I guess they will be knocking on my door soon too.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank is an expert in understanding the psychology of people who still shit their pants.

[bu villain]

Why would a logical person believe the testimony of an organization that is only offering it's testimony because someone leaked the lie they were attempting to keep hidden?????

You're believing what you're told by someone who is only telling you anything because they got caught.

How many times does someone have to lie to you and deceive you before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I am not saying I believe the NSA, I am saying I don't know the truth so I am not going to assume anything until I see the evidence for it. Why are you trying to make me pick a side when I am obviously ignorant about the facts?

The NSA has lied, under oath, to Congress concerning this DOMESTIC SPYING program and its capabilities. Not just once, but multiple times, over several years, and as recently as in March 2013, when the NSA chief point-blank lied to Congress when asked specifically about it. Don't take my word for it, hear or read it yourself:
NSA Chief Denies Wired's Domestic Spying Story (Fourteen Times) In Congressional Hearing - Forbes

Now, considering that they had no problems lying to Congress, what makes you think that they are telling you the truth when they say that they do not listen to domestic phone calls or read domestic internet communications?

Again, I am not assuming they are telling the truth. I am certainly open to the possibility that they are lying but that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself.

Need evidence? Look at the new data center in Utah.

Of course, the NSA is denying that the center will be used for domestic spying. Instead, they want to say that it is to protect against cyberthreats. Anyone that works in computer software knows that the NSA is not the group that has the most impact on cyberthreats - its CERT, and they are not in Utah, and not part of the NSA - they are part of FEMA.

Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

[David88vert]

Again, I am not assuming they are telling the truth. I am certainly open to the possibility that they are lying but that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself.
Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

Fair enough.

On the data center - definitely not conclusive, but you will not be given the ability to get 100% conclusive evidence when all of the evidence is controlled by the agency in power that is trying to keep it suppressed.

[bu villain]

Fair enough.

On the data center - definitely not conclusive, but you will not be given the ability to get 100% conclusive evidence when all of the evidence is controlled by the agency in power that is trying to keep it suppressed.

Very true. My response is simply to be on guard and to recognize that it is a very real possibility that all our calls are monitored. Honestly, I have felt that way since the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue came up years ago. I would also support additional oversight right now. I don't need conclusive evidence to support that.

[David88vert]

Very true. My response is simply to be on guard and to recognize that it is a very real possibility that all our calls are monitored. Honestly, I have felt that way since the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue came up years ago. I would also support additional oversight right now. I don't need conclusive evidence to support that.

We are in agreement on that.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

Why is your instinct to believe the government until proven otherwise? The government should have to prove the benefit of these programs to the people, not the other way around. In this particular instance, we have the government acting "on behalf of the people" in secrecy. If these programs are so good for the people, then allow the people to decide if they want them or not. So we're supposed to believe in the merits of a program the government has been hiding for 7-8-10 years?

Holding the government accountable should be a process that never ends. It should go on until the end of time..... at no point should we ever just say "do what you think is best" to our government and they should never act as such. What evidence do you need??? The government is violating your constitutional rights because they think it is whats best for you. It's not the government's decision to decide such things. The constitution is a contract..... between people and government, the government does not..... SHOULD not... have the ability to breach that contract because they decided it was whats best for you.

I dont see how any rational person can support this?

[bu villain]

Directed at Sinflix obviously, not David