What state surveillance actually is is best understood by the NSA's own documents and own words, which I think as you know I happen to have a lot of.
I have used mass surveillance to target people, so I do know how it works.
Merging the ability to conduct surveillance that reveals every aspect of a person's life with the ability to conjure up the legal authority to execute that surveillance, and finally, removing any accountable judicial oversight, creates the opportunity for unprecedented influence over our system of government.
You have an always-expanding, omnipresent surveillance state that's constantly chipping away at the liberties and freedoms of law-abiding Americans.
Moreover, it is clear that the era of the information bomb, the era of aerial warfare, the era of the RMA and global surveillance is also the era of the integral accident.
I think that has a lot of dangers, as does government surveillance, which is way too high.
The threat is that the public will know what the government is up to. Any system of power is going to want to keep free from public surveillance, that's natural. Its shouldn't be but, its very natural.
I did surveillance a lot, which sounds exciting, but it never was.
We do not take away the powers of surveillance. We do not take away the right and the power of the government to go after those who would do us wrong.
I have no private life, as I am constantly under police surveillance.
You can't assume any place you go is private because the means of surveillance are becoming so affordable and so invisible.
I considered bringing forward information about these surveillance programs prior to the election, but I held off because I believed that [Barack] Obama was genuine when he said he was going to change things. I wanted to give the democratic process time to work.
In the United States, there hasn't been much legislative change on the surveillance issue, although there are some tepid proposals.
We have the means and we have the technology to end mass surveillance without any legislative action at all, without any policy changes.
The issue I brought forward most clearly was that of mass surveillance, not of surveillance in general.
We have to recognise that rights are being violated. The United Nations actually filed a report that found that that was the case, that mass surveillance is a violation of rights.
It's becoming less and less the National Security Agency and more and more the national surveillance agency. It's gaining more offensive powers with each passing year.
I don't think there's anything, any threat out there today that anyone can point to, that justifies placing an entire population under mass surveillance.
A crucial question is how to balance surveillance with privacy and keeping Americans safe.
Funny, for all surveillance, Osama bin Laden is still freeĀand we're not. Guess who's winning the "war on terror?
What a jolly thing military surveillance is!
When the New York Times revealed the warrantless surveillance of voice calls, in December 2005, the telephone companies got nervous.
The National Surveillance State doesn't want anyone to be able to communicate without the authorities being able to monitor that communication.
Abby must have been the one who found the safe house, because Townsend didn't like it. "The building across the street is under construction," he snarled as soon as we'd carried our bags inside. "The elevator has key card access, and I've hacked into the surveillance cameras from every system on the block," Abby argued. "We have a three-hundred-sixty-degree visual." "Excellent." Townsend dropped his bag. "Now the circle can see us from every angle." "Don't mind Agent Townsend, girls," Abby told us. "He's a glass-half-empty kind of spy." "Also known as the good kind," he countered. Abby huffed.
