originally posted in:Secular Sevens
[quote]"assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent, [...] Some of the vulnerabilities, if exposed, would likely call into question a radicalizer's devotion to the jihadist cause"[/quote]
They're talking about people who advocate the implementation of sharia law. This isn't about smearing Ron Paul because he looked up incest porn that one time.
English
-
For now. Who's to say its not going to start targeting Socialists or Libertarians? Who's to say that it won't target Republicans and Democrats vehemently against NSA surveillance. There is still potential for abuse and abuse going on which is why I'm against this. Just look at cases where NSA staffers spied on their love interests.
-
You mean if its scope were completely changed? If the NSA wanted to start abusing programs against political enemies, they wouldn't have to do it within the framework of preexisting and legitimate ones.
-
What do you mean they wouldn't have to do it within their framework.
-
No, within the framework of preexisting intelligence programs.
-
So the NSA would use other mediums to spy on supposed political rivals. But still, this shows that citizen surveillance can be used against us with preexisting programs. Which is why I do not support citizen surveillance of any kind.
-
Edited by Seggi: 11/29/2013 4:45:12 AMAre you intentionally being obtuse? We [i]already[/i] knew that the NSA had the ability to do shit like this, and not already having this program in place would not at all deter them if they were looking to abuse that ability. This news shouldn't come as a surprise, and it shouldn't be seen as a doorway to abuse, either.
-
Yes the NSA had the ability to do this. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any changes to the NSA. But they're still gateways to abuse. I was hoping that the masses would be enraged, but apparently they'll only be enraged if something hits close to home.
-
You mean if the NSA starts [i]actually abusing its power[/i]?
-
Edited by Ninja Guardian: 11/29/2013 4:58:28 AMUh, it already is. Just look at cases of NSA staffers misusing NSA resources to spy on love interests. Besides, I think it would take another leak from someone from the inside (like Snowden) to reveal more cases of abuse.
-
[quote]Just look at cases of NSA staffers misusing NSA resources to spy on love interests.[/quote]That's really all you've got? lol
-
Edited by Ninja Guardian: 11/29/2013 5:06:51 AMIts still an example of abuse. Who's to say an NSA staffer won't misuse resources to get back at old rivalries? To sabotage people they don't like? The tools are there.
-
Is "Who's to say" your catch phrase now? I'm not talking about hypothetical questions and what could potentially happen, I'm talking about [i]actual abuse[/i]. If anything, the fact that you could divulge the secrets of a major American intelligence organisation and the worst you get is a couple of jilted lovers would give me [i]more[/i] confidence in it.
-
How would that give you more confidence? And like I said the tools are there.
-
[quote]How would that give you more confidence?[/quote] Because it'd seem to indicate that it's mostly on the level.
-
Or people are just apathetic.
-
Edited by Seggi: 11/29/2013 5:29:17 AMWhat? How is that relevant to what I was saying?
-
Because people are apathetic to issues which don't directly affect them?
-
I said the fact that the worst example you could come up with was some people spying on their lovers would give me confidence, not that people not caring would.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there were worst things being planned.
-
Well, you also seem to have displayed a pigheaded opposition to intelligence operations in general, so how likely you think the organisations conducting those operations are to abuse their abilities doesn't mean a terribly large amount in my eyes.
-
Whatever asshole.