“‘We managed to survive greater threats in our history . . . than a few disorganized terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs. It is not that I do not value intelligence, but that I oppose . . . omniscient, automatic, mass surveillance. . . . That seems to me a greater threat to the institutions of free society than missed intelligence reports, and unworthy of the costs. Analysts (and government in general) aren’t bad guys, and they don’t want to think of themselves as such,’ he replied. But he said they labored under a false premise that ‘if a surveillance program produces information of value, it legitimizes it.'”
Related posts:
How a 1983 US-NATO war game came close to provoking nuclear attack
401(k) millionaires are bragging and posting their balances to social media
Cops. Cash. Cocaine. How Sunrise police make millions selling drugs.
Bin Laden son-in-law court appearance reignites debate over handling of terrorism cases
‘Creepy’ camera irks Platte City family
Are We Underestimating America's Fracking Boom?
Not All Insurers Game for State Exchanges: The Consumer Impact
Dutch woman arrested for ‘recruiting Syrian jihadists’ to fight alongside rebels
Ex-sheriff charged with drug distribution, selling guns from evidence
Argentina mulls benefits cut for dollar buyers
Diet sodas linked to higher risk of Type-2 diabetes in women
75-year-old soybean farmer sees Monsanto lawsuit reach U.S. Supreme Court
Federal Reserve likely to end QE stimulus program in October
$10 trillion IPO plan for Saudi Aramco confirmed
China market: Third-party e-payments top CNY1.5 trillion in 3Q13