[jvictor118]

As an American living an America, I have to disagree with you.

First of all, if you really didn't know the U.S. government and military had some creepy capabilities, you're not living on planet earth. Anyone with a brainstem and a basic interest in security and crypto can decipher this basic truth. Many even believe they can crack RSA and similar encryption schemes.

Second of all, I don't begrudge any country their right to choose their principles and their form of government - that includes the Iranians and the rest of the Islamic world. In the U.S., we have a much stronger defense backbone than most countries. That's because we're a bigger target than most countries. You may have heard the U.S. is a major world superpower. New Zealand isn't. Neither is Spain. For a "New Zealander living in Spain" to cast this judgment on us is, as I see it, unfair. Our elected officials, elected according to our chosen system of government, voted for these measures. What more can you ask of a democratic system?

These "whistleblowers" everyone sympathizes so much with -- they broke the laws of our country. They released classified information to the public. Why not just release the nuke launch codes on Twitter while you're at it? Free speech has limitations. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

As an American, I have no problem with the NSA using large-scale statistical methods to filter my private communications out as "not related to terrorism." After all, it's not like Carrie from Homeland is chillin' at the CIA reading my texts with my girlfriend. They have neither time nor inclination for that. On the other hand, I very much do mind New York City being used for another terrorist attack. If these measures can keep me and my loved ones safe, I applaud them.

If you don't like the way we do business in this country, fine. Stay in Spain and use your own social networks and search engines and mail platforms. The beauty of the world is there's something for everyone, from Sharia law to Scandinavia.

And if you don't like the way we treat combattants in our wars -- which included, by the way, the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and many judicial and legislative battles over the rights of non-military combattants -- don't fight the U.S. military. It's a pretty simple equation. It seems to me, the people with the most to fear here also have the most to hide.

Let the flamefest begin.

[riggins]

to put my reply in context.

I live in NYC. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis for business. I was in Rockefeller Center when anthrax was found in Rockefeller Center (that was actually kinda scary). I'm aware that 'PRISM' purportedly prevented a NYC subway bombing. This isn't to say I'm 'so brave'. It's just to give the context that I'm not removed from the situation.

With that context, I'd much rather take my chances with increased terrorist activity than give the government expanded surveillance powers.

Also, I agree with this.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/06/09/i-am-so-fucking-over...

you want to see the villain, look in the mirror. It’s the pants-wetting populace of the United States, who votes for these assholes who pass bad laws in moments of crisis, because we have to do something and because Americans, unlike every other nation in the world, have a god given right to be safe at all times from all things.

[jvictor118]

"My brother got killed in a subway bombing, but at least the government can't read my facebook messages about porn and cat pictures..."

REALLY? Could you say that with a straight face to a victim's family member?

[Zak]

This is not about porn and cat pictures.

Let's say in a few years a corrupt politician manages to get himself elected president. For convenience, let's call him Dick Cheney. President Cheney expands the powers of the office, rewards his corporate friends who bought it for him and generally makes a mess of things. It doesn't look like he'll get a second term until there's another big terrorist attack. He makes his opponents look weak on security, further expands his power, starts three wars and gets re-elected easily. In his second term, he gets presidential term limits repealed, doubles the national debt and starts making journalists who ask too many questions "disappear".

People start to get fed up. They realize the terrorist threat is overblown. They realize President Cheney is more of a threat to the country than any outside entity. A challenger emerges. He persuasively argues for solutions all the experts agree are wonderful. He's well-spoken, good-looking, charismatic, entirely electable. He promises to restore civil liberties, release political prisoners and end intrusive surveillance. He's expected to win in a landslide. There's just one problem: he likes Thai ladyboys. Thanks to PRISM, Cheney knows, and ensures that a friend at Fox News finds irrefutable proof. Cheney wins a third term. The opposition candidate is later found with his throat slit outside a brothel in Bangkok.

[riggins]

Really. I can say it easily. It's a risk I'm willing to accept and a risk I would hope every patriotic American would happily accept to preserve our liberties.

BTW, where does your logic stop?

My brother got killed by a drunk driver, but at least the government can't read my facebook messages about porn and cat pictures...

I'm sure we could cut down on drunk driving fatalities (10K / year) if we applied the NSA to the problem. Should the government search through Facebook messages and Gmail to see if people are writing stuff like 'man I drove hammered last night'?

[cloudwizard]

That is a false decision as well as an unlikely result. False Positives are 1000x more likely than actual positives.

The more likely result is 100000's innocent Americans are placed on the no-fly list, thousands of innocent non-americans are waterboarded in Guantanimo, etc for each potential terrorist stopped.

Most terrorists are incompetent and would get stopped get good police work or fail because the bombs do not explode.

[drzaiusapelord]

>After all, it's not like Carrie from Homeland is chillin' at the CIA reading my texts with my girlfriend. They have neither time nor inclination for that.

When you get accused of a federal crime and they use the handful of terabytes of all your data against you, what then? How can you possibly defend yourself against an entity with unlimited power and funding. Check out how much it costs to defend yourself from a federal charge and what the chances of winning are. If your charge is anything remotely national security related, you have zero chance. Partly because of the massive data they have on every citizen.

> I very much do mind New York City being used for another terrorist attack.

Has PRISM or any other program done this? When we do find out about foiled terrorism plots, it always has to do with FBI informants posing as arms dealers or fellow extremists, which ends with an arrest of a low-hanging fruit weirdo who may or may not be dangerous. All this infrastructure didn't stop the shoe bomber or the underwear guy. Those guys were mildly determined. How will it stop a group as organized as the 9/11 bombers?

[jvictor118]

See the comment below for example of a NYC terrorist plot foiled by PRISM.

And by the way -- why would I be accused of a FEDERAL CRIME? I didn't do anything wrong. If anything, _their collection of my data could be used to exonerate me_. Data is a two way street. It can both prove or disprove your guilt.

Be real. You and I both know that when it comes to national security, we do what we have to do. That doesn't mean we exploit those capabilities to put people in unfair situations. You let me know the first time someone gets picked up on a petty offense from PRISM-collected data. I doubt PRISM even collects data on offenses short of treason, terror plots, etc. Certainly none of that falls under the purview of the agencies involved.

By the way - you know other countries are engaged in the cyber war, right? Are you saying you don't want our government's protection against them actually _stealing_ your data and using it for god knows what purpose?

[lhc-]

That collection of data won't exonerate you because you won't have access to it; the only data which will be used is that which is potentially bad for you. And why would you have all this faith that the govt. is only using this data in good faith? Do you remember Aaron Schwartz? He wasn't an isolated incident: its very easy for the federal government to bring charges against anyone they want at any time, especially when they have all this data about you.

[spiritplumber]

Is your name Harry Tuttle?