Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 31st Jul 2013 14:12 UTC
Internet & Networking From The Guardian:

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.

This is not PRISM - but a different system. The slides are damning, as always.

It validates claims made by Edward Snowden, and makes it clear that US government officials have been lying all along. There's no court order required for any of this - in a supposedly modern democracy. Crazy.

Thread beginning with comment 568491
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Wed 31st Jul 2013 14:40 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Where are the gun nuts and their promised retribution against an oppressive government?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by kwan_e
by jimmmy on Wed 31st Jul 2013 15:12 in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
jimmmy Member since:
2012-01-02

If they were actually "nuts" they'd already be shooting.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Wed 31st Jul 2013 15:32 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I think it's more that they traded their nuts for guns, and now when the government is attacking them in a non-physical way, they don't have the balls for it.

They're probably on the side of the NSA, actually, which means the US has well armed militia potentially fighting on the side of the government.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by aliquis on Wed 31st Jul 2013 21:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

If they were actually "nuts" they'd already be shooting.
The nut part is what explains why they aren't shooting already considering they already got the guns and all ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by kwan_e
by sdeber on Wed 31st Jul 2013 16:58 in reply to "Comment by kwan_e"
sdeber Member since:
2005-07-06

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by aliquis on Wed 31st Jul 2013 21:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.
They still are efficient at killing people. So unless your government is ran by machines ..

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Thu 1st Aug 2013 00:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You should realise that in 21st century, guns are only effective to civilians. They are quite primitive compared to those modern weapons that governments hold.


Which is my point. They like to talk big about how they're the ones to save us from the gubmint, but time and time again show themselves to be cowardly, unless shooting at black teenagers.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kwan_e
by Ravyne on Thu 1st Aug 2013 19:44 in reply to "RE: Comment by kwan_e"
Ravyne Member since:
2006-01-08

Primitive by comparison, yes. Ineffective, I doubt.

If we're talking machine-gun vs. semi-auto, then machine-guns are really only more-effective at two things: keeping heads down, and chewing through ammunition.

As for jeeps, tanks, helicopters and the like. All could be stolen if you've got firearms.

Missiles and bombs? If you think the government is unpopular now, wait until they start dropping munitions on the homeland. That assumes enough of the military sides with the government to actually man those jets and bombers, and that those left will actually comply with orders to bomb their countrymen.


This is somewhat hypothetical, but every time someone says "Herp. Derp. Don't bring a gun to a tank fight!" -- well, I'd like to remind then that a loose collective guys in caves with AKs and cold-war-era RPGs have been resisting the entire, unbridled might of the American military for... 12 years now.

Now add to that the fact that if even 10 percent of American gun owners actually felt strongly enough to start shooting over it, that's still an army of over 3 million -- literally larger than any standing army in the world today.

Given that the government's response would be with tied hands, defection of military and civilian security forces, and facing an overwhelming, distributed force, I bet Washington would fall faster than Baghdad did.

Reply Parent Score: 1