This is a rambling stream of non-sequiturs and misleading statements. A key pull quote is "The NSA is not a law enforcement agency."
So? From the motto "We track 'em, you whack 'em" to parallel construction, we already know that's not a meaningful distinction. Then, ramble ramble ramble... we come to how North Korea is sufficient justification for a Cold War era budget for snooping. What?
Is this the best an NSA analyst can come up with? TL;DR: Claims of good intentions, feigned boredom about your emails (unless some software flags them), North Korea, and "we're not the cops?" This is very very weak.
5 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadhttp://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/RedSea.html
God says... pages Be toment Royalties holdest shortly stanza male straying embrace enacteth Elect availed plant putting mariners chambers unformed marriage let's what's_the_plan over-abound well-beloved despise obscure corresponding likely uttereth fail thinking denied predicted nothing kindness artifice obtained abler
The fact that it can be viewed at all is the problem. Someone else doesn't get to decide for me what is private information and what isn't.
And the NSA can decide who is of interest, of course, so for me "entities of interest" and "Everyone" is the same.
I could just say that I don't care since I have nothing to hide, but I am concerned.
Your article did not convince me of the need to monitor the whole Earth communications for intelligence just because the law allows it.
So? From the motto "We track 'em, you whack 'em" to parallel construction, we already know that's not a meaningful distinction. Then, ramble ramble ramble... we come to how North Korea is sufficient justification for a Cold War era budget for snooping. What?
Is this the best an NSA analyst can come up with? TL;DR: Claims of good intentions, feigned boredom about your emails (unless some software flags them), North Korea, and "we're not the cops?" This is very very weak.