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
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.
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: (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
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Recruitment tool? (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)