New NSA logo

Discuss

32 Responses to “New NSA logo”

  1. Stefan Jones says:

     Now put in all of the other telecomm and cable logos, because Verizon is just the one that got caught first.

    • Cowicide says:

      I thought the same thing when I saw Verizon there in the middle.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        The Eagle has branded.

        • Gulliver says:

          At least now we know who the Praetorian kingmakers will be in our own march toward Empire. We were so happy to have a military that never aspired to a coup that we forgot to watch the civilian intelligence wing; but in a networked world, the spymasters are the new Caesars. And anticompetitive corporate oligarchs were ever so thoughtful to gather all the levers in a handful of places. I’m sure they’ll be rewarded richly so long as they please Pharaoh

          Question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
          Answer: No one anymore, it’s too real for reality TV.

          • peregrinus says:

            That question is one of my absolute favourite quotes.

            Not an issue that crosses the mind of the blind, indolent faithful.

    • Dave1183 says:

      As much as all this distresses me (and it does, it really does), I can’t lay too much blame at Verizon’s feet (and I’m a customer) or at the feet of any other telecomm. They’ve been served with legal orders to produce the information. Yes, they could fight it in court – and they should – but I can’t realistically expect that from a faceless corporation. A blanket refusal to cooperate would almost be corporate suicide, it seems to me.

      If private industry needs to be blamed, the finger should point back to the early years of the previous decade, when the telecomms allowed the NSA to install taps without much argument. Thankfully, some telecomms actually questioned the legality of those requests and some decided not to participate. I’ve forgotten the particulars, but it can be found in “The Shadow Factory.”

      On a related note, it’s funny (funny sad, not funny haha) that some people can’t understand the anti-snooping argument that says someday the government could use all this data to go after political enemies. That’s already happened, as evidenced by the recent happenings at the IRS.

      And the damned thing is that this privacy crap is just one of dozens of things we get to worry about. Global warming, terrorism (yes, it’s still a threat), prescription drugs in the water supply, depletion of ocean fish stocks, disappearing sources of fresh water, social and scientific blinders on some sectors of society… on and on. Thank god (with a small g) that I’ll be dead in the next 30 or 40 years. If I’m lucky.

      • Reed James says:

         uhm, not so clear that is actually what happened at the IRS this time.  The IRS was tasked with IDing groups trying to register as non-profits that didn’t have a non-profit mission and targeted groups that chose overtly political names.   Now given most of them were conservatives but then the majority of money being spent through this system of tax evasion was conservative corporate dollars.

        Now there are clear examples in the Bush era harassment of NAACP and more recent attacks on ACORN.

        But yes, people that think its ok for the govt to spy on them because they aren’t doing anything wrong are stupid, because you don’t know you are doing something wrong until someone in power decides its wrong.

        • Dave1183 says:

          Good point, I always welcome more information. : )

          “…you don’t know you are doing something wrong until someone in power decides its wrong.”

          This is why everyone should read “Three Felonies a Day.”

          (How do I control font usage here? Argh!) EDIT: Never mind, it fixed itself when I posted.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

       Needs a few more claws

  2. anon0mouse says:

    Hmmm. Somehow I feel like the eagle should be humping something.

    • theophrastvs says:

       the constitution would a likely target for that

    • teapot says:

      The eagle should be bald to represent the malnourished state of liberty in America.

      Obama’s become a complete disappointment in his second term. In his first he was (arguably) choosing the actions of a moderate to ensure he would be re-elected for the second term but since his re-election pretty much every decision he’s made has been a bad one for Americans. Also since France and the UK found evidence that al-asshole has been using sarin gas in Syria I’ve been waiting for Obama’s actions to match his rhetoric but… I’m still waiting. Impose a no-fly zone already, man!

      C’mon Obama… are you seriously going to let your second term become a race to the bottom to see if you can beat GWB at ruining America, or what?

      PS: Encrypted VOIP, baby. That’s what I’d be using if I was in the US. If everyone uses encrypted VOIP the sheer volume of data would mean it’s completely impractical to decrypt.

      I’m really pleased that all of this unconstitutional spying on Americans uncovered the Boston plot before it unfolded.. I mean, that’s what they’re supposedly doing it for, right?

      INTELFAIL

      • jacklaughing says:

         As far as national security, privacy issues, transparency, and the war on terror, Obama is about as moderate as Dick Cheney, and I say that having voted for him twice. The man has made a mockery of all his promises during his first election bid, and the only reason I voted for him a second time was that Mitt Romney was even more terrifying in his vague inability to show an ounce of consistent political fidelity in his entire adult life. Anyway, I digress, but attributing “moderate” to Obama is like saying Reagan was soft on unionized labor. Obama has always taken the politically expedient road on every security issue since taking office, regardless of prior rhetoric. He has not had an iota of interest in doing what is “right” regarding these issues since entering office, because he’s more interested in choosing the path that provides the most political cover vs fallout.

        He’s not a fascist so much as just simply a politician. He’d rather fuck the Constitutional protections of all Americans than be crucified for letting a hundred die at the hands of terrorists in a new attack, which his administration foolishly thinks he will foil by screwing us all over. It’s pure politics and nothing more.

        • ldobe says:

          Thanks for the remarkably clear eyed assessment.  Everyone always gets so emotional, and claim that Obama’s either a terrorist or a saint, and really he’s just a guy.

          If he really wanted to do half of what he promised, he could sacrifice his career, or at the very least a ton of political capital, and get his way (or rather deliver on some promises).  But he values his career too much to start sacrificing to make good on his word, I suppose.

          Which isn’t surprising in the least.  I can’t remember the last time I saw a president willing to sacrifice for the good of the nation.  Perhaps Jimmy Carter, unfortunately, it cost him his legacy and accomplished comparatively little when held up against other administrations.  Probably wasn’t worth it for him.  Although he’s been doing wonderful work with habitat for humanity.  I for one can’t say a bad thing about his post-presidential philanthropy.

          • teapot says:

            But he values his career too much to start sacrificing to make good on his word

            Dude, he’s the most powerful person in the world and he can’t be elected for a 3rd term…. what career is he supposedly protecting?

            If you’re talking career legacy that’s a different story, but he should seriously know that his legacy is going to be much more positive if he chooses what is right for Americans.

            PS: I don’t claim Obama to be a saint or a terrorist. I’m just making observations.

          • ldobe says:

             I did mean career legacy.

        • Reed James says:

           Well it seems Obamas reasoning is that if he matches conservatives on needed national security issues he can move a more progressive social agenda.  Although at this point he seems to have succeeded on being a security hawk and only been able to pass the most moderate of social change while the conservatives underfund any and all progress he makes.   It will be a glorious legacy of valid excuses.

      • Reed James says:

         It should be a giant blood sucking mosquito where the eagle once was.

  3. Lemoutan says:

    Needs a slogan to go with. “Snooping on your Shit since, like, Forever man”? (In Latin, natch).

  4. Lemoutan says:

    It’s the glamour y’know. Spize iz Glamma. All from the 1960s. Bond, Flint, even Harry Palmer. Recover the idea of the dirty little perv in the plastic mac, the peeping tom. There. Fixed.

  5. peregrinus says:

    I bet the French are wetting themselves laughing over all this awfulness.  And every tinpot dictator wannabe on the planet is scouring the world for the devs who made this all happen.

  6. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    But I feel safer!  Terrorists are under my bed!

  7. Matt L says:

    A few years ago I visited a nuclear energy museum in Las Vegas (my life could not be further from The Hangover). In their gift shop, I found a keychain with the motto of the Air Force Technical Applications Center on it:

    “In God We Trust. All Others We Monitor”.

    I bought it, because at the time, it seemed like such a ridiculous statement to make…

  8. Friendly_Stranger says:

    Forbes is using this logo, uncredited: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/05/nsas-verizon-spying-order-specifically-targeted-americans-not-foreigners/

Leave a Reply