Between the UK and US governments, its 'game over' without extraordinary attempts, the type of thing the average person would be unlikely to do you can assume they've penetrated or can penetrate every aspect of your digital life.
Huh? So, there is always hope for the future - maybe some of those in the FBI and NSA will focus on the the current power structure (rich jew decision makers and lackeys)- the show must go on.
No. The article says Trump's nominees probably want more powers. The only bill under consideration is S.3475 which is being delayed to allow more debate. A more honest title would be "We Hypothesize How Trump Will Be Awful But The Only Evidence We Provide Suggests Spying Powers Might Actually Grow Slower Than Under Obama"
Surveillance is run by the executive branch. Without whistleblowers we wouldnt even know it exists. No one is going to say "we are now expanding surveillance on you." I think it's completely fair for journalists to speculate what will be done "poised" based on politicians past statements.
Would you rather 'things happen' before anyone reacts and there is no discussion till then? What's the point of a comment like this.
The exact same kind of statement was made on HN a week ago about the grotesque snooper law in the UK and well now its law. And this is not new. There is a clear trend in process for years now.
Why would any citizen under threat from these kind of laws that shift tremendous powers to the state and take an irreversible step toward totalitarian outcomes make these diminishing dismissive statements?
I am not dismissing the NSA or mass surveillance. I'm dismissing the title, which implies that specific new powers are about to be implemented. In fact, nothing has even been proposed yet; the author just speculates about what might be proposed in the indefinite future. A better title might be, eg., "Trump Appointees Might Propose More NSA Surveillance", or "Some Powers The NSA Might Gain Under Trump".
Yep cheap journalism designed to go after emotions. This is the same cheap journalism the media used during the election as well. In fact this is the mainstream media's stock and trade now. Bloomberg didn't used to be like this.
Not that I'm not seriously concerned about the subject because I am. I'm just commenting on the journalism or lack thereof here.
So are we just supposed to wait 2-6 years until the next Snowden leaks something on what's changed since Obama? It seems fair to me to speculate on what Trump administration is "poised" to do based on officials' positions and past statements. Would "Trump poised to deport illegal immigrants" be unfair because he hasn't actually done it yet?
Again I am saying that the subject is not important. I find Trump very worrisome like many others. I am commenting on the journalism. For instance:
"A first challenge for privacy advocates comes this week: A new rule is set to go into effect on Dec. 1 letting the FBI get permission from a judge in a single jurisdiction to hack into multiple computers whose locations aren’t known."
This is happening on Obama's watch and has nothing to do with Trump. Yet the article's headline is connected to Trump. Also words like "poised" and "may" both used in important parts of the article are not the same as stating facts.
I might be way off base in saying this, but I don't find it is simply convenient that FBI played what appears to have been a significant role in getting Trump elected, and will subsequently benefit greatly because of it.
What I think they fail to see is their short-sightedness (for short-term gain) is exactly the kind of mindset that appears to have caused the country to be on the cusp of an extremely turbulent time in history.
> The FBI, National Security Agency and CIA are likely to gain expanded surveillance powers under President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, a prospect that has privacy advocates and some lawmakers trying to mobilize opposition.
Why didn't these arsehats do anything the past EIGHT YEARS as Obama expanded surveillance!!!???
19 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadThe exact same kind of statement was made on HN a week ago about the grotesque snooper law in the UK and well now its law. And this is not new. There is a clear trend in process for years now.
Why would any citizen under threat from these kind of laws that shift tremendous powers to the state and take an irreversible step toward totalitarian outcomes make these diminishing dismissive statements?
Not that I'm not seriously concerned about the subject because I am. I'm just commenting on the journalism or lack thereof here.
"A first challenge for privacy advocates comes this week: A new rule is set to go into effect on Dec. 1 letting the FBI get permission from a judge in a single jurisdiction to hack into multiple computers whose locations aren’t known."
This is happening on Obama's watch and has nothing to do with Trump. Yet the article's headline is connected to Trump. Also words like "poised" and "may" both used in important parts of the article are not the same as stating facts.
However, I do believe surveillance would have continued to expand under HRC, also.
Why didn't these arsehats do anything the past EIGHT YEARS as Obama expanded surveillance!!!???