I'd not classify it as terrorism: it's not designed to instill fear in the populace to accomplish a political goal through violence. It is frequently criminal behavior, in violation of the US Constitution, international treaties, and the mission statement of the NSA published at https://www.nsa.gov/about/miss... [nsa.gov]. Their abusive monitoring of domestic communications violates every one of their published goals. Yet, as documented by Edward Snowden and visible from the leaked documents at Wikipedia, they engage in illegal monitoring of US communications as a matter of routine practice. They are demonstrably unwilling or unable to obtain intelligence on human trafficking or narcotics entering the USA, or to provide intelligence to allies to control the enormous heroin trade from Afghanistan.
That trade is fascinating, Heroin is much more profitable than any other crop in Afghanistan, and the spread of the heroin trade is improving the Afghan ecology. They're using solar panels to fuel water pumps, and the water is encouraging other plant growth around the farms, which retains water better in the soil and reduces chronic erosion problems.
Millions of people of many shades disagree with me about many things. Why would they classify the NSA as committing terrorism? Can you point to a specific act by that agency? A criminal conspiracy guilty of violating law, the Constitution, and international treaties signed by the USA, certainly. If there were convincing signs of competence on their part, I'd be less concerned about them. But the lack of prosecutions, much less convictions, for large scale criminal activities used to fund terrorism such as t
It's probably worse. Edward Snowden is almost certainly an active (rather than former) NSA operative. By "revealing" his name, he split the public opinion into against-surveillance and against-snowden camps. Before his revelation, it was almost universally against surveillance. He thus halved the political opposition to the SLC installation at the moment when it was being publicly debated.
Yeah, and do you have ANY evidence one way or the other WHATSOEVER?
Or do you confuse this for a church?
You haven't even freaking met Snowden yet. For all you know, it might be a simulation in an universe entirely simulated by your mind... a Boltzmann brain (look it up)! ^^ As is this comment.:P
I did follow the opinion polls around the time that it happened. I didn't keep track of it in case someone, who would create a new account in the future, would challenge my memory. But I did observe that evidence (the opinion polls). The idea that the most sophisticated intelligence service in the world would not take steps to divide public opinion which was against it... well, it's cute. But then this type of manipulation that you engaging in should be done from a more veteran account to be even remotel
Not for me, and apparently not for the person you are replying to... if there's one thing Trump's presidency has shown it's that we want people to be incredibly sceptical of non-evidence based assertions.
That's Ok. You just made a number of assertions in your post which are purely your opinion (vis a vis Trump). I am sure you be happy to supply some anecdotal evidence which helped you formed your opinion, but you won't be able to give any authoritative sources showing those opinions to be facts.
The only problem, of course, is that you won't be able to supply even anecdotal evidence 10 years from now.
In 10 years, you'll just state your opinion based on what you will believe you will have studied rigorous
Which is to say that this is not a non-evidence based assertion. It's a conclusion from evidence whose sources I have not bothered to commit to memory or record. Which was the standard practice in the age when publicly-available evidence was easily re-discoverable.
You're not wrong. I'll just point out the page you linked to has two separate sections, Mission and Values. The second half is Values and that can be taken with a mountain of salt as you pointed out.
The first half of their page is their stated mission. Their mission is:
-- Mission Statement The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance (now referred to as cybersecurity) produ
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
Recruitment tool? (Score:3)
... always looking for a few good men ^H people.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't advertise for the NSA, an agency notorious for illegally fucking over US citizens and mass unconstitutional surveillance.
You are promoting terrorism, Slashdot.
Re:Recruitment tool? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd not classify it as terrorism: it's not designed to instill fear in the populace to accomplish a political goal through violence. It is frequently criminal behavior, in violation of the US Constitution, international treaties, and the mission statement of the NSA published at https://www.nsa.gov/about/miss... [nsa.gov]. Their abusive monitoring of domestic communications violates every one of their published goals. Yet, as documented by Edward Snowden and visible from the leaked documents at Wikipedia, they engage in illegal monitoring of US communications as a matter of routine practice. They are demonstrably unwilling or unable to obtain intelligence on human trafficking or narcotics entering the USA, or to provide intelligence to allies to control the enormous heroin trade from Afghanistan.
That trade is fascinating, Heroin is much more profitable than any other crop in Afghanistan, and the spread of the heroin trade is improving the Afghan ecology. They're using solar panels to fuel water pumps, and the water is encouraging other plant growth around the farms, which retains water better in the soil and reduces chronic erosion problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of people of many shades disagree with me about many things. Why would they classify the NSA as committing terrorism? Can you point to a specific act by that agency? A criminal conspiracy guilty of violating law, the Constitution, and international treaties signed by the USA, certainly. If there were convincing signs of competence on their part, I'd be less concerned about them. But the lack of prosecutions, much less convictions, for large scale criminal activities used to fund terrorism such as t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and do you have ANY evidence one way or the other WHATSOEVER?
Or do you confuse this for a church?
You haven't even freaking met Snowden yet. For all you know, it might be a simulation in an universe entirely simulated by your mind... a Boltzmann brain (look it up)! ^^ :P
As is this comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not for me, and apparently not for the person you are replying to... if there's one thing Trump's presidency has shown it's that we want people to be incredibly sceptical of non-evidence based assertions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Ok. You just made a number of assertions in your post which are purely your opinion (vis a vis Trump). I am sure you be happy to supply some anecdotal evidence which helped you formed your opinion, but you won't be able to give any authoritative sources showing those opinions to be facts.
The only problem, of course, is that you won't be able to supply even anecdotal evidence 10 years from now.
In 10 years, you'll just state your opinion based on what you will believe you will have studied rigorous
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically (Score:2)
You're not wrong. I'll just point out the page you linked to has two separate sections, Mission and Values. The second half is Values and that can be taken with a mountain of salt as you pointed out.
The first half of their page is their stated mission. Their mission is:
--
Mission Statement
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both signals intelligence (SIGINT) and information assurance (now referred to as cybersecurity) produ