Since this is apparently new information to you, I hope you update your risk assessment.
The government misusing secret surveillance isn't conspiracy talk, it's first order incentives. It would be bizarre if the data were NOT being abused. I'm a law and order guy, but federal prosecutors have a well documented history of playing as close to the the line as they can and dancing right over the line when they can get away with it. Since they're now trying to hide the line, this should be fairly scary to rational people.
Did you read his comment before slandering him? He's a "security guy" and I'm guessing not as liberal as some of us Left Coast types, but that was not a "nothing to see here" comment.
I'm not interested in the semantic debate about what each of us means by "abuse", either. It's not relevant to my point; in fact, if you look carefully at my comment, it's kind of the opposite of relevant to my point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/double-secret-surveilla...
Since this is apparently new information to you, I hope you update your risk assessment.
The government misusing secret surveillance isn't conspiracy talk, it's first order incentives. It would be bizarre if the data were NOT being abused. I'm a law and order guy, but federal prosecutors have a well documented history of playing as close to the the line as they can and dancing right over the line when they can get away with it. Since they're now trying to hide the line, this should be fairly scary to rational people.