There hasn't been much of an "admission" of anything from these agencies, let alone guilt or wrongdoing. The surveillance practices currently employed, as shown by documents leaked by Edward Snowden and others, take a "collect it all" kind of approach in which they assert that they must have the proverbial haystack before they can find the needle. In fact, data on innocents is far more abundant than even the data stored on targeted individuals, and this includes many, many American citizens.

Came here to comment about dropbox + condoleezza rice being the worst possible combination imaginable, and looks like your comment wraps that up pretty nicely.

This data is extensively and repeatedly reviewed by experts as well as governments to ensure that all the data has been subjected to vigorous evaluation. If that is not enough for you (even though it is good enough for the experts who dedicate their lives to these problems) - this exact issue came up a few years back, as you mention, with regards to the NASA/NOAA data, and was promptly refuted by many, many, many credible sources. I know your intentions are probably good (I also enjoy questioning things), but please don't spread confusion, it only makes real questions look less credible.

Java is the (only) required programming course for the IT major at my University. /sigh

1. I am a bit taken aback at the responses referencing this Huffington Post article - a couple of quick notes:
2. The University policy restricts access to these websites for students as well as staff, in some cases it is possible to still click through to the page after the filter message, but visitors are issued a warning informing them that accessing the site is likely against policy and, in essence, that that they are being watched (as shown in the source referenced in the article).
3. I cannot speak to the intentions of the University, but (as seen in other responses here) the policy itself specifically states, "By using NIU services, all individuals, including, but not limited to, employees, students, customers, volunteers, and third parties, unconditionally accept the terms of this policy."
4. In addition, the accusations presented go deeper than just social media - to the point that any controversial material, or discussion of such material, would be a violation. Again, I cannot say if this is the intention, or speak to how the policy will be enforced, but this is the way the terms are written.
5. .
6. I understand that we tend to rely heavily on the media to fact check our news for us - and frankly, I am shocked at the lack of research The Huffington Post seems to have done prior to publishing this article. Simply reading the terms of the policy in question seems to point out numerous contradictions to the University's statements.