Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Worth Reading: Trevor Pott's editorial on NSA PRISM and its real ramifications

<< < (25/58) > >>

IainB:
I read a post in another discussion forum (Samizdata) where they suggested that the NSA had merely implemented TIA (Total Information Awareness)  via the Information Awareness Office.

I had never heard of this concept before.

barney:
That concept was developed pretty much in conjunction with the original Internet plans, as I recall.  Remember, the Internet was originally developed by/for DARPA as a distributed communication system to be used in case of an attack on US infrastructure - wonder of any of 'em foresaw just how distributed 'twas to become? - and in order to facilitate total communication, although that latter concept was pretty hazy.  The IAO (Information Awareness Office) was pretty much conceptualized at the same time, by many of the same folk, but didn't really get much attention 'til the World Trade Center was destroyed.  Then later, when the congressional lights realized just what IAO could become, they tried to put the genie back in the bottle by defunding it - kinda like unspilling the milk - but by then the security wights had a taste of what it could be and liked the flavour  :(.

40hz:
I think it's reached the point where the only way to get the message across is to seriously consider impeachment proceedings and removal from office 

Problem is, who exactly in our government is really qualified to honestly conduct such a trial?

Because from where I'm sitting it looks like virtually our entire Executive and Legislative brances are guilty of staging what amounts to a coup d'etat in the wake of 9/11. And our Judicary has been asleep at the wheel pretty much throughout.

Kruchev was right. We did destroy ourselves from within

CWuestefeld:
I think it's reached the point where the only way to get the message across is to seriously consider impeachment proceedings and removal from office 
-40hz (June 20, 2013, 09:29 AM)
--- End quote ---

(trying to walk a thin line separating this from partisan politics...)

The only way that would work is if a really large portion of the electorate were willing to put their foot down and say "No. You've done something bad. You can't be in office anymore.".

But we've been through crises before. What always happens is that once they get into the voting booth, they actually decide that even though the guy from their party did a bad thing, they still must support him, because the alternative is to let the guy from the other party get into office. And there's no doubt that the other party is outright evil, and must not be allowed into office at all costs.

What's not actually admitted here is that this sort of logic in voting is giving your own party a license to just one unit of evil better than the other party.

If you're not willing to stand up for right versus wrong, then you are what's enabling the problem! Put partisanship behind you, and start voting for demonstrated ideals and against actually observed wrong-doing.

wraith808:
I think it's reached the point where the only way to get the message across is to seriously consider impeachment proceedings and removal from office 
-40hz (June 20, 2013, 09:29 AM)
--- End quote ---

This is not a single person problem though, and the programs and such were not enacted by one person, nor even a conspiracy.  That's the biggest problems with even starting to think along those lines.  It becomes a blame game and quickly devolves into partisan politics.

This isn't about party.  It's about the whole government.  And unless we can/are willing to throw them all away and start over, that type of thing only exacerbates the problem.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page