Prism

An education is designed for an individual to have the opportunity to advance themselves. If you major in basket-weaving, that's your problem (and in your words, an education wasted). In addition, you assume that I have a problem with being below an elite. I don't. It's how society is. I honestly don't care.

You just love missing the point don't you. You say that being below the elite you're simply a tool for them, as history, or your interpretation of history suggests. Thus education, one of the most valuable things to strive for, is a worthless endeavor, or it should be in your own perspective. You're not elite, thus you're simply a tool for them. Your words not mine.

Your argument here is predicated on the fact that privacy comes with age. Some people are more comfortable with their lives being in the open (Kardashians, socialites), some people are more comfortable living in privacy (you?). You also assume that this information would be public.

No, you saw age and assumed that. When you live out your life you gain more experiences, thus may want those to be hidden, especially if you feel inadequate with your life accomplishments. Even the Kardashians have skeletons in their closet they got ape sh`it about.

All that information is public. The prism just makes it more concentrated for the government to possibly exploit, considering the IRS debacle, I've become a wee bit skeptical.

Additionally, you can do the vast majority of that without Prism anyways. It'd just take more time. If I wanted privacy, I wouldn't have a Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, a Vine. I probably wouldn't have an iPhone since that would be a wasted investment.

There is no such thing as true privacy on the Internet.

No one is arguing true privacy, but there's a line to be drawn with personal phone conversations, even in house communication. "Man obama sucks" could be considered something worth investigating, let alone any congress member. Having to be careful what you say is probably the most un-american thing you can expect out of someone. I certainly don't want an fbi agent at my door for screaming ALALALALALALALALALA as I play as a terrorist on borderlands 2.

Except it is not possible for an egalitarian society to exist. It is not a "maybe we'll work on it more," it's a "can't happen."

Equality is a very ambiguous term, in my opinion its a fair opportunity for all to reach success, and allow those who don't have the tools to get the bare essentials to attempt to do so. The ideal "equality" has too many factor's to even deem an argument, however you can take very progressive steps to reach the closer to that equilibrium. Though I don't see how anyone is even arguing that we should fight for equality, but to fight for what makes us evolve to a type 2 civilization.

In addition, there is no explicit right to privacy.

While the right to privacy is firmly rooted in the ethical tenets of the library profession, it is also an intrinsic American value, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly reference the word "privacy," the Supreme Court has nonetheless inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights and the common
law.

The most obvious protection of privacy in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, also implicitly safeguards the right to privacy in the form of freedom of thought and intellect. As eloquently articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

In recent years, several federal courts have recognized the right to privacy in public libraries. Specifically, these courts found that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information in a publicly funded library. However, the professional code of librarians provides a much broader promise of privacy than is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Consequently, constitutional limitations on the right to privacy are often at odds with the librarianship principles of privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.fontanalib.org/Privacy_Tutori...rivacy.htm

Derp.

Also using a UN treaty can't be a serious argument since many countries sign treaties and ignore them anyways. Or some countries don't sign them and don't need them (see: Convention on the Rights of the Child, the US did not ratify, the only other countries to have not ratify are Somalia and South Sudan.)

So what? You want me to go look constitution by constitution, country by country which have or haven't included an expectation of privacy? Because I know plenty protect people's privacy one way or another, but pineapple them, right?

This isn't news. Bush encouraged heavy data-mining of domestic call records with focus on AT&T and Verizon. Not to mention the warrantless surveillance controversy. They go on camera and offer the pragmatist's apology which runs as follows, 'In order to preserve the greater rights of this country such as liberty and safety there needs to be a sacrifice of lesser freedoms such as privacy which are violated respectively in order to offer greater protection to the citizens as a whole.' Then they pretend to downscale the entire program or '86' it, only to start giving it more steam or to completely recreate it without letting anyone know about it.

Microsoft (September 2007)
Yahoo (March 2008)
Google (January 2009)
Facebook (June 2009)
PalTalk (December 2009)
YouTube (September 2010)
Skype (February 2011)
AOL (March 2011)
Apple (October 2012)

So.... what aren't they watching?

You just love missing the point don't you. You say that being below the elite you're simply a tool for them, as history, or your interpretation of history suggests. Thus education, one of the most valuable things to strive for, is a worthless endeavor, or it should be in your own perspective. You're not elite, thus you're simply a tool for them. Your words not mine.

I never stated that one could never advance. If you use your education in an earnest attempt to better yourself, then it's not a waste. If you use your education and do nothing with it, then it's a waste. It's also a waste if you use your education is in something that won't advance you (basket-weaving majors).

No, you saw age and assumed that. When you live out your life you gain more experiences, thus may want those to be hidden, especially if you feel inadequate with your life accomplishments. Even the Kardashians have skeletons in their closet they got ape sh`it about.

All that information is public. The prism just makes it more concentrated for the government to possibly exploit, considering the IRS debacle, I've become a wee bit skeptical.

Bold implies that with age comes a desire for privacy. You also explicitly stated "you're not old enough to actually appreciate privacy," implying that when I'm older I would appreciate privacy more. And thus, with age comes privacy.

There's also a significant difference between a skeleton in a closet and something you post on the internet. If you post it in any capacity on the internet, be it a blog, a vlog, forum post, status update, tweet, vine, instagram, whatever, then you are liable if it's used against you in some capacity. Emails I do believe should have a degree of privacy as those can easily constitute one's "papers" in a digital age as much as carrier mail can.

I honestly don't mind it until the information is used improperly. When the government starts using it to arrest random teenagers or random citizens who clearly aren't spies or terrorists, then I'd have a beef with it. But until then, it can stay. Sometimes to be free, you have to give up some freedom first.

No one is arguing true privacy, but there's a line to be drawn with personal phone conversations, even in house communication. "Man obama sucks" could be considered something worth investigating, let alone any congress member. Having to be careful what you say is probably the most un-american thing you can expect out of someone. I certainly don't want an fbi agent at my door for screaming ALALALALALALALALALA as I play as a terrorist on borderlands 2.

Some of the people in this thread make it seem like they believe there's true privacy on the internet. Additionally, you have to be careful of what you say regardless of whether or not the government is going to persecute you. Political correctness is such a wonderful thing. The government may not have much to say about it, but if I start throwing out racial-slurs and being a white supremacist, you can bet that a lot of society is going to marginalize me.

Your example of "ALALALA..." while playing Borderlands 2 is poor because that's gibberish and not even a credible in and of itself. Now, if you had done a lot of research on how to make at-home bombs, fatwa sites, and jihadist sites while making those kinds remarks on Borderlands 2 frequently, now that I would see no problem with. By itself I even wouldn't be pleased with it.

Equality is a very ambiguous term, in my opinion its a fair opportunity for all to reach success, and allow those who don't have the tools to get the bare essentials to attempt to do so. The ideal "equality" has too many factor's to even deem an argument, however you can take very progressive steps to reach the closer to that equilibrium. Though I don't see how anyone is even arguing that we should fight for equality, but to fight for what makes us evolve to a type 2 civilization.

And even by your definition, society is still not equal. Suburban soccer mom who can pay to get her daughter SAT-prepped has a higher chance of succeeding compared to inner-city, single parent who cannot pay to get their daughter SAT-prepped. But of course, with a definition of equality as "equal opportunity," it is, I suppose, possible to have an equal society, in that regard. However, right now we're a ways away from having an equal society. But even equal opportunity can be vague. Does it mean every gets a job? Everyone gets a good job? Everyone gets the best job available to them? Everyone has a chance to compete for a job? With that mind-set, we're even further away from an equal society.

While the right to privacy is firmly rooted in the ethical tenets of the library profession, it is also an intrinsic American value, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly reference the word "privacy," the Supreme Court has nonetheless inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights and the common
law.

The most obvious protection of privacy in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, also implicitly safeguards the right to privacy in the form of freedom of thought and intellect. As eloquently articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

In recent years, several federal courts have recognized the right to privacy in public libraries. Specifically, these courts found that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information in a publicly funded library. However, the professional code of librarians provides a much broader promise of privacy than is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Consequently, constitutional limitations on the right to privacy are often at odds with the librarianship principles of privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.fontanalib.org/Privacy_Tutori...rivacy.htm

Derp.

As I said, wasn't explicitly stated. In the later half of that section I made an abbreviated version of what you had said. It is also crucial to note that the Supreme Court has not taken on a case regarding internet privacy. You have to know that the right to privacy notion was decided in the 60s, thus no internet.

The internet needs to be regulated. If you asked someone in the 80s if the internet would be big, you'd get quizzical looks. If you asked someone in the 90s, probably the same. Early 2000s you might get some agreements. If you asked someone in 2000 whether they thought social media would be a thing, you probably wouldn't get anything of substance. What I'm getting at essentially is that no one knew that the internet would be as big and powerful as it is. Hence why it remained fairly deregulated for the longest time.

As I said earlier, sometimes to be free, you need to give up some of your freedom first. I'm perfectly content giving up some of my privacy so I don't have any privacy (or have no need for it) because I'm dead because of whatever reason. Terrorist attack, school shooting, bank heist, whatever.

[MENTION=7446]Words[/MENTION]; You're welcome to do that if you'd like. But as I said, many countries' constitutions were not framed with internet privacy in mind. I'm not going to deny that there are some countries out there that have some "you have privacy, even on the internet," but if there are any, they are going to be far and few.

I never stated that one could never advance. If you use your education in an earnest attempt to better yourself, then it's not a waste. If you use your education and do nothing with it, then it's a waste. It's also a waste if you use your education is in something that won't advance you (basket-weaving majors).

Okay let me dumb it down for you. You consider yourself a tool. You offer no value but to the elite. Gaining an education is pointless because you're merely a tool for elite status individuals, just like everyone else in history. This isn't a discussion about the value of education, but the value of taking that effort and attempting to apply it, cus you're bettering yourself as a tool.

Bold implies that with age comes a desire for privacy. You also explicitly stated "you're not old enough to actually appreciate privacy," implying that when I'm older I would appreciate privacy more. And thus, with age comes privacy.

I'm a fetus, I don't care about privacy. You're making an assumption based off solely the word "age", not the point, the second time you've missed it and the second time I've had to elaborate for you. Now before you try to dig yourself out of your own hole, take from it not from the exaggeration, but the point that, a fetus doesn't really have that much to discuss. You're not even 21 years old I bet, what adventures have you had?

There's also a significant difference between a skeleton in a closet and something you post on the internet. If you post it in any capacity on the internet, be it a blog, a vlog, forum post, status update, tweet, vine, instagram, whatever, then you are liable if it's used against you in some capacity. Emails I do believe should have a degree of privacy as those can easily constitute one's "papers" in a digital age as much as carrier mail can.

Again.....it's not just related to the internet, these are phone conversations, skype conversations, Im's, texts, the very Emails you just discussed, are all open to the government. This isn't me telling people to leave Chris crocker alone because he seems crazy.

I honestly don't mind it until the information is used improperly. When the government starts using it to arrest random teenagers or random citizens who clearly aren't spies or terrorists, then I'd have a beef with it. But until then, it can stay. Sometimes to be free, you have to give up some freedom first.

You act like this is relatively new, there are plenty of examples of people abused by the patriot act. The entire problem is there is no actual definition of Spy or Terrorist, they are pretty ambiguous terms so that alone cripples that entire perspective. I'm sure you had the same thoughts about the IRS, look where that got you.

Some of the people in this thread make it seem like they believe there's true privacy on the internet. Additionally, you have to be careful of what you say regardless of whether or not the government is going to persecute you. Political correctness is such a wonderful thing. The government may not have much to say about it, but if I start throwing out racial-slurs and being a white supremacist, you can bet that a lot of society is going to marginalize me.

Jesus christ, you do realize how silly you look right now? The Prism is not specific to internet conduct.

Your example of "ALALALA..." while playing Borderlands 2 is poor because that's gibberish and not even a credible in and of itself. Now, if you had done a lot of research on how to make at-home bombs, fatwa sites, and jihadist sites while making those kinds remarks on Borderlands 2 frequently, now that I would see no problem with. By itself I even wouldn't be pleased with it.

...I hope you aren't as oblivious as to imply you don't realize that's the war cry of jihadists right? Yes it's an exaggeration, but by the Patriot act they could and detain me. Go say "bomb" by itself in an airport, I guarantee you'll be detained. In fact they have for pretty sh`itty reasons;

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03...ied-to-co/

I mean really how oblivious are you to not realize this has been going on since the early 2000's.

And even by your definition, society is still not equal. Suburban soccer mom who can pay to get her daughter SAT-prepped has a higher chance of succeeding compared to inner-city, single parent who cannot pay to get their daughter SAT-prepped. But of course, with a definition of equality as "equal opportunity," it is, I suppose, possible to have an equal society, in that regard. However, right now we're a ways away from having an equal society. But even equal opportunity can be vague. Does it mean every gets a job? Everyone gets a good job? Everyone gets the best job available to them? Everyone has a chance to compete for a job? With that mind-set, we're even further away from an equal society.

You pretty much answered your own question and didn't give me anything to actually discuss. My point, is saying "Equality is not plausible, therefore we should not seek to obtain it" is ridiculous as there are plenty of steps we can make to get as close to it as possible. Unless you have your own idea on how a country should work.

As I said, wasn't explicitly stated. In the later half of that section I made an abbreviated version of what you had said. It is also crucial to note that the Supreme Court has not taken on a case regarding internet privacy. You have to know that the right to privacy notion was decided in the 60s, thus no internet.

...Godddamit, is this you playing stupid? I can't tell anymore. Your argument holds no merit in that regard because it's already been established that you have a right to privacy, irrelevant if it's explicitly stated or not. It says so in the first two goddamn sentences. It's not even a questionable thing.

As I said earlier, sometimes to be free, you need to give up some of your freedom first. I'm perfectly content giving up some of my privacy so I don't have any privacy (or have no need for it) because I'm dead because of whatever reason. Terrorist attack, school shooting, bank heist, whatever.

This type of data collection isn't solely for "protection", its as much for marketing and it isn't solely internet related. You're fixated on social media when we're talking about the most personal conversations. By your logic it'll be okay to see how many abortions a girl has had because she shouldn't be ashamed of her mistakes. With the whole health epidemic right now, you think that isn't far down the line?

I'm a fetus, I don't care about privacy. You're making an assumption based off solely the word "age", not the point, the second time you've missed it and the second time I've had to elaborate for you. Now before you try to dig yourself out of your own hole, take from it not from the exaggeration, but the point that, a fetus doesn't really have that much to discuss. You're not even 21 years old I bet, what adventures have you had?

And thus, with age comes a desire from privacy. It's not necessarily age in and of itself, it's with age comes events and happenings that you want to (for whatever reason) keep to yourself. However even still that is incorrect because even today the notion of privacy is completely different. Social media directly contradicts conventional privacy, unless your Facebook friends are only the friends you want seeing things. Time magazine for example talked about how the current generation is more into sharing, citing the number of pictures of oneself they had as an example. A status update or a tweet contradicts privacy because the vast majority of people use it for sharing things that wouldn't be shared otherwise.

(And for the record, I've lived abroad in Bahrain for two years, been to England twice, been to Spain, been to Dubai, been to the Netherlands, been to Australia, been to Canada, and am about to leave for a semester abroad in New Zealand. I've taken numerous road trips with my friends. And I'm in a frat. All under the age of 21. Magical.)

...I hope you aren't as oblivious as to imply you don't realize that's the war cry of jihadists right? Yes it's an exaggeration, but by the Patriot act they could and detain me. Go say "bomb" by itself in an airport, I guarantee you'll be detained. In fact they have for pretty sh`itty reasons;

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03...ied-to-co/

I mean really how oblivious are you to not realize this has been going on since the early 2000's.

Saying bomb to a TSA agent or just loudly in an airport is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater; the clear and present danger standard for limiting freedom of speech in America. And again by itself, the Jihadist war cry is nothing because people make it all the time. Not to mention you can find it all over YouTube anyways.

...Godddamit, is this you playing stupid? I can't tell anymore. Your argument holds no merit in that regard because it's already been established that you have a right to privacy, irrelevant if it's explicitly stated or not. It says so in the first two goddamn sentences. It's not even a questionable thing.

Let me help you then: the internet was not around in the 60s. Give me language that says you have the right to privacy on the internet. I'll concede that email should be private and probably Skype/IMs. Can you find anything that says anything else should be private? Now, if the Supreme Court had made a ruling on whether or not there is privacy on the internet (regrettably they declined one that could have *tear*) then this would be different.

This type of data collection isn't solely for "protection", its as much for marketing and it isn't solely internet related. You're fixated on social media when we're talking about the most personal conversations. By your logic it'll be okay to see how many abortions a girl has had because she shouldn't be ashamed of her mistakes. With the whole health epidemic right now, you think that isn't far down the line?

If she is discriminated upon the basis of having many abortions, then it is unacceptable. If the number of abortions is made completely public, say in a newspaper or any other readily and easily accessible medium, then it is unacceptable. If there is public ridicule or shaming, to contrast from a few workers at a company laughing at her in private, then it is unacceptable. Otherwise I don't care, even if it's me.

Let me help you then: the internet was not around in the 60s.

Right, because every time something new comes out, it is exempt from all laws and new ones have to be made specifically for it. Electric cars are relatively new, so I say hitting pedestrians with them is legal, since no law was passed stating that you can't do that.

Right, because every time something new comes out, it is exempt from all laws and new ones have to be made specifically for it. Electric cars are relatively new, so I say hitting pedestrians with them is legal, since no law was passed stating that you can't do that.

Bad analogy because electric cars are still cars therefore traffic laws apply regularly. The internet is something completely new all on its own. Furthermore, it's not necessarily that it's new, it's more that it became unexpectedly large and powerful. Hence why it's being regulated more now instead of when it was first created-- no one knew it'd be the biggest thing since sliced bread.

And thus, with age comes a desire from privacy. It's not necessarily age in and of itself, it's with age comes events and happenings that you want to (for whatever reason) keep to yourself. However even still that is incorrect because even today the notion of privacy is completely different. Social media directly contradicts conventional privacy, unless your Facebook friends are only the friends you want seeing things. Time magazine for example talked about how the current generation is more into sharing, citing the number of pictures of oneself they had as an example. A status update or a tweet contradicts privacy because the vast majority of people use it for sharing things that wouldn't be shared otherwise.

I love how you just elaborate on my point. You're not actually making any argument and just ignoring the basis that it isn't just internet/social media. You have brought no contradiction to the table so there's no point actually discussing this further.

Saying bomb to a TSA agent or just loudly in an airport is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater; the clear and present danger standard for limiting freedom of speech in America. And again by itself, the Jihadist war cry is nothing because people make it all the time. Not to mention you can find it all over YouTube anyways.

You just cannot fathom that you as an american citizen can be held for literally doing anything under that patriot act. You just want to argue specific examples, not the underlining point. Again, nothing else to discuss.

Let me help you then: the internet was not around in the 60s. Give me language that says you have the right to privacy on the internet. I'll concede that email should be private and probably Skype/IMs. Can you find anything that says anything else should be private? Now, if the Supreme Court had made a ruling on whether or not there is privacy on the internet (regrettably they declined one that could have *tear*) then this would be different.

It doesn't matter if it's specific to the internet or not, in fact it be more specific towards cloud computing. When you consider the internet in any type of law you treat it like something easily comparable too. The things that should remain private, such as your personal finances which are quickly becoming part of the cloud, by extension are covered by the 4th. It's creepy having all your sh`it recorded, this conversation we're having right now, could be recorded.

If she is discriminated upon the basis of having many abortions, then it is unacceptable. If the number of abortions is made completely public, say in a newspaper or any other readily and easily accessible medium, then it is unacceptable. If there is public ridicule or shaming, to contrast from a few workers at a company laughing at her in private, then it is unacceptable. Otherwise I don't care, even if it's me.

What the f`uck do you think the paparazzi do on a daily basis? In fact they are one step from stalking, and have killed a few people with their constant coverage of their everyday life. Last but not least, the Patriot act pretty much abolish's any type of need for a warrant.

Also considering your response to locations, pretty sure that is military brat circumstances. You live in Virginia which has many military basis/high military retirement population. I could list all the places I have been, but I certainly don't consider them adventures, just living life where I was told to live.

Bad analogy because electric cars are still cars therefore traffic laws apply regularly. The internet is something completely new all on its own. Furthermore, it's not necessarily that it's new, it's more that it became unexpectedly large and powerful. Hence why it's being regulated more now instead of when it was first created-- no one knew it'd be the biggest thing since sliced bread.

How can you not get this? Of course it was a bad analogy, I made a point of that, since you probably wouldn't catch a more subtle one, but apparently you have again missed the point...

The internet is not a special flower. The internet is big, but just because something is popular or powerful should NOT give it extra privileges; you say the elite control us all, and it's true, but it seems like you don't even care to stop it, in fact, you are protesting it when people try to take AWAY their power. You are already resigned to your fate as societal livestock, but even normal livestock don't willingly SUPPORT the master that is eventually going to slaughter them and sell off their parts to the highest bidder.

This is a tricky subject because information in private spaces such as internet sites and their accounts did not exist during the drafting of the constitution. So there's a gray area that allows them to do this. The Constitution is in some serious need of modernization.

Related:

[video=youtube;5yB3n9fu-rM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yB3n9fu-rM[/video]

I thought the US Govt. had problems intercepting messages sent through Apple's iMessage service ? iirc, Apple refused to let them look at the messages so ?? why ?? is??? apple in the list????

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/n...?hpt=hp_t1

I wouldn't compare to this something like wikileaks as it doesn't endanger anyone, just makes them aware.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/07/tech/socia...?hpt=us_t2
#watchingfordrones

The right to privacy? More like the right to look into your privacy.

-snip-

His body language reads "scared as hell", and I wouldn't necessarily blame him. Big props to him for sacrificing himself for this, but, as I have no faith in our society at this point in time, I'm pretty sure the large majority of the people will ignore this just like they ignore everything else.

His body language reads "scared as hell", and I wouldn't necessarily blame him. Big props to him for sacrificing himself for this, but, as I have no faith in our society at this point in time, I'm pretty sure the large majority of the people will ignore this just like they ignore everything else.

What would you like the people to do?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that everyone is as outraged as you, and as determined to act. What will you all do?
Oust Obama?
Force the NSA to shut down PRISM?
Force the dissolution of the NSA itself?
Replace every single CIA employee?

Yay, victory!

Really?

Do you really believe that whoever gets elected to replace Obama won't have the NSA and PRISM recreated?
Well, maybe he'll tell his people, "Don't do it!", but they will do it anyway. They consider it part of their duty, to find out all they can about everyone in the world, in order to protect the United States of America. They might not tell the President in his briefings that "PRISM says" but will call it "intelligence" or "our sources" or w/e other codename. But the bottom line is, if the technology exists, it will be used.

And it does exist. Like the atomic bomb and file sharing, once the technological capability exists, you can't prevent it from popping up again and again. Even if all the companies stop cooperating with the government, that will only make it slightly harder for the government (or any number of other governments and interested parties) to snoop their data anyway.

Not really much any of us can do except realize this is the world we live in. And it will only get worse.

What would you like the people to do?

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that everyone is as outraged as you, and as determined to act. What will you all do?

It's far past time for a radical regime change. FAR past time. At this point, we are barely even a free country. If more people would listen to reason, things not just here but all over the world could be changed for the better. I don't pretend to know how, but perhaps someone else does. Surely SOMEONE out of the billions of people on this planet can come up with a better idea than this pisspoor excuse for a government we currently have.

It's far past time for a radical regime change. FAR past time. At this point, we are barely even a free country. If more people would listen to reason, things not just here but all over the world could be changed for the better. I don't pretend to know how, but perhaps someone else does. Surely SOMEONE out of the billions of people on this planet can come up with a better idea than this pisspoor excuse for a government we currently have.

So your plan is "first let's tear down what we have, then maybe somebody can come up with something better"?
Kind of reminds me of bogo sort...
Or, in Maple terms, "Let's cube away from these measely 21% mainstat, maybe that one cube we have will get us 30%."