Why is it bad for the NSA to spy on us?

You have malicious intentions because you just want to "prove me wrong", but the matter of the fact is that the government and federal agencies can be trusted.

>the government and federal agencies can be trusted
How do you know for sure?

nice pasta

It violates our rights as citizens, not only that, it was set up illegally and has set a precedence for further violations.

I heard that every attack the NSA stopped was stopped by good old fashioned undercover investigation. All the mass surveillance didn't do shit. It's too much data, too much noise and the algorithms that are supposed to filter the shit don't work. It's frankly just an insult to our intelligence. But looking at America there's not much of that going around so maybe not.

user, it wasn't that long of a post. Don't know why you're saying it's a pasta.

because its what Glenn Greenwald said ?

Personally I don't think there is a lot that is wrong down to the individual level, but the fact that people know it exists and willingly abide by it without thinking twice is the root of the problem.

It's not what he said, it's just the same argument.

I'll take
>federal agencies can be trusted
for $500, Alex.

What are cointelpro and mkultra?

...

nope its great, patriotic and uh "freedom"
>nothing to investigate here

We've had lots of attacks since the NSA was created and none were prevented.

A lot of the terrorists were on watch lists but still managed to attack.

Make no mistake about it, That surveillance is for you and me not terrorists.

>Think of all the bombings they've stopped!
lol, better think of all the bombing they organized

Gotta keep those tax dollars comin' in!

My mom actually thinks it's a good thing

It's not bad that they spy on us, so much... It's more that they do it by building backdoors; compromising everyone's security.

those are exceptions

If the NSA is so good how come rich dicks fuck everyone in the ass and getaway with it?

They're protecting us though

>NSA employee morale is at all time low
t. Snow...Traitor

>>the fact is that the government and federal agencies can be trusted.

What the fuck gives you that idea?

>>but the matter of the fact is
>>that the government and federal agencies can be trusted.

If you are gonna shill at least do it well.

What are they paying you? $12.50/hr?

Think of all the bombings they paid for you mean

You're a moron.

Joke
^
Head.

The truth is that the absurdities people believe in isn't always an ironic joke. Police state shills believe it.

Cred Forums are Trumps most dedicated supporters. There's some great irony there.

Your*

Which ones?
Note that one's solved with regular old warrants don't count

>Cred Forums are Trumps most dedicated supporters

Those are called 'newfags.'

I bet you actually think you're correct.

...

I've only seen about a half of the documents this nigga supposedly leaked, so I ain't no expert on the matter.
Can someone plz explain how exactly they're spying on us?
All I've seen is a bunch of data collecting and analyzing programs, and some hardware for side channel attacks on individual equipment.

...

False equivalence

How so? Not trolling, just want to see you go at it. I'll keep an open mind.

The logic of the analogy is this:
>if you have something to hide, you need privacy
>if you have something to say, you need free speech

You obviously failed at analogies in elementary school English class if you don't understand this.

I just don't care to put too much toward it, because it didn't trigger any internal inaccuracy. I read it as:

> Regardless of if you have something to hide or not, you have a right to privacy
> Regardless of if you have anything to say or not, you have a right to say it

And not all things that people want to hide are nefarious. For instance, a right to privacy could constitute a desire to keep government peepers from seeing how much beer I buy. It's not a lot, but if the NSA were to start gathering data on financial transactions at the grocery store to watch for patters that could be related to terrorism, that same info could be used one day in a custody battle. Or if the government decided it wanted to levy tax breaks for healthcare based on general health, and wanted to inspect the data to see what kind of diet I maintain. That's private information, and there's no reason the government should have access to it.

So, I may not have anything to hide, per se, but I desire my privacy because I have no assurances on how this data could be used to discriminate against me later. I think there are a lot of similar examples that others may have rounded out more effectively, mine is off the top of my head so I'm sure it's not up to your post elementary school education. It just seems to me like you're implying things the speaker wasn't, or simplifying something to confine it into a box that it doesn't belong in.

The point I was making is that limiting the ability to hide and limiting the ability to have free speech are rights that should not be taken away.
See Ben Franklin:

Or maybe this would be better, because the real issue is that your implication is backward:

> You have freedom of speech, because you are a person with things to say
> You have privacy, because you are a person with a private life

It's the rights that should come first, because the way they are protected is that they are basic human rights. These rights are given to protect people from government overreaching, not the other way around. They are implicit, so saying (as you do):

> reason for right, I need this right
> reason for other right, I need this right too

is backward thinking. It's more:
> I have these rights to protect me, this is how it protects me
> I have this other right to protect me, and this is how it does so

Wait, that's an even weirder sentence.

> limiting the ability to hide and limiting the ability to have free speech are rights
Are you saying limiting rights is a right? Who's right is it, and who is trying to take it away?

>The point I was making is that the ability to hide and the ability to have free speech are rights that should not be taken away.

I just noticed that.

>fixed

Then I don't understand. How is the equivalence of the Snowden quote broken? You believe in the idea that he's trying to convey, just disagree with how he said it, right?

Can you rephrase it to make it a positive equivalence that supports the right to both privacy and free speech, so I can see what you mean?

What I see when I see the quote:
> I have nothing to hide, I don't need privacy
> I have nothing to day, I don't need freedom of speech

In both these instances, it's the intent of the speaker that would have to change in order to alter their stance. Eg. If a person decides they have something to say, they will appreciate their opportunity to do so. Similarly, if a person suddenly realizes that they have a need for totally legitimate data to be private, not because they are doing something illegal, but because they don't like the government knowing they are struggling with depression or something, they will appreciate their right to privacy.

It seems like a legitimate analogy that bridges the gap between (or relates) the abstract idea of "data" that people know the government is collecting to an integral right that's more tangible or deep. An American understands when the right for freedom of speech would benefit them, and wouldn't easily give it up. Tying the two together as rights in this way helps to make that "data" that seems harmless now have a more real feel to it. It brings it into the context of general rights, regardless of intent behind infringing on those rights.

> I have nothing to say, I don't need freedom of speech

Sorry

>fixed

But I have something to say so I need free speech. Yet, I have nothing to hide, but I still deserve the ability to choose in case I have something I want to say anonymously. I don't mean posting with the word "Anonymous" next to the post, I mean true anonymity, where Google isn't allowed to invade my privacy and keep records of the free speech I've exercised.

I just reversed it as rhetoric.

The way Snowden says it, if you don't follow the logic of the first sentence about privacy, it applies to the logic of the second sentence about free speech.

user-sama for President

Serfdom here we come

SAGE REPORT HIDE
NSA shills need to leave

...

fucking kek