They already have.

Could the sprawling surveillance state enable government or its legion of private contractors to abuse their technology and spy upon domestic political targets or judges?

This is not a far off possibility. Two years ago, a batch of stolen e-mails revealed a plot by a set of three defense contractors (Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, and HBGary Federal) to target activists, reporters, labor unions, and political organizations. The plans -- one concocted in concert with lawyers for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sabotage left-leaning critics, like the Center for American Progress and the SEIU, and a separate proposal to "combat" WikiLeaks and its supporters, including Glenn Greenwald, on behalf of Bank of America -- fell apart after reports of their existence were published online. But the episode serves as a reminder that the expanding spy industry could use its government-backed cyber tools to harm ordinary Americans and political dissident groups.

The episode also shows that Greenwald, who helped Snowden expose massive spying efforts in the U.S., had been targetted by spy agency contractors in the past for supporting whistleblowers and WikiLeaks.

I just called Dianne Feinstein. You should to. (202) 224-3841

I also just sent her an email.

Private contractors can't control what their people do. Lots of recent lessons in Iraq, as you should know. For instance: subconstractors Selling secrets to help private firms that then give contractors a cushy job when you leave.

One subcontracting agent in Seattle hacked into a cell phone of a girl he liked and was stalking.

Others found listening in on soldiers calls to spouses and extra-marital affairs because it was fun.

We have no oversight over this vast amount of private data that can easily get into the wrong hands because it's outsourced to so many private firms who are more about billing the government for profits than they are about anything else.

And we can't prevent abuses when the apparatus is hidden underneath complicated webs of private firms that bill the government. Why can't the government do this itself? Are we so wedded to enriching private firms even when it will cause an unmanageable security risk?

The New York Times and Washington Post have both done plenty of stores about the shadow security state being built out and performed by private contractors. With little oversight. What's to keep someone with security clearance from selling secrets to corporate or foreign groups for personal profit?

Answer: nothing.

Snowden didn't reveal anything that wasn't known about. No secret agents were compromised. The threat of privatization and the bureaucracy of an unaccountable data mining operation is real.

So if the only take you have on this is that Snowden is treasonist and nothing else, shame on you, because it shows how craven you are to the status quo, to the point where you belittle the messenger who tells you the house is on fire and ignore the evidence that it was arson because you wanna believe in magical thinking and ignore history.

Shame. On. You.

It's my understanding that I'll get a letter of response. I'll share it with you if this happens.

This song really has my heart strings right now.

Using a site that tracks dollar bills, a theoretical physicist noticed that our state boundaries are rather arbitrary, but that money tends to stay within new, more realistic boundaries.

This is cool

This 9 minute video blew my freaking mind.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are we "secure in our persons,..., papers, and effects" when every single telephone communication or text or email you ever make goes into a government database ?

And "probable cause" must be "supported by Oath or affirmation AND" any search warrants issued must in particular describe specifically "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Collecting data from the citizens under the belief that this keeps us safe from "terrorists" presumes that there is a way to mine the data that will always be independent of potential political partisan witch hunts that can be (and has been in the past) used to blacklist or blackmail individuals who are otherwise obeying the law. Authorities can use this information to have prior knowledge about various groups or networks of individuals who are law abiding citizens by simply analyzing who calls who and how often.

Which is really why this is happening. Tracking real criminals and real terrorists is more difficult, because real criminals and real terrorists have been communicating with satellite telephones and/or laptop computers for a decade.

Every single recent security breech event since the 1990's has been about incompetence ... and some would say willful ignorance. Is this the security state gone rogue?

It was just growing mysteriously in the backyard.

Today I was thinking about how whenever someone asks someone else a question, there was actually a first question in their mind that was thought first; and the second question is what gets verbalized. Sometimes these are the same two questions, sometimes they are different questions.

For instance, if someone asks you "Where did you get that jacket?" one day, the first question might be "That looks just like a jacket I used to own, I wonder were that person got his/her jacket?"

Or it could be, "I wonder if that is a leather jacket?"

Or it could be, "That guy looks cute, I wonder if he's interested in me?"

The first question is subconscious, instinctive to the person's unique thought process. Assuming that the two questions are the same is a bad idea, because it depends upon the situation, and the relationship of the two persons or people involved. People's curiosity about strangers are different, and people with strong relationships can tend to anticipate each others' thoughts.

The first question might be also something that can be inferred from the number of inferential questions that are asked in a succession of events. For instance, a woman or man might have "Can I trust you?" in the back of their head while they are on a date with a new someone in their life.

Anyway, that's what I was pondering this morning.

Would you believe Arsenic,Silicone breast implant filler, and rat hair, click the Source.

Stop watching TV an read People.

[SOURCE: Anna Brones | UK Guardian | 13 May 2013]