2013-07-01, 02:28 AM
Yes, there are private companies like Acxiom that collect private information and then sell it to Torch Concepts, a front company hired by the United States Army to purchase illicit information from companies like Acxiom in order to collect as much information as possible on its own citizens. Yes, there is a judicial process to obtaining data. A process in which the FISA court pressured companies like Yahoo to provide information to PRISM despite initial protest. Or the other process that resulted in the Federal Trade Commission to not press charges against Acxiom because it was assisting law enforcement by providing personal user information to the government despite the company's own policy, "Acxiom has publicly represented its belief that individuals should have notice about how information about them is used and have choices about that dissemination, and has stated that it does not permit clients to make non-public information available to individuals."
The information doesn't catch the news because it is supposed to be private information that no one is supposed to know about. The only reason such information is on the news is because Snowden revealed that the government was mining our personal information, although this was far from surprising:
![[Image: 2013-06-03-279.png]](http://threepanelsoul.com/comics/2013-06-03-279.png)
With the provisions of the Patriot Act being amended to scale up operations from the past administration it is hardly a surprise to see a continuation of increased surveillance between private sectors of the economy and their involvement with the federal government. Although China's infiltration of American news agencies was well known, it was also revealed in May that the Department of Justice was running a secret investigation of their own on the New York Times supposedly following a publication by reporter David Sanger.
Your mother's stance is clear how she feels about government information mining given her position to remain in government service and also to disagree with Snowden. Keep in mind that any opinion on Snowden, other than him being an American hero is complete nonsense regardless of her authority or work experience. Because she finds nothing wrong with the government's espionage on their own citizens, but agrees with the duplicitous accusation of the government to file criminal charges against Snowden for espionage of the United States it is clear that her dedication and service lie with the government who employs her and not with the citizens of the country.
Given the context of what Snowden sacrificed to offer a dialogue for Americans, he is representative of the very concept of free speech and freedom that President Obama preached when he stated that American security and privacy were not exclusive concepts that needed to sacrificed, one for the other. Despite the fact that he disseminated the United States government's actions of hacking other countries including tense economic and political rivals such as China, there needs to be a level of acceptance that it is not Snowden who came short of a long list of principles that are endlessly preached about and spoken in class on a daily basis. And while I do not condone breaking a job contract that stipulates you shouldn't disclose corporate secrets to rivals or other companies, I do not believe that Snowden deserves to be framed as a criminal. At worst, he should be fined for breaking his non-disclosure agreement in a legal proceeding that would occur with anyone in a court of law as an American citizen. For me personally, I don't have any reason to drink from the government Kool-Aid simply because of a relative in information related government service.
The information doesn't catch the news because it is supposed to be private information that no one is supposed to know about. The only reason such information is on the news is because Snowden revealed that the government was mining our personal information, although this was far from surprising:
With the provisions of the Patriot Act being amended to scale up operations from the past administration it is hardly a surprise to see a continuation of increased surveillance between private sectors of the economy and their involvement with the federal government. Although China's infiltration of American news agencies was well known, it was also revealed in May that the Department of Justice was running a secret investigation of their own on the New York Times supposedly following a publication by reporter David Sanger.
Your mother's stance is clear how she feels about government information mining given her position to remain in government service and also to disagree with Snowden. Keep in mind that any opinion on Snowden, other than him being an American hero is complete nonsense regardless of her authority or work experience. Because she finds nothing wrong with the government's espionage on their own citizens, but agrees with the duplicitous accusation of the government to file criminal charges against Snowden for espionage of the United States it is clear that her dedication and service lie with the government who employs her and not with the citizens of the country.
Given the context of what Snowden sacrificed to offer a dialogue for Americans, he is representative of the very concept of free speech and freedom that President Obama preached when he stated that American security and privacy were not exclusive concepts that needed to sacrificed, one for the other. Despite the fact that he disseminated the United States government's actions of hacking other countries including tense economic and political rivals such as China, there needs to be a level of acceptance that it is not Snowden who came short of a long list of principles that are endlessly preached about and spoken in class on a daily basis. And while I do not condone breaking a job contract that stipulates you shouldn't disclose corporate secrets to rivals or other companies, I do not believe that Snowden deserves to be framed as a criminal. At worst, he should be fined for breaking his non-disclosure agreement in a legal proceeding that would occur with anyone in a court of law as an American citizen. For me personally, I don't have any reason to drink from the government Kool-Aid simply because of a relative in information related government service.