Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, July 23, 2008 08:31 AM

  @bearpaw1

  I am quite sure that the government alphabet soup has, and has pretty much always had, any number of databases on American citizens, and citizens of allied countries too for that matter, over and above terrorists, and they have always been assiduously mining to the limits of the technology they have at the time. And in fact I am also sure that the NSA has some VERY GOOD technology, they have some very bright people working for them.

  And as long as it isn't used as the basis for legal charges, there is no way at all to find out. I too would be disappointed if I wasn't on a list or two. Not that that worries me much either; those lists are Very Big, and never shrink, so I am in an awful lot of company, I am sure.

  But what I was trying to point out was the extraordinary weakness of the article. When it relies on a source like William Hamilton (pretty much the only named source in the whole piece at that!) and relates the extraordinarily murky and very old history Inslaw/PROMIS mess with breathless awe, well the quality of the reportage is obvious. (And that Mr. Shorrock and the Salon Editorial staff have never heard of Google or Wikipedia.) Making the "revelation" that the government is using something scary and super powerful called PROMIS to investigate citizens pretty much undercuts any credibility that the article might have. I kept waiting for Shorrock to excitedly reveal the existence of Echelon and the Berlin tunnel.

  Did you know that Santa isn't real? Neither is the Easter Bunny, sorry to say. Time to wake up and smell the coffee! It's all a vast conspiracy I tell ya!

  No, what this whole story has me wondering is who decided to float it, and why? And what on earth were Salon editors thinking?

  —Canuckistan Bob Read Canuckistan Bob's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel