very old school approach to PRFollow

You can take some solace in the fact that despite the amount of time and effort they put into spying on everyone they don't seem to be very good it.

I'm just glad we can be so open with our feelings, Jophiel. For example, I feel that Catholicism is a towering edifice of idiot superstition.

My argument is, and always has been really simple, if you let one organization that, apparently, can barely tell the truth by the body that is supposed to control it, gather information on everything, then that information will be used. It is just a question of time. What it will be used for, is another question altogether.

Yes, the only question, really. The question in Athens, in Babylon, in Byzantium, in Eden presumably. When people start disappearing, then be worried. The present circumstance has been the status quo for thousands of years. That is in no way an exaggeration.

But if there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that a) people don't listen b) it mildly satisfying to do "i told you so".

Jesus, who didn't listen? The only thing you should be saying is "you should see a neurologist" if you know people who thought the NSA was quietly observing laws and self limiting it's power.

I like how you moved the 'you should be worried' post from "when they use the information for non-NSL things" to "when people vanish". Can we just move the post to "Caligula level tyrant" enters the US political scene?

Btw. the sane response is: how about we don't?

And yes, only function of those in power is to gather more power. I don't think it is news to anyone. I am just annoyed this truism is routinely ignored in spite of thousands of years of history.

I thought of Stalin first, but for some reason it did not seem right.

Btw. the sane response is: how about we don't?

Great. How do you propose we convince people with power to intentionally put themselves at risk by avoiding information they have the capability to gather?

Do you propose we start wearing helmets for everything, including ,but not limited to, jerking off? Last time I checked all that information did not help stopping microwave bomber from Boston.

Come to think of it, the wholesale collection of everyone's data did not stop teh greatest threat of all... lowly sysadmin from just taking what he wanted and showing it to the world.

Maybe, just maybe, whole collection of data is not the answer? Maybe, just maybe, the fact that we can should not mean that we should. Don't believe me? Put your hand into a fire. You won't? Why not? You most certainly can.

On a more semi-serious note, my answer is eugenics. In a life of a politician improving of the gene pool means only one thing. Naturally, that includes engaged and mildly informed populace. Granted, it is not where we are today. Today, all you need is a meme on fb. I wish I was joking.

btw. Anyone knows what happened to Feinstein? I can't seem to find anything that would explain this sudden change of heart.

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't really answer Smash's question. How do you get the people collecting the data, and benefiting from the data, to stop? We could all agree with you completely and that'd hardly change a thing.

I think what folks are trying to say is that it's not about ignoring it, but accepting that the truism is true, and working to minimize the harmful effects. You institute the best system possible to minimize the most harmful aspects of authority, but you have to accept that at some point you have to trust someone with power. Blithely insisting that no one should have any power to do anything "bad" can only result in people actually deluding themselves about possible abuses of power. You're seeking an impossible standard, which can only appear to be met by those with power successfully lying to the population on a grand scale. And that's where power becomes really dangerous.

I'd rather we have a bunch of cynics that all know that our government spies on us, accepts this, but puts enough checks in place to ensure that the biggest harmful things aren't done (or aren't easily done), than one in which we're convinced that we're all secure in our freedom from intrusion on our privacy and thus make the mistake of thinking that's actually true. So when people say things like "yeah, of course our government collects data about us, but as long as they cant overtly use that data against us legally, and we're an open enough society that death camps aren't likely to start cropping up, I'm ok with that". In the grand scheme of "evil things our government could be doing", mass collecting meta data and social media is incredibly far down the list of things I worry about.

And I think most people, when they get over the initial outrage and think about the issue rationally, tend to arrive at the same conclusion.

They asked you for possible solutions, not wishing on magic unicorn rainbow farts.

My apologies; I recognize that I am expected to quote aliens here, but...

Let me say this. It is a personal belief of mine that where is will, there is a way. And where is consensus, will can be found. What I am currently lacking is not magical rainbow farts. Those I get every day^^;

That's debatable.

Giving espionage powers back to the ignorant hordes?