I wouldn't, personally, characterize those comments as "discussing" how the NSA is doing those things, so much as their authors throwing up their hands, and being all, "WELP!" about that behavior. "Nothing can be done! They're EEEEEVIL! If you think otherwise, then you're dumb too."
What kind of discussion is a comment like that likely to engender? Generally not very substantive, in my experience, and I've been (IMO rightly) asked by the moderators not to engage in that style of shallow discourse, despite one of my comments to that effect being among my highest-voted ever.
Popularity and/or accuracy don't entail depth, and there's a pretty clear bias on HN towards encouraging the latter.
I didn’t bother looking at the comments but in this modern age, people may be confused by fake accounts and where the purpose is confusing popular opinion. Fake accounts without people contributing thought but some algorithms faking discussion with swaying to a direction of support.
> "Also, the next time an NSA spokesman tries to sugarcoat this issue, let's get someone, anyone, to ask why the GCHQ (in the U.K.) is allowed to spy on Americans and then simply pass that along to U.S. intelligence. U.S. spooks think they are being clever by doing it this way."
What evidence is there that this is going on? and on what scale? If it is standard operation then the whole 'not spying on our own citizens' would seem to be a hollow truth in all countries that partake in such intelligence exchange.
I.e. the spying is simply done by a partner country, otherwise no difference.
Well, it's very annoying that they are violating non-american internet privacy rights as well. Just because one club of people said it's okay doesn't mean we have to agree to it.
Rights in the US are granted not by saying "you have rights" but by saying "the government can't do xyz". The Constitution only applies to US citizens.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- the constitution.
However, the Declaration of Independence says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
I've personally interpreted this as meaning that we USA folks believe these rights should apply to everyone, but we're only taking responsibility for our own folks, in general. We'd like to help others, and can, but we don't guarantee it.
I think having a set of rules or ideas to apply to everyone, but foremost start with taking responsibility for those who live under the governance of those rules makes a whole lot more sense than "screw everyone who is not us".
From my University US history class, this is how my professor described how slavery was allowed by the Constitution: the founding fathers were generally against slavery (at least some of them), but they knew that Americans would never agree to the terms of the Constitution if it included abolishing slavery. From what I understand, the founding fathers decided to just let the system work itself out.
The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, and applies to noncitizens as well. There are a range of accepted loopholes on top of the agency's willingness to ignore the constitution.
So because some piece of paper says it's ok to screw everyone who lives in a different imaginary box, you're going to do that? (just abstracting the case here)
I made it to the second paragraph. Anyone who believes the NSA can be controlled must also believe in the things they were told in school how the world works. That is, 100% "how it could work in theory". In reality, the world is controlled by power hungry psychopaths and they are concentrated in large amounts at the top of these organizations.
I believe he's trying to say that it's just impossible. In movies heroes uncover government conspiracies and culprits get handcuffed. In real world nothing happened. Snowden is now a cultural reference for comedy:
Yes but what are the chances of that happening when it's a case involving a man accused of supporting terrorists? This is exactly the purpose of the program, so there won't be much of an argument there. If anything this will set a precedent and cement over the program's 'usefulness'.
The question is why did they have to wait for the program to actually catch someone supporting terrorism before taking it to court?
Negative thoughts detected! Your comment is now being run through a text pattern recognizer to tie it up with your Facebook and your email account. God forbid you might have a stray creative thought somewhere ever, that may threaten our precious democracies.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights disagrees:
> Article 12.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Used to be cryptotechs in the navy listening to foreign countries had to destroy media if they accidentally recored a US citizen
Also used to be the majority of nerds were really against this sort of invasive illegal intrusions
Now the NSA intentionally spies on citizens and the nerds are supporting them.
How far the NSA and the nerd herd have fallen... its really disappointing