[aaron987]

"The heavily-redacted reports include examples of data on Americans being e-mailed to unauthorized recipients, stored in unsecured computers and retained after it was supposed to be destroyed, according to the documents."

Therein lies one of the major problems with these mass surveillance programs. Not only are they collecting information on millions of innocent Americans, but now it appears that they are not properly securing that data. This whole thing just makes my blood boil.

[pXMzR2A]

> Not only are they collecting information on millions of innocent Americans, but now it appears that they are not properly securing that data.

I cannot tell whether you're being paid for by these folk, or just plain politically naive, or suffer from induced helplessness.

Your argument of "outrage" has levels built into it.

L1: collect information

L2: of innocent

L3: americans

L4: properly securing data

L1+L2+L3+L4 => boiling your blood.

For one, why do you even care about L4? Who cares if they secure data properly, they are already doing L1+L2+L3

Why do you care that it is Americans? Would it be better if they focused only on non-Americans, would you have cared less? They are already doing L1+L2.

What is the reason you are hanged up on "innocent"? What does that even mean? Who and how do you determine if someone is innocent? Are you that devoid of critical thinking that you fail to see the rhetoric of "innocents" legitimizes whatever is to be done to those deemed not innocent? They are already doing L1.

They are doing L1. That by itself should have boiled your blood without any regard for L2+L3+L4, which are false arguments inserted into the debate in order to legitimize the actual assault on human rights under the disguise of "better security" by the same agencies that always turn these kind of tricks time and time again.

[Stratoscope]

You make some good points, but your argument would be stronger and better received if you left out the personal insults.

[meowface]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to use "innocence" as a qualifier for whether or not intelligence should be gathered about a person. Law enforcement uses it, why shouldn't intelligence agencies?

Of course, the problem is that innocence in this case is determined behind closed doors and secret courts, instead of public courts.

[semi-extrinsic]

I, for one, think it's awfully naive to think that all collection of information by the intelligence community is an outrage. Authorities collecting information has been going on for about as long as our species has had language.

[EdSharkey]

Collecting, yes. Storing, indexing, warehousing all meaningful communication, movement, and transactions of all humanity indefinitely - that is the new and condemnable part. I call that absolute power.

[spacemanmatt]

I, for one, think it's awfully unconstitutional on the face of it.

[mjferring]

Innocence doesn't appear to be a factor, at least according to former Vice President Dick Cheney. In his interview on Meet The Press, he didn't appear to be concerned we tortured innocent people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/15/1351990/-Dick-Chene...