[znowi]

I applaud your zeal in the pursuit of fairness, but it's NSA that is on the spot. There's no fair game when it comes to national security. At least not for the public.

Alexander would not be heading the agency if he bluntly asked for blanket immunity or talked about spying on citizens. (How much was said about PRISM?) The article deduced what is possible within the proposal. And knowing some history, I say it's likely to happen.

So yes, it is biased and baity, but hardly prompts a "fuckety fuck" rant :)

[jholman]

Minor quibble #1: Alexander has roles other than the NSA, and techdirt invented the NSA connection without evidence. See my cousin comment about USCYBERCOM.

Minor quibble #2: "blanket immunity" and "spying on citizens" are deliberate fabrications of what was proposed. Separate paragraphs "deduc[ing] what is possible" would be well-and-good, but actually saying he said things that he definitely didn't say is not okay.

KEY POINT: When it comes out that Alexander/NSA/whatever didn't commit/advocate the particular abuses/crimes that some liar (e.g. Masnick) said they were committing, no one will believe you and me when we tell them the truth. And the truth is BAD ENOUGH!

Dishonest shysters posing as journalists always rates a "fuckety fuck" rant.