSA’s surveillance. Simply put, I don’t think a free society is compatible with an organisation like the NSA in its current form.

- Dr. Joseph Bonneau


I was thinking: I hope Joseph doesn't own a Mercedes.............

 

More, more, we need more surveillance. What’s the advantage in any situation in having less information? Imagine the advances in all sciences if sensors of all kinds were ubiquitous.

I regards to the NSA, if the information gathered is only to be used for national security purposes, why should any law abiding citizen be concerned about such surveillance?

 

As long as they do it to everyone, the problem at the mo is that techs only allow for a small amount probably millions to be constantly surveilled. One day it will be everyone.

Most people commit crimes as they think they are in private. So if everyone is being watched 24/7, then surely that will go down. One day everyone will know that the gov is watching them in everything they do. Trust me to say when everyone knows this, they will not be doing much, lol.

So i agree with you. The only problem is when corrupt people try to use this techs against people just to ruin them for no reason, or govs can target anyone they want for nothing.

But in general terms i agree with the concept of 1984 style world, as long as the watchers are being watched too.

 

House Members Voting to Continue NSA's Dragnet Surveillance Received Twice as Much From Defense Contractors

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that's your glorious free market at work, if it was funded by public expenditure only and came with decent pay and a ban on working in certain industries attached to your job afterwards and the removal of term limits then there would be more focus on what the wider public wanted

 

Some surveillance operations aren't legal, in fact they are operated by immoral military employee's that quite easily set chain of events in motion whereby they aren't registered as the catalysts. Such events could well be manipulation of people to the point that they snap and go on killing spree's. That's why such systems need to be brought into check, after all such people as Manning's just identified that should something go awry governments cover it up, rather than sort it out so it doesn't happen again.

 

Um, no Asguard, the NSA is paid for though the State. The NSA is the natural outgrowth of the State. Those are State run Socialist Institutions. It's called Progressive Fascism - remember? Oh, and if you don't think the Australian government isn't working hand in glove with the USA NSA, you're naive at best.

Private companies are actually losing business to companies that promise privacy (https://duckduckgo.com/‎ as an example). I wouldn't doubt it if the State doesn't either force those companies to part with their data, taps them anyway, or regulate them out of existence (for the Good of the Nation of course).

Interestingly, I once read that IBM was forced, by Pentagon coercion, to have a financial relationship with Microsoft - who in return, put a backdoor (for the State's private use) into Windows code (which still exists). I don't know if that's true, but it was a level headed programmer who wrote it into a presentation he was giving.

 

wow way to compleatly fail to read your own post that was quoted and the response

 

From The Guardian's commentaries on yesterday's XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' story, authored by Greenwald:

Again, from the same commentaries:

 

You're making very very little sense, as usual. You claim that Government contracts to Corporations is the 'Free Market'?!? Many of these corporations were run by people who then enter the Government to ensure the gravy keeps pouring in. AND once they leave government they return back to work for the very corporations they used to 'regulate'. The idea that this is "Free Market" is completely asinine. It's called Fascism.

 

No its just your reading compreshension which sucks

If (as your post tries to suggest) that those congressmen who receive more campaign donations from interest groups are more likely to make laws which please them then the solution is for fund all political campaigns using ONLY public tax money and banning anyone from going from politics straight into associated private sectors and increasing the pay for pollies to make it a viable job in and of itself rather than a stepping stone and lastly by removing term limits you have pollies thinking ONLY of the next election instead of what private sector job they can get afterwards.

Ie your "free market" has invaded politics to the detriment of the voter because pollies are thinking about making money (either for there campaigns or for there next job) rather than thinking of public service which is what politics is supposed to be

 

You can try to do whatever you want to do, it won't matter one bit. Whatever little plan you have cooking, someone much craftier has already thought about it will come up with 1 million ways to get what they want regardless. They'll run circles around your laws - and if one day comes when they actually do get caught with their pants down. They'll make up some bullshit like we're Too Big To Fail and those same politicians who pretend they can't agree on a damn thing, nit picking over a couple 100 million - will, over a weekend, take on TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, generational debt, for their pay masters.

ALL of those 'Interest Groups' are NOT part of the free-market. They're the Fascist aspect of the State apparatus.

There is NOTHING you can do. Hell, as an Australian your government doesn't even allow you to boycott the vote. They force you to play their farce, and probably get a good-ole laugh at your expense. That's how little regard they have for your rights as a so-called "Free" Citizen. Pick Left or Pick Right - but you will pick one. Then go back to your pen, you had your day out. Back to working for the State.

Name one unregulated free-market. Name one. GO on. You keep prattling about 'Free Market' this and 'Free Market' that. OK, name some of these co-called unregulated 'free-markets'.

90% of politicians go into Government to 'serve' themselves at the expense of the people. If they truly wanted to 'help' people, they'd be down to the soup kitchen. They go into politics because of the power and prestige. It's Hollywood for ugly people. Look at how that little weasel Kevin Fudd back-stabbed his way back to the #1 spot. These people are megalomaniacs. Sociopathic power-junkies.

 

Your Tax Money Hard At Work: The U.S. Military Is Awarding Military Contracts To Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan!

Pffffff........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course they are, the whole point about the "free market" is if you have money you can do anything you want because if you got your way there would be no regulation to stop it. There would be no police if you couldn't pay for them so if someone kidnapped you and forced you into slavery then that's just to bad. If your a pollie and you want to make money that's fine because there are no laws to stop you

Its laws which MAKE society, your religion would just destroy it

 

What you seem to be saying is that if unscrupulous data managers like Edward Snowden, or criminal hackers gain access to confidential information, then there exists a potential for malice. The issue isn't keeping data out of the hands of trusted entities, but keeping it out of the hands of malicious usurpers. Government by design is tasked with safeguarding confidential information; the same cannot be always be said of the private sector where personal gain often trumps confidentiality.

 

The issue is that a government permitted to operate in secret and without accountability is never a trustworthy entity. Never. That's why the US Constitution was written as it was.

Your mistake in labeling Snowden rather than his coworkers the unscrupulous entity here, for example, highlights the danger of allowing one's government to hide what it is doing while gathering information about its citizens. Americans (people) naturally tend to put the burden of proof in the wrong place - to assume good faith and scruples on the part of the powerful and unaccountable, given no information; to fill in blanks with good news, to treat what they are unaware of as harmless. That's a perfectly reasonable way to live an ordinary life, a non-paranoid life. But as we know from generations of democratic theory and practice, the correct assumption when dealing with political and economic power (government) - the burden of proof assumption - is that a large political entity arranging for itself the means to spy on people arbitrarily and in secret is or soon will be acting maliciously and usurping power not freely granted.

The NSA faces the burden of proof here - we have discovered that they have secretly arranged for themselves the means and opportunity for serious abuse of the American citizenry, and it is up to them to prove that they have been and will continue to be scrupulously avoiding such abuse despite appearances. We have no reason to simply take their word for something like that.

 

Such as?

And I ask this sincerely.

I suppose the argument goes that such is used to avert incidences of "domestic terrorism," but what potential incidents have been averted? Those hatched by the FBI in one of their ludicrous "sting operations" don't really count here.