Came hoping they have something to do with the Red Light District. Left disappointed.
Can't compute. Please review your data, it's wrong.
1. Historically, the "other outcome" kind of ended after WW2. Someone conveniently forgot the hunt for communists, perhaps?
2. With the advent of electronic communications it became a lot easier to spread a plot over large distances and make it happen way faster.
Just saying that what you mentioned is far from being true.
Then you don't prevent them. That is the cost of living in a free country, and it's an entirely reasonable one, which I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay.
Careful what you wish for.
What's happening now is a perceived annoyance which is very, very unlikely to cause you any real harm, while the other outcome might lead to fear of even getting out of your personally secured home because the garbage can outside might blow in your face. But hey, you get to freely talk over the phone with your relatives about how scared you are to go outside.
I feel I must emphasize on this: it's all theory, I don't take any sides, but I can imagine different outcomes.
I feel that I have to put up the disclaimers first:
#1: I'm a theorist. Think of everything below strictly as theory.
#2: I don't live in the US - so I see things with foreigner's eyes. If I'm missing something or there's something I misunderstand, then it's not intentional.
With that being said...
Obtaining the necessary warrant might prove to be impossible without obtaining communication-based proof beforehand. Today, they see that 555-0101 called some number from Afghanistan 2-3 times a week during the last 6 months, and some of them came from chemical products shops, while others came from hardware stores, electronic pieces stores and the White House (during tourist visit hours) - so there are some flags raised. If they can't do that anymore, they won't know and won't be able to take the appropriate step to prevent something truly horrible from happening. Then everyone will yell that they didn't do their jobs.
I can't say I agree with NSA's current methods, not at all. But at the same time I can't figure a better way to prevent impactful, unlawful acts from happening (from terrorism to major drug smuggling and so on and so forth). In this specific area I kind of agree with him. Is there a better way? And by "better" I don't necessarily mean "let's go full legal and there you have it" - that's probably way worse from an outcome perspective. What if (again, as I said above, theorizing here) the NSA stops collecting that data and within 3 years the amount of bombs going off increases tenfold, while at the same time drug usage increases by millions of souls, meat trafficking gets out of control, etc.? Then it will be widely regarded as being "the worst decision that could possibly be made".
The higher national security, the greater the costs (and sacrifices of personal privacy). It's valid for pretty much every country in the world. A balance must be stricken, but weights on both platters are variable and subjective.
I know that right now everyone and their dog is up in arms about NSA spying on citizens, which shouldn't happen, but at the same time I can't imagine any other way to tell who's the innocent citizen and who's the evil plotter who wants to blow everyone up. My trust isn't with the NSA but at the same time isn't with the Average Joe saying "you should stop it, period", either.
Philippines people. Haven't you heard? it's the new "Cloud" buzzword for support.
It's less direct. And without discussing the legal or ethical comparisons, hiding it better helps the blue collar.
A country which appears to be more honest will get more contracts and there will be more jobs involved, because strictly between the two, a business will pick the one where corruption is less visible.
what happens if you're logged in but choose to post anonymously? I'm asking because I never tried, nor will I; I'm proud of my often-mocked username.
Unless my math is way off.
...Or unless taxes have already been paid and this is just another bully tactic.
No, not at all. Western companies always tried to dodge taxes, just as well as Indian goverments always tried to inflate them. It's a game with two losers, in the end, from an image perspective.
Does it count as racist if I say I am not surprised by this move from the Indian government?
When Firefox is just as fast with only 300 MB eaten for the same 3 tabs... why waste 1.2 GB on nothing?
It's much easier to start another browser with predefined tabs loading, without worrying about what information might leak to Google through your Google account (whether you're logged in or not). Also I use quite a few work-related web applications which don't behave properly under Chrome.
As a matter of fact, I use 4 browsers in total. Chrome mostly for personal use, Firefox for work-related stuff (mostly) and some websites at home, IE (I know!) for a couple work-related web apps who insist on using ActiveX and Java-based stuff that doesn't seem to work on any other browser (darn those pesky corporate web apps!) and Safari for an experiment of mine (related to privacy... or lack of it thereof).
Oh yeah, I fully agree. Chrome with 3 tabs open eats up 1.5 GB RAM, I mean WTF.