As long as it does not damage national security or the due process of the courts, then so be it. By 'unconstitutional' you mean in violation of the civil rights of people being monitored. The intrusion into your personal information is far less harmful than the more severe violations that we associate with police brutality, false imprisonment, prisoner abuse and extraordinary renditions. For that reason alone I would tend to say 'who cares'? Would you have it any other way? Do you want to abolish secrecy in the agencies that are tasked with finding a handful of extremely dangerous people among hundreds of millions of people that are relatively harmless? What other choices do you give investigators to do their job?
Apparently quite a few people did not know that their government was doing it. So many, in fact, that said government found benefit in classifying as secret even a broad, general description of what it was doing, and is now attempting to prosecute someone who revealed to "everyone" that the government was doing it, as a leaker of secrets. Which I agree is interesting. After several years of seeing the label "conspiracy theory" applied to perfectly ordinary and obvious aspects of the Patriot Act and its provisions, the issue of what Americans know about their government's doings and how they obtain such knowledge has become a central one in this kind of debate. The severity of the damage is debatable, not safe to assume - the association of these secret tactics with those other abuses you mentioned is part of the harm we would prefer avoiding, taking our warning from history and reason, no? - but simply because the crime is not as serious to most of its victims (fraction?) as the more severe forms of police brutality are to its victims (you are not comparing the ordinary bullying technically forbidden, I assume) does not mean we should permit its commission at whim and in secret. Especially when such sanctioning involves abrogation of long established Constitutional rights and principles. After all, there are other things you would go to great lengths to prevent that are not as seriously harmful in real life as false imprisonment, prisoner abuse, renditions, etc. Among them is terrorism itself. That is not the issue. Of course we encourage secrecy in some police doings, and forbid it in others. Arbitrary monitoring of the telephone calls and other communications of people not even suspected of crime is one of those others.
The Patriot Act engaged in wholesale data mining of the records of entire communications carriers? Oh, and press agencies? I could go so far as to say that its a sliding scale, and that the scale has still been sliding. I have a riddle for you related to your link: which party owned the White House when President Obama signed that extension? Oh damn, I've given the answer away. Well, given the outrage, no, I don't think people did - or not on the kind of scale we're seeing now. The illustrative point is that despite their objections, the Dems have simply carried on. Power corrupts.
Under certain conditions, yes. Umm you do realise that is why I linked it, yes? People either forget or they were stupid. This has been going on for years. I am not saying what they did is right. What I am saying is that this sudden outrage seems very political in nature and frankly, Snowden's actions seem somewhat bizarre. Like when he declared he had a list of all NSA staff members, all of their operations around the world, and that of the intelligence community and their operations. He goes to China to make such a declaration? Really? Do the people have a right to know? Certainly. Should the State be doing this? Certainly not. However, the Government had told the populace that they would be doing it many many years ago.. So I don't get why they act surprised now that 'it's all come to light'.
A large percentage of Americans believe not only that the US invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam from deploying WMDs and giving them to terrorists, but that the US military found those WMDs in Iraq. They believe that poor Americans - 47% of the country - pay no Federal taxes. They think that Obama is responsible for almost all the US public debt, and W never ran a trillion dollar deficit. They not only think that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago by a deity, but that a lot of scientists agree with them. They think that the gays have an agenda, and the CEOs do not. There is an alternative, or fantasy, world involved here, and in that world w's assurance that his government was not doing any of this stuff without a warrant from a judge fits in as one of the influential truths.
Which part of that article describes collections en masse from communications carriers? I saw a mention about what might happen when certain individuals were targeted under the earlier scheme, but had nothing to say about how sweeping monitoring of the records of entire carriers (i.e., Verizon) would go. Moreover, it certainly didn't allude to any mass collection of journalist's phone records under the Patriot Act. Sure, I expect some 'journalists' are stringers for al-Qaeda, or the MB, or whatever, but journalists in general don't strike me as a particularly risky group for terrorism. So why was this information sought and collected? I think you missed my point back there. My point was that the Dems were against the Patriot Act, by and large, before Obama, and now aren't. Now we see him signing an extension of it. So you've linked evidence that supports my contention: that Democratic opposition to the PA vanished like an Arizona frost with Dems in control of the WH - IMHO. Sure sure - but not like this. Collecting AP's phone records? Sweeping up all Verizon records? Bit of a massed information collection, wouldn't you say? Now sure, it might be more efficient - but again, why AP? It doesn't ring true. I read the article and didn't see anything about him declaring he had a list of all NSA staff members and their operations. Did he make this claim from inside his hollowed-out volcano? I kid, but anyway: sure he went to Hong Kong to do it. They'd have bloody arrested him and thrown the book at him if he did it here. Not exactly surprising, and I don't know why this strikes you as an illogical or discordant move on his part. Generally, sure. But again: AP? Why? With the IRS scandal coming down right at the same time, it strikes me more than a bit strange. Some of it, they should. I don't necessarily object to the Verizon investigation - I do have some concerns that it's this administration that's doing it, because the other things going on suggest they have a more diverse portfolio of political interests, shall we say. Hell, come to that, maybe I wouldn't trust any administration to do it at all. Bush? Bush II? Clinton, maybe. Because it's not as advertised earlier, because it's more than a little curious, and because there's political hay to be made by the Repubs. There's no single reason.
If a journalist has information about a terrorist or possible attack in the future or is following up on leads which pertain to terrorism in the US or against US interests abroad, I would imagine that information would be picked up. The article clearly states that carriers would hand over records after receiving a subpoena. Which means that has been some judicial review before such mass collection takes place. And you missed my point that this whole new debacle is entirely political. You only have to watch the Republicans and the Democrats to see just how political it is. The Tea Party favourites scrambling to continue portraying Obama like he is trying to bring about the downfall of the US while mumbling about this, when they already knew about it and the extent of it. They were briefed about it. When I look at this whole spectacle, it is political in nature. It comes out as Obama is due to meet with his Chinese counterpart, to discuss in part, the cyber hacking issues between the two countries. And Snowden goes to Hong Kong, a part of China to disclose this... Refer to first answer in this thread. The link I provided earlier explains why they would do large sweeps. They would have had to get a subpoena to do it. And they did. So this isn't a case of some weirdos at the NSA trolling through people's emails, internet records to see what porn they are watching or listening to people's calls. They were looking for specific things and would have the court's permission to do the sweeps. It is pretty much a matter of doing a large sweep and sifting through it to find exactly what they were looking for. Snowden also raised eyebrows by declaring that in his job he "had access to the full roster of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth." [Source] Sorry, I should have amended that to "access". But Hong Kong.. But some questioned Mr. Snowden’s choice, given the city’s existing rendition treaty with the United States. “We work very closely with U.S. authorities,” said Regina Ip, current legislator and former security secretary, who described Mr. Snowden’s choice of location as “really being based on unfortunate ignorance.” The U.S. so far hasn’t issued a request for Mr. Snowden’s extradition. The Justice Department on Sunday said it had started a criminal investigation into the case. “Hong Kong is the worst place in the world for any person to avoid extradition, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom,” said one lawyer who’s worked on a dozen extradition cases both in the U.K. and Hong Kong, citing a number of murder and drug smuggling cases in which Hong Kong authorities have helped render suspects back to the U.S. While an exception for political cases exists, lawyers said Monday they weren’t aware of any specific instances in which it had been tested. And again, goes to Hong Kong, reveals all of this. Then says the US also did it to China - at the time when Obama was meeting with China about their hacking into the US and vice versa. I mean really? Yes. It is political. When it rains, it pours. It gives nice political fodder for the Paul camp, at any rate. For the 2012 election, political donation records indicate that he contributed to the primary campaign of Ron Paul Why do you have concerns about Obama doing it, but not possibly others? What has he done differently to the others that you don't trust him to do it? There actually isn't. And that's the problem. Republicans have come out and said they knew all about this and it clearly points some who are trying to point score on this as being liars and dishonest. Possibly because they approved it also in the past. But seriously, how can people not have known this was happening or even going to happen? The writing was on the proverbial wall when Bush revealed the Patriot Act (note the irony in the name). To act all surprised now and outraged.. Sorry, but to me this is just stupid propaganda and fear mongering and hypocritical. Snowden supposedly values privacy but goes to work for the CIA and the NSA to invade people's privacy and then complains it.. There is no end to the irony and hypocrisy.
Does that strike you as particularly common? Yes, but: all of them? Nope. You only made it now. You missed my point about part of the outrage being political hay-making, above, though. ... in what mad mind would those things be connected? They describe 'minimization procedures', but not what those procedures would be, or how they would work - or how, inevitably, they will fail. I give you that that statement's very curious. Do you perceive it as grandstanding, or a kind of threat? That's a bit of a stretch. Obama's over there to chew China out about hacking into US systems - I heard once that the DoD got like a million attacks in an hour one time. What does that have to do with his choice of countries to hide out in? Are you supposing this is some kind of Chinese conspiracy or something to deflect criticism of China's hacking the US? Not completely: AP, IRS. Funny things happen when funny winds blow. AP, IRS. Granted, that's against his own countrymen rather than internationally, but he seems to have an undercurrent of sympathy for the radically religious that concerns me. I suspect that the information could be used just as handily to prosecute that which his administration considers radical with respect to their own outlook, rather than what is objectively and factually radical. It's a question of scale: the current administration is put in the position of denying that information is going to be collected indiscriminately precisely because they are now in the business of collecting information indiscriminately. They claim that they won't use it like that... but later on one could hardly act surprising and outraged, when that proves not to be the case. I mean, we'll have known what it really was about. We have thirty years at least off this kind of duplicity, stretching back to Iran-Contra. Not so? And if not, how do you know?
I would not know, would I? But I can't see how it could be that uncommon when one considers scoops that journalists and papers often advertise about upcoming publications. What? Taking a large chunk of data and sifting through it to find exactly what you were looking for? The article explains why they would have to take large sweeps. Then we both missed. You honestly do not think it is strange that he went to Hong Kong, in the lead up to a much publicised meeting between the leaders of China and the US? And Hong Kong has a very close relationship with the US - US citizens do not even need a visa to go to Hong Kong if they plan to stay for less than 90 days. And then to tell them that he has information on how the US spied on China as well... You don't think that is strange? That the timing is strange? I think it is a bit of both. That would be disastrous for the US intelligence organisations and he tells this to the Chinese - what was he thinking? Why make such a declaration? Not sure about any conspiracy. But the timing is spectacular. And the 'look at me, I know where everything and everyone is' statements. The US can hardly complain about China's hacking of its system when a tech person from the NSA says that he has evidence of how and who the US spied on in China and Hong Kong and then declares that he knows where every operation is based around the world.. I guess it depends on which direction it's blowing in. Which is why he's ordering bombs to drop on the countries where the radically religious are threatening to take hold.. Both sides of politics have sympathy for particular religious factions. The right of politics in the US would abolish the teaching of evolution or force the teaching of ID and ban all contraception and abortions if they had their way. then again, it's only okay if your side does it. No one can know when it will end. I doubt it ever will. And it isn't as if they have recorded every single piece of data from everyone. Sweep, identify the suspect numbers and monitor those calls and emails, etc. That is what intelligence work is all about. I doubt the outrage would be this high if it was found that the data sweeps were in areas where Muslims lived, for example.
They advertise about impending terrorist attacks? And what else might they do with it? That's the part that concerns me - that, and the AP thing, and the IRS thing. They might be coincidental, but it's concerning. If this has been found just now, what else is going on? It's a fair question. Ok, so what do you suspect here? A Chinese set-up? Clearly they'd benefit internationally from such a tu quoque-style digression. Well, according to one of your articles, Hong Kong extradites with high frequency, although their extradition rate for those hoping for political asylum has not been tested. So presumably it wouldn't be a good setup, since it would be likely that they would return him to the US. Or not. Well, such a declaration - if indeed he did make it - could be a threat to the US to dissuade prosecution. But what does that mean about him? So you think that he did this on his own, with knowledge of Obama's timetable. It's possible. Some of them, sometimes: not in Syria, for example. Very true. Yes, but as you say:you doubt it will ever end. And in future, I have little doubt, it will be a resource for other kinds of... decision-making. Like whether or not a group or the individuals that comprise it might 'need' an investigation or two over their fundraising for the other party. Adams - I think it was Adams, Washington also probably - warned about the rise of philosophical parties in American politics. Later on, Eisenhower did the same about the military-industrial complex. Isn't it nice that they can both come together to agree on something, though? =D Well, that's actually what some of the reports claim: that foreigners with suspicious relations or making a lot of calls overseas will be more likely to be investigated. Muslims living inside and outside the US certainly fall into that group, so... that's largely so, actually. I'm sure you won't like this next part: not without reason, either. See? I told you you wouldn't like it.
uh oh... dick (darth vader) cheney's out in support of it. Another reason it must be bad for people: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...-monitoring-could-have-prevented-911#comments
Mystery Gambit Well, yes, but it's part of a larger strategic outlook. Well, okay, that's what it looks like, but it's kind of hard to pin down the strategy, or even perceive its general shape. As Steve Benen explains: There was something else he said that caught my eye. When Chris Wallace asked about President Obama, Cheney had a specific condemnation in mind. "I don't pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama says. I find a lot of it in other areas—for example, IRS, Benghazi—not credible. I'm obviously not a fan of the incumbent president. [...] "In terms of credibility, I don't think he has credibility... And the problem is the guy has failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So he's got no credibility." Yes, Dick Cheney—Dick Cheney!—wants to talk about the importance of credibility among elected leaders. In case we needed further evidence that irony is dead, the former V.P. seemed happy to oblige. But more important is the substantive argument here: Obama was dishonest about Benghazi and the IRS, so there's no reason for Americans, or anyone else, to trust his word on anything. On CBS's "Face the Nation," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) echoed the same talking point. SCHIEFFER: We want to go back to the house intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers. We were talking about this big story about has the National Security Agency over-reached? What is your take, Mr. Chairman? Do you think the government's done anything wrong here at this point? ROGERS: Well, it depends again what you're talking about when you're talking about the IRS scandal or Benghazi, I think there were certainly government misdeeds and maybe even criminal behavior. Cheney and Rogers were presumably invited onto the Sunday shows to talk about the NSA controversy, but both support the administration's surveillance programs. So, what happens? Both decide they want to talk instead about Benghazi and the IRS. There is, of course, one obvious problem: President Obama didn't do anything wrong when it comes to Benghazi and the IRS. I imagine it's a point of crushing disappointment, but last September's attack on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi is not a political scandal. Literally every partisan attack and unhinged conspiracy theory Republicans have come up with has been debunked, discredited, and dismissed as nonsense. The violence that left four Americans dead has been the subject of multiple investigations and hearings, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest the president or the White House did anything wrong at all. As a result, when Dick Cheney and Mike Rogers insist on national television that Obama lacks credibility because of Benghazi, they're either deliberately trying to mislead the country or they haven't the foggiest idea what they're talking about. Similarly, with each passing day, it becomes more difficult to take the IRS matter seriously. The entire controversy has unraveled in recent weeks, and Republican efforts to connect the story to the White House have proven to be absurd. So what are Cheney and Rogers talking about? To the one, of course we expect Cheney to support, in principle, domestic espionage. And, certainly, that is a reasonable consideration in the question of "reason(s) it must be bad for people". But, to the other, it is also a curious twist. While the GOP has generally sought to pin all sorts of Bush-era policies on Obama—TARP, Guantanamo, the decision to go to war in Iraq, gunwalking, the appointment of Douglas Shulman to the post of IRS commissioner, &c.—this time they want to protect the policy and, instead, use the public discussion to point attention back to two non-scandals. Indeed, it was curious enough to note last month that as a legitimate scandal erupted amid the GOP's desperate inquisition, high profile fringe figures from the Tea Party movement tried to use the occasion to redirect people's attention to Benghazi. This tactic doesn't make sense. It is not apparent even in the slightest what the strategic intention is beyond the basic, twenty-year approach that deems that scandalmongering—a great fundraising tool—is the optimal approach to governance when a Democrat holds public office. Take Cheney, for example: It's not that he thinks the law is bad. He just doesn't want it in the hands of an evil president, and President Obama is obviously evil because of all these fake scandals that don't actually touch him. Congressman Rogers was even less subtle. What does he think about the NSA surveillance discussion possessing the Beltway? Well, that depends on whether you're talking about Benghazi or the IRS. Let us try expressing it in Beltway Buzz dialect, such that conservative spinners and headlies can understand the conundrum they have created: • It is not apparent at this time what political calculus should lead to these optics, nor the metrics for determining the success of said messaging. Or, to try it in a simpler, more accessible form • It seems like the GOP, at this time, would declare toilet training a success if the child defecated in his pants at will and for gratification instead of for infantile necessity, while simultaneously complaining that it's the president's fault that little Johnny can't use the toilet properly. No, really. Crappy humor aside, what do they think they're doing? The GOP's rhetorical arc over the last four and a half years has certainly been strange enough, but this is one of those occasions on which I simply cannot figure out what they think they're talking about. This transcends my normal disdain toward the right wing. To use a sports metaphor, I might want the Seahawks to win, but at the same time I can also understand what the other team is trying to do regardless of how I feel about it. And, you know, I might not like the recent adjustment to the chop block rules, and I might fret about inconsistent enforcement (it's a difficult rule to enforce consistently), but I can tell when I watch the play what was going on that led to one of these newly-illegal chop blocks. To the other, if everyone simply ran around chopping the other team for no apparent reason, it would be a little bit confusing. But, analogously, that's where the GOP is right now, and one can take that point even further in some questions, like why the owners would complain that their own organization passed a rule that the owners don't like, and try to blame it on people who didn't vote for the rule. But, yes, this really is the strangest time I have witnessed in American politics. Imagine it like sports commentary: PBP: ... And after that move, Fischer is complaining about Spassky's en passant because it is not allowed in Chinese Checkers. Oh! my! Spassky hands off to hooker Kasparov—one timer! off the pipe!—rebound Grischuk, oh! behind-the-back and Nepomniachtchi, fade-away beyond the arc! Goooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll! In extra time, Nepomniachtchi fought off the pass interference, set up the slap shot, and what a touchdown to put Roda up by six! CC: And you could see that coming from the moment Fischer complained. You just can't hang your slider in the wheelhouse against a hitter like Nepomniachtchi who is just itching itching to to birdie the seventeenth. Cliburn should know better, and this time it cost him. Dramatic. Heroic. But ... well ... what game are they playing? It's the strangest thing. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Cheney, Rogers show how not to defend NSA surveillance". The Maddow Blog. June 17, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. June 17, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...ogers-show-how-not-to-defend-nsa-surveillance
Anyone with half a brain knows the data being collected by the NSA can be massaged with a wide range of customized algorithms. If we can pin point terrorists using only meta-data, you can change the program to pin point anyone who has had an abortion and send e-mails to their parents and coworkers. You should also be able to track all the illegal aliens, if these were not being protected by fellow criminals. You can also pinpoint anyone who is with the Tea Party and give that intel to your own agents in the IRS to harass them. If republican gets in they will also be able to do the same thing to democrats It may take this to wake up the liberal zombies. Ask a programmer you know if he could write an algorithm to target any group you want. Don't get me wrong, this intel can be useful in the skirmish against terrorists but it can also be used to target anyone corrupt people want to target.
What will this do to US Cloud based software? Make it completely mistrusted I think. The spiel for Microsoft 365 says this: Security and privacy Your data is yours. Microsoft does not scan emails or documents for advertising purposes. It is a leader in industry privacy, transparency, security, and compliance. OK, Microsoft may be true to their word and not trawl through your commercial data. But what about the NSA? Can they be trusted not to pass on commercial data to friendly companies? Would a company in France selling arms dare to use Microsoft or Google Docs now?
Say a company is not cooperating with a shake down for campaign contributions, the party in charge can threaten to make sensitive information available to competitors who they say are swilling to dig deeper in their pockets. Ironically, they data mine US citizens and can use this information to find terrorist needles in the haystack, but 12 million illegal aliens are called invisible and can live in the shadows. Maybe if one claims illegal status the government won't spy on you. Criminals protect each other. I can say what I want since they are not looking at specific information, correct? Or should I have reason to be afraid?
It is the strangest thing. Cant argue that. Earlier in the thread I pointed out this isnt about one or the other sides politics. They are both doing it. And I cant explain the need. Each of these A$$hats would be horribly offended if I was reading their emails. Demand I go to jail. So I guess its a matter of follow the money. Probably have to peer into their portfolios to see how much they stand to lose. But bringing up Benghazi makes one wonder why the massive surveillance program missed that one two. Benghazi was bad, not only did the state dept refuse to increase security when asked, the blame centered around a simplistic/bad film trailer Innocence of Muslims. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher alluded to the anti-Islam work, asking why "the filmmaker" was the only one in custody after last year's terrorist attacks... Meet the press had some discussion on the NSA/Prism issue. DAVID GREGORY:Well, and isn't this an issue, General, I mean, you have all these private contractors having access to this kind of classified-- GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN:No, no, that's not the issue. It's people of this personality type having access to this issue, whether they're--.. http://www.noodls.com/view/090EAC6A051093DE4347182029C60128200B83E3 Just one snippet of round table discussion that stuck out in my mind. Note on above link. I couldnt find the original meet the press transcript that I had read this morn on NBC. I do wonder what kind of a personality type the General is referring to.
Not sure what you mean by "both sides", but notice that substantial numbers of Democrats have opposed the Patriot Act since its first vote (where something like 60 Dems voted against it in the House) and increasingly now (where in 2011 a large majority of Congressional Dems voted against dropping the sunset clause provisions and extending three or four provisions indefinitely). "Both sides" are not behaving the same here - and there is a side that opposes the whole thing and everything connected with it.
It's a big opportunity for a company to set up an impenetrable cloud, outside of the US. Is there any company or any country which companies could trust to keep their commercial data safe from industrial espionage? I think Microsoft is no longer such a company, nor America such a country. Would you agree?
First vote (2001) 123 Dems voted yes vs 54 nays. Latest vote (2011) it had only dropped to 65 yes vs 117 nays. That is 36% of the Dems voting yea (11 present did not vote) after a decade of this, post revelations on the abuses, a second term dem pres 36% seems a bit high compared to the republicans 10% voting Nay. And a little closer to home for both of us, Klobuchar (a lawyer) voted yes. Franken (a comedian) voted No. She has taken many oaths to uphold the constitution. He has taken one I am aware of.
You know what I meant. They want to steal your muffin recipe. Considering they have been doing this for quite a while now and with crimes and criminal cases appearing in court, if they had been involved in your day to day crime fighting, don't you think it is something that would have been picked up before now? Aside from that, what do you think they are doing with it all? I think he did what he did for his own reasons. But the whole 'there is more coming' thing he has going on now.. In China.. It is as if it is a bit of a dare to China. They can try and arrest him and seize his computer which would cause an even bigger diplomatic incident. Having said that, he has given them something to mull over in the meantime as he captivates the world with something everyone already knew was happening. Why would you seek political asylum in a Chinese territory/State? But he did make it. You don't make such a declaration and say 'well it wasn't a threat'. This is information he has. He has made himself a target. People will want that information. So he talks about how the US could send armed gangs after him, etc. So if anything happens to him, the implication will be that the US did it, whether they did or did not. However, if someone makes such a declaration, it places the lives of actual people at risk and yes, if he released it or if his words makes him a target of other States who wants that information, you don't think it makes him a traitor to his fellow citizens? The irony of his statement is that he declares he feels so strongly about the privacy of US citizens, yet, he openly declares he has seen or knows of the list of the US intelligence operatives and operations overseas, which could place the lives of those individuals and those they are working with in danger. He went much further than "the US is data mining" when he even suggested that. Everyone knew Obama was going to meet his Chinese counterpart and everyone knew one of the things on the discussion table was China's hacking of Government systems and US corporations. You think he should get involved in what is a civil war? Let me ask you something. Do you think Manning did a good thing in releasing the information about the crimes committed by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? I think he did. Because those soldiers were killing people and had quite literally, gotten away with murder. This is something completely different. Snowden has not really told the world what it did not already know. Unless of course Americans were stupid enough to believe that the Patriot Act would have resulted in dodgy looking dudes sitting in a car outside suspect's houses with a dish being held out the car window to listen in on what was being said inside... We live in an age where much of how we communicate is over the phone or over the net. How else would they be able to spy on people of interest but to do data sweeps to collect that information? Not saying it is right. I think it is obscene. But this shocked outrage seems stupid to me. Everyone already knew it was happening. It isn't really that shocking. As I said, you'd have to be downright stupid if you didn't know it was happening. The biggest irony of course is that he is in hiding in Hong Kong while alluding to the US murdering him or jailing him when they haven't even charged him with anything yet. Of course, they could charge him if he releases any names, places or information of interest about particular operations or operatives.. Which makes me curious as to what 'more is coming' will amount to.
