|
Seriously though, real live is not a freaking Tom Clancy novel as I'm now starting to fear some people appear to believe  EDIT: Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Look guy you just don't get it, it's spying. Spies gonna spy, thieves gonna steal, birds gonna fly. Right there in the name, you can't very well expect them to not spy unless you hate them for being American or something. There is no point in having a problem with anything because stuff simply is, ethics is an illusion of the mind. Have you considered that you should just let go and appreciate the world around you for its own beauty? 
PrBacterio fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 27, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
"Everybody spies" is just water-muddying and deflection, not a defense or a legitimate argument. It's no different conceptually or in purpose from when Fox News defenders say "all media is biased" or when racists inform us that "everybody's a little bit racist."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:"Everybody spies" is just water-muddying and deflection, not a defense or a legitimate argument. It's no different conceptually or in purpose from when Fox News defenders say "all media is biased" or when racists inform us that "everybody's a little bit racist." Only if you reject the notion that everybody spies, which for the discussion at hand is true. For the comparison to work you'd also have to claim that not being utterly livid at the notion of the US is spying on people is the same as being a racist teabagger, which is untrue. quote:Seriously, I honestly can't think of any way to explain this mindset except by "too many Tom Clancy novels." Understanding the historical benefits and weaknesses of spying helps. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
On the data vs. metadata issue: Both data and metadata fall under the wider category of "information." If you are monitoring who I call, when I call them, how long I talk to them, and where I was when I made the call, you are collecting information on me. Without suspicion. It is not unreasonable to object to this and to demand to know why this info is being collected. I don't dispute that there is a legitimate distinction between data and metadata. But in this case, I agree that we should not call it metadata because the reason the government insists on using that term is because they are hoping that people will think metadata collection is benign. But there is no reason to think that it is benign. The important thing isn't whether they're collecting data or metadata. The important thing is they are collecting information about you, period. Again, without cause or suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Only if you reject the notion that everybody spies, which for the discussion at hand is untrue. You don't need to reject the notion. It's actually irrelevant to the point if other nations engage in somewhat similar behavior, the same way that the fact that MSNBC is too easy on Obama doesn't justify the greater degree of bias and falsehood on Fox. quote:For the comparison to work you'd also have to claim that not being utterly livid at the notion of the US is spying on people is the same as being a racist teabagger, which is also untrue. It is quite obvious that I'm not saying that being a racist and being an NSA apologist are morally equivalent, simply that these specific arguments used by each group are identical in value, conception and purpose. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
"Everybody spies" is an excellent justification for having a giant government program whose purpose is to defend classified info against spying, but it is not a justification for ubiquitous global surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:You don't need to reject the notion. It's actually irrelevant to the point if other nations engage in somewhat similar behavior, the same way that the fact that MSNBC is too easy on Obama doesn't justify the greater degree of bias and falsehood on Fox. When other nations engaging in similar behavior gives them an economic, military, and diplomatic advantage over nations who don't engage in similar behavior then you would be a negligent fool to not do the same thing. So I suppose what I am saying is that everyone so far seems to have agreed that everyone spies on one another. Why shouldn't the US do it then? I don't really buy the argument of "because they're doing high-tech things that nobody else can" because what, is the US supposed to handicap itself to be fair?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:When other nations engaging in similar behavior gives them an economic, military, and diplomatic advantage over nations who don't engage in similar behavior then you would be a negligent fool to not do the same thing. Is there any actual evidence that these other nations aside from China do anything resembling this scale of economic imperialism? No, of course not, but somehow we're still the victim here and are just defending ourselves from sinister menace that is Belgium. quote:So I suppose what I am saying is that everyone so far seems to have agreed that everyone spies on one another. Why shouldn't the US do it then? I don't really buy the argument of "because they're doing high-tech things that nobody else can" because what, is the US supposed to handicap itself to be fair? Other countries likely have the technology to engage in similar programs, if they felt like it. So it's probably not technological inability that's held them back. Let me postulate a radical alternate hypothesis: their lack of doing so partially stems from being members of functional democracies with citzenry not full of nationalist imperial paranoids across the entirety of its political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, I don't. It doesn't matter whether they do or not is what I'm saying. You'd be an idiot to assume that they don't based exclusively on your gut, and the vibe I'm getting from the Germans here is that they just assumed that the Americans weren't spying on them. I don't think that they are seriously that stupid, especially considering their central role in the Cold War, which is one of the reasons I think that all this outrage from the German government is feigned and one of the reasons why I sincerely doubt that the German government is so innocent and trusting that it would never dream of spying on its allies (I would bet very large sums of money that Germany has been spying on allies in Europe for example.) The point is, who the hell cares if everyone is doing it? A year ago Obama in no uncertain terms said they will consider cyber attacks (which almost always are done for the purposes of spying) as military ones. Then it turns out he knew about the same thing being done by America towards other nations - and not even adversaries, but actual allies. It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy and corruption of the American government. (this isn't a statement about 'Obummer' by the way, I personally think he used to be an idealist who was crushed by a flawed system presented to him, but like it or not, he's the face of the government and should be held accountable for the crap he reads out in press releases) If we were to take the administration's statements at face value and apply their own logic to their own actions, we would have to conclude they are actively trying to wage a spy war with every nation on Earth. Is that a sensible democracy, or an imperialist's wet dream? dex_sda fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:41
|
|
" is a superficial argument. Yeah, they might not literally be wiretapping the phones of other heads of state (and again, we don't know that they aren't) but that is only one method of spying on people.
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Look guy you just don't get it, it's spying. Spies gonna spy, thieves gonna steal, birds gonna fly. Right there in the name, you can't very well expect them to not spy unless you hate them for being American or something. There is no point in having a problem with anything because stuff simply is, ethics is an illusion of the mind. Have you considered that you should just let go and appreciate the world around you for its own beauty? The fact that a U.S. surveillance operation was outed and involves a head of state of a foreign country is a very big deal. It's not a big deal because it happened, we (Americans) assume that this is happening at all times and we just expect it. We are a world superpower, we spy, we steal, we cheat, we rob, we plunder, etc. That's just part of the title. The reason this is news and a very big deal is because of just that. It is news. There is proof. We didn't sweep it under the rug. And it's news from internal sources that disagree with the status quo right now. This is a giant diplomatic issue that has resulted from something that was entirely avoidable. The trust of and capability of the United States government has come into question on an international front. edit: also, your entire argument on the side of acknowledging spying as something that happens so you should just deal with it is incredibly defeatist and pointless. Why not just accept minimum wage won't change because rich people. Why not just kick out all immigrants because America. gently caress trying to solve issues or change political and national narrative because I just can't be bothered to actually think about any issues in a rational way because of laziness InflateableFerret fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:White House is categorically denying this, but I doubt Germany would publicly accuse the US of something of this magnitude if they didn't have at least a pretty solid amount of evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The most interesting thing to this is that the majority of her phone calls are not being routed over American soil. Also, these days all telephone and mobile services providers are private in Europe. This implies that the NSA is infiltrating private companies big time. Getting to the point to be installing wiretapping equipment definitely requires some work. So the next time the Deutsche Telekom is looking for a bunch of IT guys, they'd have to vet them through the BND first. Deutsche Telekom bought out Voicesteam in like mid-2001 for $35 billion, with the government bitching about it being a risk to national security... then suddenly it gets approved by the FCC and goes through May 2002. Gee, makes one wonder how that happened, seeing as tapping in Germany has been going on since 2002. Coincidence, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, I don't. It doesn't matter whether they do or not is what I'm saying. You'd be an idiot to assume that they don't based exclusively on your gut, and the vibe I'm getting from the Germans here is that they just assumed that the Americans weren't spying on them. I don't think that they are seriously that stupid, especially considering their central role in the Cold War, which is one of the reasons I think that all this outrage from the German government is feigned and one of the reasons why I sincerely doubt that the German government is so innocent and trusting that it would never dream of spying on its allies (I would bet very large sums of money that Germany has been spying on allies in Europe for example.) Of course we spy even on our allies, but that doesn't mean it isn't egregious and unexpected to literally listen to the phone calls of an ally's head of government. What if Germany caught the U.S. engaging in industrial espionage to undermine German businesses that competed with American businesses--would outrage over that be feigned too? After all, it's only another matter of degree in clandestine operations that everybody does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
At least having a massive intel complex can help Obama play the ignorance game: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24698142 So basically one source says Obama knew about the phone tapping program but the NSA is trying to play damage control by claiming it continuing running the operation without telling Obama. quote:"[General] Alexander did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel," NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said. Regardless about the whole mindset of even allies going after each other for intel, the audacity and scale of the NSA operations meant sooner or later they would break the don't get caught rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What I've taken away from all this is less "Oh those horrible Americans are abusing their allies and burning bridges!" and more "Wow, the Germans are complete and utter poo poo at intelligence operations if you take their complaints at face value." This would indicate you are a horrible and morally broken person, at least respect to this issue 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
To be fair, the German people were asking for it, dressed like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:This would indicate you are a horrible and morally broken person, at least respect to this issue I don't think that not hating the act of spying on others makes you morally bankrupt and I think that you'd have to be a nutjob to think it does. Tezzor posted:To be fair, the German people were asking for it, dressed like that. Alternatively you can compare people on the other side of the issue to rapists, that's what made the last thread so good. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I don't think that not hating the act of spying on others makes you morally bankrupt and I think that you'd have to be a nutjob to think it does. Lets just really hone in on the point in question. We are talking about the Chancellor of Germany. One of our very close allies and an incredibly important economic partner. A leader, putting aside the debate about austerity in the eurozone for a moment, who is basically holding the eurozone ship together and incredibly influential. Someone we really want to be working with side by side. If you think that its ok to spy on this persons personal cellphone, instead of engaging in direct diplomacy and negotiation, and if you don't think that fundamentally undermines our diplomatic relations and don't hate it, then yes you are a morally bankrupt person. You prefer a subversive and secretive means that once revealed sours diplomatic relations and actually hinders the ability for the Chancellor to operate psychologically and practically. Thats what removing privacy does. At a very basic and human level it reeks of entitlement to all information and FYGM. gently caress that culture, gently caress you for being a part of it, and gently caress Keith Alexander.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:If you think that its ok to spy on this persons personal cellphone, instead of engaging in direct diplomacy and negotiation, and if you don't think that fundamentally undermines our diplomatic relations and don't hate it, then yes you are a morally bankrupt person. Sorry, but since when was the US forgoing all diplomatic relations with Germany in favor of tapping Merkel's cell phone? Why exactly is it suddenly a zero-sum game where you have a choice between spying and diplomacy and ne'er the two shall meet? I didn't realize that the United States wasn't engaged in diplomatic relations with anyone other than the Five Eyes. As it happens the use of both overt and subversive diplomacy is something that every great power does and definitely every superpower does. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and all that. Diplomacy is more than just talking out your differences and believing that the power of friendship will see you through everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sorry, but since when was the US forgoing all diplomatic relations with Germany in favor of tapping Merkel's cell phone? Not all relations, just in favour of worse relations. The point started when it started acting non-nonchalantly about it when they got caught, i.e. just recently, if you really are that keen on being a REALISM macho about foreign affairs. E: Please explain to me what benefit, what national security interest, the USA has in tapping Merkels phone, other than just adopting your apparent POWER. DEAL WITH IT. attitude that is completely hostile to good diplomatic relations. Why would you want good relations with someone who does this too you? Do you really think the powerful nations should just lord over the weaker ones information? Jacobin fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I don't think that not hating the act of spying on others makes you morally bankrupt and I think that you'd have to be a nutjob to think it does. I'm not comparing you to a rapist, I'm comparing one victim-blamer to another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:E: Please explain to me what benefit, what national security interest, the USA has in tapping Merkels phone, other than just adopting your apparent POWER. DEAL WITH IT. attitude that is completely hostile to good diplomatic relations. Why would you want good relations with someone who does this too you? Do you really think the powerful nations should just lord over the weaker ones information? The United States has always considered its economic interests to be its security interests, and has repeatedly cited threats like Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz to be a threat to the United States despite the fact that it wouldn't end up with military action directly against the United States. One of the most significant factors in American power has been integrating the global economy into its own, something that is has accomplished quite well. So if you go by that definition, then economic spying is in the US's security interests. Hell, economic integration was a huge factor in the US' Cold War success. While I doubt that D&D will accept that definition of national security, I will point out that "national security" goes beyond just military threats, it includes assessing diplomatic, economic, political, and ideological threats as well. You can defeat a nation in more ways than going to war with it and national security has referenced more than just armies and war for as long as the notion has existed. You might claim that the US' economic interests are imperialistic evil or something (and I'm sure that D&D goons are furiously pounding at their keyboards to yell at me over the internet right now) but that doesn't change the fact that it constitutes American interests at the very least and according to precedence, security interests. Tezzor posted:I'm not comparing you to a rapist, I'm comparing one victim-blamer to another. I'm sorry that I don't really see the Germans as victims of foreign spying any more than anyone is a victim of foreign spying including Americans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm sorry that I don't really see the Germans as victims of foreign spying any more than anyone is a victim of foreign spying including Americans. Of course you don't. That doesn't indicate that it isn't the correct position. It should also be pointed out that even if one believes that there is nothing wrong with spying on the governments of allied countries, there's ample evidence that even this is not the majority of communications collected. Rather it is information on civilians and purely civilian businesses in these allied countries, whom I assume everyone would agree it is wrong to deliberately target with military operations if they present no actual physical threat to anyone. e: quote:I will point out that "national security" goes beyond just military threats, it includes assessing diplomatic, economic, political, and ideological threats as well. You can defeat a nation in more ways than going to war with it and national security has referenced more than just armies and war for as long as the notion has existed. It never ceases to amaze me how close and effortlessly liberals skirt to Getting It before just zooming off in the opposite direction. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I will point out that "national security" Your use of scare quotes tends to belie the point you are trying to make. It really rams home the point this isn't about national security for you unless one defines security to include aggression and ideological conquest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It never ceases to amaze me how close and effortlessly liberals skirt to Getting It before just zooming off in the opposite direction. It never ceases to amaze me how far leftists seem to believe that the world runs off of clear cut black and white unicorn farts and that threats to a nation will always be obvious and violent. Tezzor posted:It should also be pointed out that even if one believes that there is nothing wrong with spying on the governments of allied countries, there's ample evidence that even this is not the majority of communications collected. Rather it is information on civilians and purely civilian businesses in these allied countries, whom I would assume everyone agree it is wrong to deliberately target with military operations if they present no actual physical threat to anyone. Threats aren't always physical. As I said, they can be economic, political, diplomatic, ideological, etc. Jacobin posted:Your use of scare quotes tends to belie the point you are trying to make. It really rams home the point this isn't about national security for you unless one defines security to include aggression and ideological conquest. I'm sorry, I'll use shittier grammar next time? National security IS defined to include those things. Particularly as far as the US is concerned. This is because the world is actually really complicated as is running a state. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sorry, but since when was the US forgoing all diplomatic relations with Germany in favor of tapping Merkel's cell phone? Why exactly is it suddenly a zero-sum game where you have a choice between spying and diplomacy and ne'er the two shall meet? I didn't realize that the United States wasn't engaged in diplomatic relations with anyone other than the Five Eyes. As it happens the use of both overt and subversive diplomacy is something that every great power does and definitely every superpower does. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and all that. Should there be no repercussions for directly spying on the private conversations of an allied head of state? Specifically, are you expecting the revelation of such an activity to be accepted as a regular occurrence that should be allowed to continue, with absolutely no damage to the international relations of the US? Just because an organization has the capability to do something, doesn't mean it should. You don't even have to go into ethics or morality or whatever to condemn the spying on Merkel– often the risks involved when engaging in such a high-level breach of decorum counterweigh any benefits. It's pretty obvious that espionage is not an end of itself for the USA, but rather one of the many tools it uses to maintain its global hegemony. However, that doesn't mean that all actions done by what has effectively become a rogue, unaccountable agency are in the best interest of the US government as a whole. General Alexander's espionage policy of "gather it all, let the techies sort it out" implies that there's a heavy amount of "because we can do it, we should do it" going on in the upper ranks of the NSA, without much regard to what the diplomatic or public fallout will be from the programs if they are revealed or go awry. The NSA seems to be in its own little bubble that never has to deal with any repercussions for its programs. Hence we get the exasperated and, frankly, bizarre and creepy complaints from Alexander about how all these journalists pointing out his programs should be silenced. It's true that diplomacy is not simply a matter of talking things out, and I agree with you that information gathering, whether through covert or overt means, is critical to shaping state policies. I wouldn't go so far as to say that diplomacy is just composed of these two parts, but I assume that part was for rhetorical purposes. But, the short term gains from spying on the most powerful HOS in Europe are ruined by the long term breach of trust between the US and its non-Anglophone allies. The US can't maintain its international position without the help of its allies in the Western world. No amount of espionage can replace the soft power projection allowed through alliances with these countries. It's true that all countries spy on each other, but the degree and depth to which the NSA spies on the world goes far beyond the norm and often far beyond what is diplomatically acceptable, especially between allies. Engaging in such a ballsy program as tapping the Chancellor of Germany's phone lines for over a decade and not expecting it to be found out at some point and not reconsidering or limiting its use due to the diplomatic consequences of such a breach of trust is such an idiotic thing that, quite frankly, it would be unthinkable for there not to be consequences for both US diplomacy and the NSA. Of course, few actual consequences will happen internally or within the Anglophone world until a leak reveals that the NSA has infiltrated the rest of the Five Eyes network and compromised their effectiveness and independence as well or something. TL;DR: sometimes in realpolitik knowing when not to do something clandestine is as important as being capable of doing something clandestine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It never ceases to amaze me how far leftists seem to believe that the world runs off of clear cut black and white unicorn farts and that threats to a nation will always be obvious and violent. Oh no please help what if the scary Belgians and Spaniards collapse our economy because we weren't able to cheat on business deals 10000 times as much as they do? Surely the Hun would have a dagger poised at the heart of America if we didn't treat their entire population like criminal enemies. And the ideological threats from India are extreme; imagine if kids started picking up that vegetarianism and worshiping all those goofy gods? Chaos in the streets. You recognize "national security" as a worthless, overbroad definition that exists solely to give the US the authority to do whatever it wants. You don't recognize that this invalidates it as something any decent person is obligated to give a poo poo about in principle. So close!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
I will agree that there are definite realpolitik reasons to condemn the NSA right now if simply because obviously at no point did they ever have a plan in place to deal with blowback. Nobody actually considered the possibility that some low-rank internet libertarian who works for one of their contractors might take a bunch of laptops and run to China despite it being their job to consider that possibility. Something is going wrong in the NSA if simply for that. I will also agree that simply having the capability to do something does not mean that you should do it; it's not a good thing that when everyone became aware of the NSA's capabilities it was after the NSA blew its load spying on Merkel instead of doing some hyper-sophisticated cyber-espionage in China or something. But I still refuse to condemn them for doing it at all and I think that the United States along with every other nation can rightly reserve the right to spy on others, including their allies. But the wise spies will have a plan in place for when things go awry, as things did here. Tezzor posted:You recognize "national security" as a worthless, overbroad definition that exists solely to give the US the authority to do whatever it wants. You don't recognize that this invalidates it as something any decent person is obligated to give a poo poo about in principle. So close! It's not my definition. You can go to Wikipedia and look at the typically given definitions of "national security" and none of them are so simple as to say "only military security and nothing else."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
It's pretty funny how openly racist the Five Eyes scheme is too. White, English-speaking nations only! No girlz allowed. While occasionally critical, France has been a strong US ally for at least a century if not, arguably, since before there even was a USA. Japan, South Korea, (West) Germany, and most of Western Europe have been dependable allies for 60 years or more. None of them get in, though. I'd like to say that it's because they're being punished for not playing ball on Iraq but really it's more probable that it's just xenophobia.
Tezzor fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's not my definition. You can go to Wikipedia and look at the typically given definitions of "national security" and none of them are so simple as to say "only military security and nothing else." I didn't say it was just your definition! You correctly stated the generally accepted definition. The generally accepted definition is contemptible and worthless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's pretty funny how openly racist the Five Eyes scheme is too. White, English-speaking nations only! No girlz allowed. While occasionally critical, France has been a strong US ally for at least a century if not, arguably, since there has been a USA. Japan, South Korea, (West) Germany, and most of Western Europe have been dependable allies for 60 years or more. None of them get in, though. I'd like to say that it's because they're being punished for not playing ball on Iraq but really it's more probable that it's just xenophobia. The USG is far too good at empire to allow race to come between its capital class and the lucre of its protectorates. They have intelligence sharing agreements with all of the countries you mentioned. The Five Eyes is set up the way it is because it originates in agreements made in the 40s, long before any of those nations had governments that the US viewed as stable allies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Tom Ferguson talking about Obama's disproportionate support among telecom, tech, and surveillance industries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lWFUw_MszE Ferguson argues that these industries are so entrenched that this is a primary obstacle to reform of the surveillance state. Paper available here: http://www.nextnewdeal.net/party-competition-and-industrial-structure-2012-elections Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Yeah somehow I doubt that they support Obama because he would support spying while a Republican president wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Yeah somehow I doubt that they support Obama because he would support spying while a Republican president wouldn't. A swing and a miss. It helps if you actually look at the material being presented, because that's not the case being made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16818-document-reveals-nsa-monitored-125-billion-phone-calls-in-one-monthquote:According to recent news reports (see here and here), documents obtained by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal that, in a 30-day period earlier this year, the NSA recorded data on 124.8 billion phone calls, about 3 billion of which originated within the United States. How many phone calls are made in one month around the world? 125 billion seems like it has to be a pretty substantial chunk of all the phone calls made around the world in a month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Fojar you seem to have trouble differentiating between spying in general and tapping the leader of an allied country's cell phone. By your logic the US shouldn't really stop at anything to get as much information as possible from anyone, allies and enemies alike, because we should assume everyone else is doing it. Cameras in the prime minister's bathroom? Shucks, if we don't do it then someone else will!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I will agree that there are definite realpolitik reasons to condemn the NSA right now if simply because obviously at no point did they ever have a plan in place to deal with blowback. Nobody actually considered the possibility that some low-rank internet libertarian who works for one of their contractors might take a bunch of laptops and run to China despite it being their job to consider that possibility. Something is going wrong in the NSA if simply for that. I will also agree that simply having the capability to do something does not mean that you should do it; it's not a good thing that when everyone became aware of the NSA's capabilities it was after the NSA blew its load spying on Merkel instead of doing some hyper-sophisticated cyber-espionage in China or something. I believe that realpolitik here also would suggest that everyone involved should now lose their jobs and quite possibly their freedom since they hosed up and got caught. Maybe upper management should get the death penalty, to show to our allies that we're really sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Obama is claiming that he had No Idea that the NSA was spying on 35 allied world leaders. There are only three interpretations of this fact, none of them terribly nice. Option one is that Obama is lying. This option is worse than usual because it would demonstrate the sheer arrogance and stupidity of the administration to still keep lying after being humiliated by leaked documents calling them on it half a dozen times so far. Option two is that Obama really did not know, because he is incompetent. Option three is that Obama really did not know, because his knowledge and approval was deliberately suppressed by an NSA that largely considers him irrelevant or under control. The problem is that his failure to fire the head of the NSA for this major diplomatic scandal that he knew nothing about could be seen as evidence of any of the three options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Obama is claiming that he had No Idea that the NSA was spying on 35 allied world leaders. There are only three interpretations of this fact, none of them terribly nice. Option one is that Obama is lying. This option is worse than usual because it would demonstrate the sheer arrogance and stupidity of the administration to still keep lying after being humiliated by leaked documents calling them on it half a dozen times so far. Option two is that Obama really did not know, because he is incompetent. Option three is that Obama really did not know, because his knowledge and approval was deliberately suppressed by an NSA that largely considers him irrelevant or under control. The problem is that his failure to fire the head of the NSA for this major diplomatic scandal that he knew nothing about could be seen as evidence of any of the three options. Plausible deniability is a thing. It is possible he had no idea and that the information gleaned from this particular source was amalgamated with other, less controversial sources in his briefings. Do I think it's likely? Not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:Plausible deniability is a thing. It is possible he had no idea and that the information gleaned from this particular source was amalgamated with other, less controversial sources in his briefings. Even if it's true, it's still embarrassing since it shows Obama has zero control over a organization that is causing piles of potential blowback problems for the USA. Sounds more like the NSA throwing themselves under the bus to protect Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:53
|
|