GatewayRedbirds.com

I'm stil trying to digest this. Here are the different angles that I see:

This seems to be what most people are saying (at least the loud ones):
The whistle-blower is a hero

This is what the journalist who wrote the TV series The Wire had to say:
We are shocked, shocked...
Basically, he says this is the same thing law enforcement has been doing for decades (with of course wire taps and bugged phones), and that probable cause is still what is needed before they start reading or listening in on people.

This was another angle on it. Slate asks why the NSA allowed an I.T. contractor to see all of this data? He's not a spy or anywhere close to being law enforcement:
If the NSA trusted Edward Snowden with out data, why should we trust the NSA?

Personally, I think all the outrage is a good check against this scary power the NSA has. But I'm still not entirely convinced what the NSA was doing was necessarily "wrong". If they can prove they were going after people with probable cause and that is who they were ONLY going after, then it might be OK. Still, it's good to know their tactics. It may cause people to think twice before opening a social media account, and it may force some of these companies to change their privacy policies. It's not like this is the first time someone complained about Facebook's privacy policy.

Did anyone not know this stuff was going on? Isn't it funny how there is huge outrage now from the Fox news types yet when Bush was doing all this it was ok, patriotic, and fighting terror?

Kinda a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for entitles like NSA, CIA, and DOJ/POTUS. After the Boston bombings, there was a huge outcry of "why weren't you tracking these guys, seeing who they were calling, etc etc." But when it turns out that NSA is gathering a database of phone calls, so that they can obtain a warrant to search further when suspicious numbers link up, we're outraged. It's no big deal to mainstreet America when 87% of the people targeted in stop and frisk programs, like NYC's, are black or hispanic, or that blacks are twice as likely to be incarcerated for marijuana offenses as whites despite similar rates of marijuana usage. But when the specter that our phone number is in a vast database somewhere arises, we're outraged.

My conclusion is that racial profiling and warrantless searches are a-ok when it's someone else getting the hammer, but an outrage and civil rights violation when it's "me."

I'll try to not sound like a broken record. But, here's what I think.

America, the general populace, at some point needs to get their head out of their collective ass and answer this question: How much intrusion are we, as a nation, willing to allow in the name of safety? If we're okay with the government reading every last email and listening to every last phone call to thwart terrorism, then fine. Come out and say that, make it known, and set the policy. If we're not, then make it known and set the policy that the gov't doesn't have the power to intercept whatever they want under some vague probable cause that they'll determine themselves... Either way, the constant erosion of privacy in the name of security is annoying as it's being done in a shady way, imo. Let the people set the powers, whatever they may be as opposed to just doing it and covering it up or defending it if necessary

I agree AW and its frustrating for me to see it across party lines so thoroughly. IMO (again) with the things that matter, there isn't a hill of beans difference between right and left. This country is run almost as close to a one-party state as you can get with there being two 'parties'. Whatever the military brass and corporate CEO's want, they get. Every branch of government is co-opted to the extent necessary to maintain this status-quo. Sure, you've got some outlier like Cruz, Sanders, Paul, etc. but they are there to maintain the illusion.

I will believe this until I see elected greens or other moderates that effectively change the priorities of the country.

the general idea, no i don't care for it...but as others have said, this has been going on for some time before mr. obama came into office. it does seem pretty naive to think otherwise. plus, i dont think americans really care about privacy all that much. we put everything out there to begin with (facebook, twitter, grb, etc).

it really is a damned if you do/don't situation. if you don't and attacks/whatever happen you (administration/president/etc) are an idiot and hate freedom. if you do then you are trying to take over freedom. unfortunate we do not allow context anymore. its one side or the other. a winner and a loser. thats all we care about anymore.

Right. People need to figure it out.

And, they should likely look at facts and whatnot to do that...instead of spouting off some bull [expletive] party line.

Odds of being killed by a terrorist? I don't know, maybe a little better than 1 in a million in any given year. This is skewed by starting in the year 2001 and going forward. But, whatever. Odds of being struck by lightning? 1 in 700,000.

There are legit questions that need to be answered though. Are terrorist attacks in America something of grave concern? That is, if the patriot act and all electronic surveillance stopped, would America be in danger of more attacks like 9/11? More attacks like Boston? Maybe more attacks on public transportation? I don't know the answer. But, the question needs to be asked. And an honest assessment needs to be made. If stopping surveillance will move the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack to more like 1 in 100K, meaning about 3500 people are being killed a year, then yeah, surveillance is a necessary evil. But, if the odds stay better than or equal to about 1 in a million (they're like 1 in a hundred million since 2011) , then I would argue all this intrusion and surveillance is unwarranted.

Have terrorist attacks stopped because they've been busy fighting a war overseas vs America? Because they didn't have any more plans to attack America? Because the surveillance measures in America have thwarted them? Combination?

So let's say the govt is listening to your phone calls, wouldn't you not have anything to worry about unless you were actually saying radical crap about over throwing the govt? So the people outraged, are they outraged because they are a threat to the rest of us?

Which btw in the case of the Alex Jones types, the answer is yes, they are a threat to us because they coax crazies to believe the govt is out to get them. Those crazies then go do things like blow up buildings and shoot innocent people.

The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it as long as they are using this info and then drone striking Alex Jones types.

IMADreamer wrote:So let's say the govt is listening to your phone calls, wouldn't you not have anything to worry about unless you were actually saying radical crap about over throwing the govt? So the people outraged, are they outraged because they are a threat to the rest of us?

Which btw in the case of the Alex Jones types, the answer is yes, they are a threat to us because they coax crazies to believe the govt is out to get them. Those crazies then go do things like blow up buildings and shoot innocent people.

The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with it as long as they are using this info and then drone striking Alex Jones types.

Sure - now. But once you let that happens, what happens when somebody gets in charge who feels disparaging remarks about their party/self/cause is seditious enough? Its a slippery slope.

IMADreamer wrote:So let's say the govt is listening to your phone calls, wouldn't you not have anything to worry about unless you were actually saying radical crap about over throwing the govt? So the people outraged, are they outraged because they are a threat to the rest of us?

The "you shouldn't care about it unless you're doing something illegal" type argument is a treacherous path to take. Otherwise, why not throw away the 4th amendment altogether? While I don't think the government cares enough to pry into the phone/email conversations about random [expletive], the problem is any oversight of the program is going to be under wraps (though for good reason). How confident are we that this power won't be abused? The recent IRS audit scandal isn't helping assuage fears in that regard.