This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims.
The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
I don't expect the current government to round up homosexuals or hackers, but here's the thing. Let's say we have a big economic depression, and a politically extremist party gets into office. Now we've got a complete database for them to dig through to purge their idea of "undesirables".
Think that's insane? Did you know that they put Kevin Mitnick in solitary confinement because they thought he was a Russian spy, and that he could whistle nuclear missile commands into a computer? Yes, your government is -that- fucking stupid.
We're making the machines of scary future government, all they'll have to do is turn the key. Let's destroy this data and this program before it gets really out of control.
() It is an insult targeted at the named groups.
() It is targeted at men.
() Not trying to bed women is an insult to men.
Insults are directed at the person to be insulted. In so far as it is an insult, it was almost certainly targeted at members of the audience sympathetic to transparency and privacy. Which is not to say that there probably weren't any nerds among the policy wonks at the Bi-Partisan Security Center where Hayden's remarks were delivered
It is really your second premise that begins to illuminate why the remarks are homophobic - the premise of the insult has been entangled with not gender in general [despite reading that way] but masculinity in particular.
Once entangled, we get to the intended essence of the insult - implying that someone is unsuccessful under the model of heterosexual masculinity. The essence of the insult is that it feminizes its intended targets. I think we both agree, he is saying that those who favor government transparency and the privacy of citizens aren't fully realized as men.
The premises upon which the insult is based are rather self-contradictory on their face when it comes to women - they contain the implication that it's ok for women to be soft. Deeper down of course, the model of "real men" contains a rubric for determining success which applies to all the ambitious regardless of gender.
I cannot prove that his remark is homophobic, but entanglement of insult with a lack of conformance to a purely heterosexual model of human relations and the connotation of heterosexual masculinity in particular certainly are meta-data consistent with homophobia.
If you don't believe that stereotype exists, go watch _any_ episode of The Big Bang Theory.
You're talking about the symptom, they're talking about the cause.
The US government is not planning to commit genocide against gay people or whatever ridiculous premise you're insinuating.
Or are you indulging in some very clever subtle irony?
You're right though, it is a ridiculous premise. There's no profit to be made from genocide.
There is from imprisonment.
You should take a look at companies contracted by 3rd Reich government to run german concentration camps. They made A LOT of money.
Members of the intelligence community are patient. Very very patient indeed.
They will build up a dossier of all of your dirty little secrets over a period of years; decades even. They will wait as long as it takes for you to get into a position of power; until they really need something from you, and then, why then they have a nice big fat file waiting for them in the archives, they will come to you and ask you for a "favour".
It could be to hand over some information, perhaps your organization's "red lines" in a negotiation; or the price your company is willing to pay in a takeover bid. It could be to do somebody else a favour, help them out with some insider information, or give them a job. Perhaps, they will ask you to screw somebody over, deny them a job, block them from a position, and so on. Easy for you to do, no skin off your nose; particularly in comparison to the alternative: the awkward conversations you could be having with your spouse that evening, or the IRS later in the week.
In this way, positions of influence get filled with puppets and cronies, and their network of influence and power grows and grows. Who needs money when you have all these little bits of leverage, all these people who will do things for you, individually inconsequential, but collectively ... world changing.
Indeed, the financial services sector .. so dependent on (and so vulnerable to) hard-to-trace insider information, I would not be totally surprised if that sector is completely in thrall to the organization that is dominant in the information-warfare arena.
An addiction to information? No. An addiction to power, fuelled by information. That is why they gotta collect it all.
Wrong. If this were the case, Congress would've defunded US IC years and years ago. You underestimate the determination of US Congressmen to investigate and get their name in the spotlight.
that's how democracies work from US to Germany. They are ran by secret services. In some places it is more visible and obvious - Russia, Poland, France, Israel - in some less. However, when you think about, that's the problem with all democracies. That the intelligence communities are running them from the shadow.
Why do you think in the US all the Nazis were so cooperative with the State? Because the CIA had them by the balls - we're going to ignore your past as long as you cooperate. The minute you don't the public finds out about the war crimes you committed. Have you noticed how all politicians have their careers ended once they become troublesome to the current state of affairs. Somehow, somebody tells the media some dark secret about lovers, cocaine, money, whatever, bam! You are history!
The rest is just a show for naive.