Text Messages Show CIA Deployed Personnel Domestically to D.C. on Jan. 6

[Sharky1203]

I was genuinely curious as to your thoughts on this, but I guess you're not in the sharing mood.

I do not know much about the CIA, and am very comfortable saying so.

Sorry, so many people on here don't want to actual discuss anything. I've dealt with them many years ago. They are anything but a stand-up operation. There are people in the CIA that are good, most are spooks and power hungry. Bush 1 is a prime example.

 

[seminole97]

Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either.

Columbia Journalism Review

Is the media attention span really so short that they forget that New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer prize in 2006 for exposing Bush’s illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program that was headed up by none other than Michael Hayden, the agency’s director at the time?

You can point to any of his countless appearances on television and in print where this inconvenient fact is avoided at all costs, but this Business Insider video takes the cake. In it, Hayden can be seen, in his usual folksy manner, claiming it’s “it couldn’t happen.” A president could never order someone be wiretapped. He states:

“The president of the United States does not have the authority to authorize electronic surveillance. The authority was taken away from him in the 1970s with the great intelligence reforms of that era. The only institution of the US government that can now authorize surveillance against a US person is the United States court system.”

Let’s review what happened right after 9/11 and see how it stands up to what Hayden says: In October 2001, President Bush called up Michael Hayden at the NSA and asked him what more the NSA could do to conduct surveillance in the US, despite the NSA operating for years exclusively as a foreign intelligence collection agency. In fact, the administration literally called it the “President’s Surveillance Program.” (In other words, the president was directly “authorizing electronic surveillance.”)

Hayden proceeded to set up a program where the NSA collected all the phone records of everyone in the United States, and targeted untold number of US persons for wiretapping the content of their international phone calls and emails (“surveillance” by anyone’s definition).

The White House and NSA did all this while not getting individual court orders and initially circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (also known as the FISC, part of “the US court system” Hayden references). That was in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (often referred to as FISA, which was part of the “great intelligence reforms of the 1970s” Hayden professed his fondness for).

So literally every sentence he uttered there was, at best, completely misleading, and at worst, a blatant falsehood, given it’s exactly what he carried out under President Bush.

It should be noted that after The New York Times story broke in 2005, instead of prosecutions for those involved, Congress later passed the FISA Amendments Act, which essentially allowed the type of wiretapping Hayden’s NSA engaged in, as long as the stated “target” was outside the US. Congress also gave telecommunications companies like AT&T complete immunity for helping the government break the law. And Hayden was promoted.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

If a little torturous is needed.. I would trust the CIA to do it.

Just wait until it's your turn comrade and we will see how much you approve.

 

[seminole97]

I am a little entertained that your knowledge base now extends beyond knowing all the it's and outs of global politics to now include what's happening inside my head. So, thanks for that.

If you claim to not understand the threat behind the statement "get back at you", there's no much happening in that head of note.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Columbia Journalism Review

Is the media attention span really so short that they forget that New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer prize in 2006 for exposing Bush’s illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program that was headed up by none other than Michael Hayden, the agency’s director at the time?

You can point to any of his countless appearances on television and in print where this inconvenient fact is avoided at all costs, but this Business Insider video takes the cake. In it, Hayden can be seen, in his usual folksy manner, claiming it’s “it couldn’t happen.” A president could never order someone be wiretapped. He states:


Let’s review what happened right after 9/11 and see how it stands up to what Hayden says: In October 2001, President Bush called up Michael Hayden at the NSA and asked him what more the NSA could do to conduct surveillance in the US, despite the NSA operating for years exclusively as a foreign intelligence collection agency. In fact, the administration literally called it the “President’s Surveillance Program.” (In other words, the president was directly “authorizing electronic surveillance.”)

Hayden proceeded to set up a program where the NSA collected all the phone records of everyone in the United States, and targeted untold number of US persons for wiretapping the content of their international phone calls and emails (“surveillance” by anyone’s definition).

The White House and NSA did all this while not getting individual court orders and initially circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (also known as the FISC, part of “the US court system” Hayden references). That was in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (often referred to as FISA, which was part of the “great intelligence reforms of the 1970s” Hayden professed his fondness for).

So literally every sentence he uttered there was, at best, completely misleading, and at worst, a blatant falsehood, given it’s exactly what he carried out under President Bush.

It should be noted that after The New York Times story broke in 2005, instead of prosecutions for those involved, Congress later passed the FISA Amendments Act, which essentially allowed the type of wiretapping Hayden’s NSA engaged in, as long as the stated “target” was outside the US. Congress also gave telecommunications companies like AT&T complete immunity for helping the government break the law. And Hayden was promoted.

and?

Do you think those agencies are still doing what they did back then?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

If you claim to not understand the threat behind the statement "get back at you", there's no much happening in that head of note.

Yes, no much of note indeed.

 

[Scruddy]

If you think in reality the President runs the CIA you're a gullible person.

Never forget chuck schumer's public warning to trump about crossing the intelligence community and what they can/will do to you in response.

 

[B1GDeal]

Typical Scud. Just asking questions. Nothing more. Not going to articulate his position, just posting because.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Haven't watched Fox news in minutes, but great job of projecting. 8/10 on that.

FIFY

 

[seminole97]

and?

I appreciate how I highlight them breaking the law and your response is, "and?"

Not a rebuttal, just the expectation it should be ok when these agencies break the law and lie to Congress?

Do you think those agencies are still doing what they did back then?

I wouldn't trust Michael Hayden to give a straight answer to that question.


The FISA Court was more direct in a 99-page April 26, 2017 unsealed FISA Court Ruling.

On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court. Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a written submission regarding those compliance problems…and the Court held a hearing to address them.

The government reported that it was working to ascertain the cause(s) of those compliance problems and develop a remedial plan to address them. Without further information about the compliance problems and the government’s remedial efforts, the Court was not in a position to assess whether the minimization procedures would comply with the statutory standards and were consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

But that still doesn’t begin to describe the breadth and scope of what occurred.

It wasn’t the Obama Administration that self-disclosed before the FISA Court on October 24 and 26, 2016.

It was National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers. And he deserves a medal for his efforts.

Here’s what actually happened:

On January 7, 2016, the NSA Inspector General, George Ellard, released a report on NSA Controls & FISA compliance. Starting on page ii:

Agency controls for monitoring query compliance have not been completely developed.

The Agency has no process to reliably identify queries performed using selectors associated with 704 and 705(b) targets.

The rest of the highlights are fully redacted. But more information lay within the report (pages 6-7):

We identified another [redacted] queries that were performed outside the targeting authorization periods in E.O. 12333 data, which is prohibited by the E.O. 12333 minimization procedures. We also identified queries performed using USP selectors in FAA §702 upstream data, which is prohibited by the FAA §702 minimization procedures.

Downstream collection involves the government acquiring data from the companies providing service to the user – like Google or Facebook.

However, some Section 702 collection is obtained via “upstream” collection.

In simple parlance, upstream collection means the NSA accesses the high capacity fiber optic cables that carry Internet traffic and copies all the data flowing through those cables.

The agency is then supposed to filter out any “wholly domestic” communications that are between Americans located in the U.S.

Data collected “incidentally” on U.S. Citizens is generally not destroyed. It is minimized. As we will see later, this became a problem.

Intelligence Agencies can then search the data using “To”, “From” or “About” queries on a target of Section 702 collection.

“About” queries are particularly worrisome.

They occur when the target is neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication – but the target’s selector, such as an email address, is being passed between two other communicants.

For more information see, FISA Surveillance – Title I & III and Section 702.

“About” queries were abruptly halted by NSA Director Mike Rogers on October 20, 2016. This was formally announced by the NSA on April 28, 2017.
...

The Inspector General’s Report is heavily redacted – but even a casual reading indicates there were significant compliance and control issues within the NSA regarding the use of Section 702 data.

It’s unclear if NSA Director Rogers discovered the 702 violations and reported them in early 2015, or if it was the Inspector General who found them. Either way, Rogers became aware of Section 702 violations sometime in 2015.

Following NSA Inspector General Ellard’s report, Rogers implemented a tightening of internal rules at the NSA.

However, the NSA Inspector General’s report and Roger’s tightening of internal rules did not halt the Query Compliance Problems.

Outside Agencies – specifically the DOJ’s National Security Division and the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division – were still routinely violating Section 702 procedures.

In 2015, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz (not to be confused with NSA IG Ellard) specifically requested oversight of the National Security Division. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded with a 58 page Memorandum, that effectively told the Inspector General to go pound sand.

As noted earlier, John Carlin was the Head of the DOJ’s National Security Division and was responsible for filing the Government’s proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications.

This filing would be subject to intense criticism from the FISA Court following disclosures made by NSA Director Rogers. Significant changes to the handling of raw FISA data would result.

Bill Priestap remains the Head of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division – appointed by FBI Director Comey in December 2015. See: FBI Counterintelligence Head Bill Priestap – A Cooperating Witness.

Here is a summary of events taken from the FISA Court Ruling and Senate Testimony.

In March of 2016, NSA Director Rogers became aware of improper access to raw FISA data (Page 83 of Court Ruling).

In April of 2016, Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to conduct a “fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702” (Senate testimony & Page 83-84 of Court Ruling).

On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information – specifically outside contractors working for the FBI. The discovery that outside contractors were accessing raw FISA data is probably the event that precipitated Rogers ordering a full compliance review (Page 84 of Court Ruling).

 

[alaskanseminole]

I appreciate how I highlight them breaking the law and your response is, "and?"

The "and" is because I have no clue what point you or the person who wrote the OP is trying to make? I don't see the correlation to a CIA bomb technician and foreign or US surveillance. Unless I completely missed something, it's an apple and an orange.

How is assessing and possibly disarming a pipe bomb have anything to do with surveillance. Again, if I missed something where the CIA was called into the Capitol to conduct surveillance on US persons, I apologize.

 

[B1GDeal]

The "and" is because I have no clue what point you or the person who wrote the OP is trying to make? I don't see the correlation to a CIA bomb technician and foreign or US surveillance. Unless I completely missed something, it's an apple and an orange.

How is assessing and possibly disarming a pipe bomb have anything to do with surveillance. Again, if I missed something where the CIA was called into the Capitol to conduct surveillance on US persons, I apologize.

It’s doesn’t. Don’t feed the troll.

 

[chonk]

I'm sorry, are you literally saying you have a problem with the CIA sending bomb squads and bomb sniffing dogs to the US capitol when it was being overrun by domestic terrorists? This is the line you draw? You have no problem with the people actually trying to overthrow the government and the cult leader that whipped them into a frenzy, but you have problems with highly trained professionals trying to protect lives.

Dude. You. Are. In. A. Cult.

Sensationalize much…

Dude. You. Are. In. A. Cult.

 

[seminole97]

The "and" is because I have no clue what point you or the person who wrote the OP is trying to make?

I responded specifically to your allegation, quoted it even: "Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either."

That may be the law, but has demonstrably not been the practice.

We've never been told who the FBI "contractors" were that were making searches on raw FISA data while the FBI was busy falsifying evidence to obtain a FISC warrant on Trump's campaign.
We've just been told it was stopped.

 

[alaskanseminole]

I responded specifically to your allegation, quoted it even: "Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either."

That may be the law, but has demonstrably not been the practice.

We've never been told who the FBI "contractors" were that were making searches on raw FISA data while the FBI was busy falsifying evidence to obtain a FISC warrant on Trump's campaign.
We've just been told it was stopped.

How much time have you spent working within the intelligence community?

And even my question has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. This Thread should have absolutely nothing to do with surveillance and collection.

 

[ericram]

Just wait until it's your turn comrade and we will see how much you approve.

I am not worried. I have unique skills.

 

[seminole97]

How much time have you spent working within the intelligence community?

Less than our government has spent performing illegal searches on raw FISA data.

See pages 6 & 7 of the IG's report.

And even my question has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. This Thread should have absolutely nothing to do with surveillance and collection.

You made a demonstrably false assertion that they hadn't collected info on Americans.
Then you followed it up with this, "Do you think those agencies are still doing what they did back then?"
So showed you that yes, according to the IG's report, even after those revelations in 2006 a decade later they were still conducting illegal searches against Americans.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, have you considered working for the government?

 

[alaskanseminole]

Less than our government has spent performing illegal searches on raw FISA data.

Man, you have a real beef with the IC. I can't help but wonder if you're equally upset with Google, Amazon, etc. who have collected 100x the data on you.

You made a demonstrably false assertion that they hadn't collected info on Americans.

Nope. That's absolutely NOT what I said. My exact quote was, "Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either."

What I said is a 100% factual statement. There are laws, procedures, and protocols in place; more so now than any time in history, to prevent that (from being conducted illegally). It doesn't mean that crimes cannot be committed, though. Do you think the CIA committed a crime on January 6th? If so, what crime did they commit and what evidence do you have of such crime.

BTW, COMINT and SIGINT collection today is nothing like what it was in 2006 and prior. You have no idea what it takes to put a U.S. person or a person within the U.S. on task. Zero.

...have you considered working for the government?

Yes, I was an Intelligence Analyst for the Air Force and NSA cumulatively for 27 years.

 

[LBoogie28]

How much time have you spent working within the intelligence community?

I will answer this directly for them: 0.00 hrs

 

[seminole97]

Man, you have a real beef with the IC. I can't help but wonder if you're equally upset with Google, Amazon, etc. who have collected 100x the data on you.

Does the 4th amendment apply to Google?

Nope. That's absolutely NOT what I said. My exact quote was, "Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either."

Are the scare quotes around collect because the NSA's definition of "collect" differs from how anyone would use the word in a conventional sense?

ACLU

Although Congress intended Section 702 to be used for counterterrorism purposes, it’s frequently used today to pursue domestic investigations of all kinds. Both the FBI and CIA have access to some of the raw data produced by this surveillance, and they increasingly use that access to examine the private communications of Americans they are investigating — all without a warrant.

FBI agents routinely run searches looking for information about Americans as part of criminal investigations, including those that have nothing to do with national security. Based on transparency reporting, agents have conducted millions of these U.S. person queries — also known as “backdoor searches” — in recent years. The only limitation on backdoor searches is that they must be “reasonably likely” to retrieve foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.

The standard for conducting backdoor searches is so low that, without any showing of suspicion, an FBI agent can type in an American’s name, email address, or phone number, and pull up whatever communications the FBI’s Section 702 collection has vacuumed into its databases over the past five years. These searches are a free pass for accessing constitutionally protected communications that would otherwise be off-limits to the FBI, unless it got a warrant.

Evidence that agents have refused to comply with this low bar for conducting searches has piled up. Agents have violated the FBI’s own rules over and over, accessing Americans’ private communications without any legitimate purpose. They have dipped into Section 702 data for information about relatives, potential witnesses and informants, journalists, political commentators, and government officials, including a member of Congress.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Are the scare quotes around collect because the NSA's definition of "collect" differs from how anyone would use the word in a conventional sense?

I didn't type them as "scare" quotes. The IC scares you, so you read them as scare quotes.

You've been watching too much TV. You think every time Jack Bauer calls Cloe and she gives him immediate access to intel on U.S. persons, that it's the IC's SOP.

Can you walk me through the process to put what is considered a "US Person" under a collection tasking? Also, please define a "US Person". After that, I still want to know what crime you think the CIA committed on Jan 6th. You must think they committed one, because you're bringing up a topic that has zilch to do with their claimed presence on that date.

 

[seminole97]

I didn't type them as "scare" quotes.

Then why did you bother with the quotes?
What did you mean by it that you felt it necessary to needlessly bracket the word in quotes?
Does the NSA not store metadata on American communications?

You've been watching too much TV.

No, I've read the IG's report on how FBI contractors were querying raw FISA data.
What TV show talks about that?

You think every time Jack Bauer calls Cloe and she gives him immediate access to intel on U.S. persons, that it's the IC's SOP.

No, I'm citing the IG's report on how the FBI abused its access to query raw upstream NSA data.
Not sure why you've confused that with a tv show.
This just comes across as weak deflection from the IG's report on the government's misbehavior.

Can you walk me through the process to put what is considered a "US Person" under a collection tasking? Also, please define a "US Person".

It helps to have a lawyer at the FBI falsify evidence.
Barring that, you can just do what the guys cited in the IG's report did and just ignore the procedures.

"US Person"? Truly an inscrutable notion that no mere mortal should attempt to define. What do the gods say, or at least the NSA lawyers?
You're not going to do the Bill Clinton thing where you debate the meaning of "is" next, are you?

After that, I still want to know what crime you think the CIA committed on Jan 6th. You must think they committed one, because you're bringing up a topic that has zilch to do with their claimed presence on that date.

Again, my response was push back on your assertion the IC isn't collecting data on Americans.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Man, you have a real beef with the IC. I can't help but wonder if you're equally upset with Google, Amazon, etc. who have collected 100x the data on you.

Nope. That's absolutely NOT what I said. My exact quote was, "Furthermore, the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. cannot just "collect" information on U.S. citizens either."

What I said is a 100% factual statement. There are laws, procedures, and protocols in place; more so now than any time in history, to prevent that (from being conducted illegally). It doesn't mean that crimes cannot be committed, though. Do you think the CIA committed a crime on January 6th? If so, what crime did they commit and what evidence do you have of such crime.

BTW, COMINT and SIGINT collection today is nothing like what it was in 2006 and prior. You have no idea what it takes to put a U.S. person or a person within the U.S. on task. Zero.


Yes, I was an Intelligence Analyst for the Air Force and NSA cumulatively for 27 years.

What they cannot do and what they do are one in the same. the above-named agencies are just as corrupt as the people they allegedly claim they investigate.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Then why did you bother with the quotes?
What did you mean by it that you felt it necessary to needlessly bracket the word in quotes?

I was quoting the word "collection" back at the OP in a sarcastic and irritated way because the reason the author of the OP claimed the CIA was there, "...CIA bomb technicians assisting with pipe bombs found near the RNC and DNC headquarters, as well as several CIA dog teams standing by" has absolutely nothing to do with "domestic spying" and/or "collection". I also put it in quotes because the real concern isn't "collection", it's "targeting." There's a difference in passive collection and targeting.

Barring that, you can just do what the guys cited in the IG's report did and just ignore the procedures.

The more I read your angst, I think your beef is more with government officials who leverage their position to gain access to information they should not be accessing which, again, is illegal, than the IC itself. What illegal measures people (like the FBI in your example) take to circumvent law and procedures is out of my control.

I think the part any average citizen misses when they only have access to findings in redacted reports is context. If you called me tomorrow and said, "Dude, I think my wife is cheating on me. Can you look up her emails?" An NSA analyst can't just bring up a screen and hit search. That's not how it works. A lot goes into putting a target on task and there are procedures put in place when/if a US target is inadvertently collected on. (and I'm putting that very generically--30K foot level).

Lastly, you also have to take into account there are things I just can't say. That may seem like a cop out, but need I remind you I'm not like the a-hat who disclosed classified information to some random "woman" on a dating site.

 

[seminole97]

The more I read your angst, I think your beef is more with government officials who leverage their position to gain access to information they should not be accessing which, again, is illegal, than the IC itself. What illegal measures people (like the FBI in your example) take to circumvent law and procedures is out of my control.

My point is they ‘collect’ on Americans, and unscrupulous people (never to be confused with the right, honorable, Alaskanseminole) do search it illegally.
I didn’t get these ideas from TV.

I think the part any average citizen misses when they only have access to findings in redacted reports is context. If you called me tomorrow and said, "Dude, I think my wife is cheating on me. Can you look up her emails?" An NSA analyst can't just bring up a screen and hit search. That's not how it works. A lot goes into putting a target on task and there are procedures put in place when/if a US target is inadvertently collected on. (and I'm putting that very generically--30K foot level).

And yet:

NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog​

September 27, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls of their current or former spouses and lovers in the past decade, according to the intelligence agency's internal watchdog.

The practice is known in intelligence world shorthand as "LOVEINT" and was disclosed by the NSA Office of the Inspector General in response to a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Charles Grassley for a report on abuses of the NSA's surveillance authority.


So I hope you can understand why my trust is strained at this stage of the game.

 

[jonesy5960]

This, this is the thing that has you freaked out about January 6, 2021.

This.

You people......

 

[alaskanseminole]

NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog​

September 27, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least a dozen U.S. National Security Agency employees have been caught using secret government surveillance tools to spy on the emails or phone calls of their current or former spouses and lovers in the past decade, according to the intelligence agency's internal watchdog.

The practice is known in intelligence world shorthand as "LOVEINT" and was disclosed by the NSA Office of the Inspector General in response to a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Charles Grassley for a report on abuses of the NSA's surveillance authority.


So I hope you can understand why my trust is strained at this stage of the game.

Yup. That is one of the case examples in our training. The protocols in place now are significantly better than decades past. We even have cell phone detection systems. It's not uncommon to be sitting at your desk and see a security team rapidly approach looking for a person with a cell phone.

So I hope you can understand why my trust is strained at this stage of the game.

I think your mistrust is hyper inflated, though. Do you mistrust teachers (in general) because of all the cases of inappropriate sexual conduct? Do you mistrust youth pastors for the same reason? What about cops? I've said this many times before anyone is capable of evil and in this case, anyone is capable of criminal activity.

My point is, don't think of the IC as some sort of rogue element that sits around collecting data on US citizens. That isn't the case by a long shot and every time someone circumvents policy, they find another way to instill better protections. Resulting in the most comprehensive and strenuous training program I've ever been privy to.

God's honest truth, when I was offered to return to AT&T in 2021 after 2 years at NSA the first thing that entered my mind was, "Thank God! No more training!" My daughter works at NSA-Washington. She asked me why on earth there was so much training. I told her because people keep screwing things up. It's quite literally the definition of "Why we can't have nice things."

Additionally, I apologize if I'm defensive. You're not the only person I've had these conversations with. I take National Security very seriously and have built a career on it. I worked with NSA professionals who have been doing "God's work" for over 3 decades. Some of the stories my pals from the narcotics division has told me would blow your mind. We have several on-staff shrinks on campus for a reason. There are some really evil people out there and the IC, over-all, is in place to do great things.

 

[IACub]

Sensationalize much…

Dude. You. Are. In. A. Cult.

What did I sensationalize? People went to prison for their roles in the riot and a pipe bomb was found, which is why bomb squads were called in. Congressmen feared for their safety. A woman was shot and killed because she was determined to be a clear and present danger. January 6 was an attempt to deny the government certifying Biden as President. That was the goal. What part of that is sensationalism?

 

[NewVicHawkeye]

Our Capitol was being defiled while the CIC sat around giggling for several hours. Someone needed to take action.

 

[ISUBryceC]

I guess in a national emergency I have zero problem with a trained bomb squad being deployed in an effort to save lives no matter what the jurisdiction is.

 

[seminole97]

I've said this many times before anyone is capable of evil and in this case, anyone is capable of criminal activity.

Aye, then it’s a question of what power do they have.

She asked me why on earth there was so much training. I told her because people keep screwing things up. It's quite literally the definition of "Why we can't have nice things."

Hence my angst.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Aye, then it’s a question of what power do they have.

That would be the real question in 2024. From personal experience I know I wouldn't be able to misuse the system for personal exploitation, at least not alone. I would need some accomplices...and even so, it wouldn't be long before our internal auditing systems catch me. Again, I have to talk very generically. There's also the case where data is being stored and who is collecting it, which likely isn't completely what you think.

 

[seminole97]

There's also the case where data is being stored and who is collecting it, which likely isn't completely what you think.

 

[Fijimn]

I do love the anti-government libertarian posters that work for the government. You are the board's Ron Swanson, 97.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Wasn't even thinking 5-eyes. That could be another fun topic as well.

 

[seminole97]

I do love the anti-government libertarian posters that work for the government. You are the board's Ron Swanson, 97.

Because you conflate libertarian with anarchism.
Common mistake, WWJD does it habitually around here.

I do believe the state has a role prosecuting and preventing child abuse.

I’m your man on the inside trying to get the government to stop paying $1740/mo for a 45Mbps data circuit. One year of eliminating that expense more than covers the salary of my team.
My attitude about the efficacy of government spending is well informed.

 

[Fijimn]

Because you conflate libertarian with anarchism.
Common mistake, WWJD does it habitually around here.

I do believe the state has a role prosecuting and preventing child abuse.

I’m your man on the inside trying to get the government to stop paying $1740/mo for a 45Mbps data circuit. One year of eliminating that expense more than covers the salary of my team.
My attitude about the efficacy of government spending is well informed.