How did the NSA hack our emails?

[SteveRiley]

Ah. Well, the way you constructed your opening...

It seems to me there is an inherent contradiction in what we, citizens, ask of our Government. That is, keep us safe and at the same time protect our privacy.

...made it seem like the "inherent contradiction" was between "keeping us safe" and "protect[ing] our privacy." Of course, I may have read that into your sentences even though that's not what you meant.

[richb]

Yes it was. I was thinking of phone and email records as thry relate to privacy, not items 1 to 3 on your list, which I can take a definitive position on.

[SteveRiley]

Terrorism is the catch-all excuse for the privacy invasions we've all suffered from -- whether at the airport, or now in our lives lived increasingly online. If the American government wouldn't have succumbed to the stupid (and unwinnable) "war on terror," then these debates over how much privacy must we give up to remain safe wouldn't even be necessary. This is the reasoning behind structuring my list as I did.

[Teunis]

I wish you would think of the children...
Oh wait, that's what Cameron in the UK is doing

[richb]

I see your connection. However each of those items, in my view, expands the discussion. I was specifically addressing the telephone and email issues in relation to keeping us safe. There are other government actions that fall under that justification, as you pointed out, that have different consequences. You could add regulations on banks to the list, and any number of others.

[GreyGeek]

EVERY elected official must swear an oath of office which contains, in part, the phrase:

“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I would be happy if the Congress, the Senate, the judiciary and the President honored their oath of office. If the Bill of Rights were defended and supported by those who swore an oath that they would do so the scandals would never have happened. As it is, the oath of office means nothing to most of them ... just something they say with their fingers crossed behind their backs while their mouth utters phrases they have no intention of keeping. Most should be impeached for lying under oath.

[richb]

EVERY elected official must swear an oath of office which contains, in part, the phrase:


I would be happy if the Congress, the Senate, the judiciary and the President honored their oath of office. If the Bill of Rights were defended and supported by those who swore an oath that they would do so the scandals would never have happened. As it is, the oath of office means nothing to most of them ... just something they say with their fingers crossed behind their backs while their mouth utters phrases they have no intention of keeping. Most should be impeached for lying under oath.

If I felt that way I woukd have trouble remaining in this country. Not a reflection on you just me.

[SteveRiley]

If I felt that way I woukd have trouble remaining in this country. Not a reflection on you just me.

Why?

[SteveRiley]

@*$^@#%!!

Breaking...

Federal judge says NSA phone surveillance is legal, useful
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us...ules.html?_r=0

Full opinion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...on-lawful-ocr/

So we have two judges with differing views of the Fourth Amendment. Richard Leon (Federal District Court for DC) says phone surveillance is "almost Orwellian," while William Pauley claims "the Fourth Amendment does not apply to data held by third parties."

SMFH.

[richb]

Why?

Because if I felt that all the people responsible for government were not faithful to their oath of office I would have no respect for them, and a government I could not respect is not worth living under. The implication was they were all like that. Some are no doubt. If they do not have the welfare of the people they represent at heart, why bother having them.

[SteveRiley]

I suppose I wasn't sure which part of Jerry's statement you were responding to. Now I see which part you mean.

[Feathers McGraw]

That's a bit of a strange oath, really. I don't get how a country that wrote the separation of church and state into its constitution manages to come up with things like this:

“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Add that last part on at the end as a personal touch if you like, but making it a part of the "official oath" is just weird. Could you take this oath seriously?

“I, ... , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Flying Spaghetti Monster"

If the answer is no, then can you see how a significant proportion of public servants who took the oath might not have taken it "without any mental reservation"?

I get how swearing on a bible or qu'ran or whatever may make some people take things more seriously, but it has the opposite effect if you don't happen to believe...

[Feathers McGraw]

The trickle feed of revelations is purely Glen Greenwald's doing. See here, here, and here. Not only is Greenwald a self-aggrandizing adulation junkie, his reporting is in cahoots with the very government agencies he pretends to loathe. Snowden should have dumped everything at once, to multiple journalists. That would have had a far greater, immediate, and lasting impact. Now, it's just background noise -- perfect for those who wish to apply a veneer of "reform" without actually changing one damn thing.

I'm having a look at those articles now.

I'm curious, did you self-censor that second link or was it the forum software?

[SteveRiley]

I'm curious, did you self-censor that second link or was it the forum software?

The forum software did that. I just now put it behind a TinyURL link.

[Feathers McGraw]

Clever... but I think KFN should put it all out there! We, the great unwashed, can make up our own minds about this kind of thing

Full disclosure, please! Hehe