Exactly.

Let's apply a little logic here, rather than fear.

There's such a thing as signal-to-noise; when you blindly query an enormous mass of unrelated data for things like that, you're going to get 99%+ noise. Nearly every news story and current event commentary, recipes, and normal day-to-day conversations in enormous volumes. This thread is no different; criticizing the government in a discussion of a news story is the constitutional right of every citizen (and the very reason for the first amendment).

The bottom line is either they are:

- Watching everyone all the time, in which case the question is 'what do we do about it'? Because despite recent attempts to interpret ones writings 'on a computer' as something other than the 21st century equivalent than 'speech', 'peaceful assembly' and 'papers and personal effects', that is unconstitutional on its face.

- Only watching certain people/things that they have externally been tipped to (with warrants), and otherwise just have infrastructure in place to get at it (like they claim). In this case nothing you say or do will likely have any impact on it at all (to trigger it or to stop it), because the system is only used to filter data from a known subject, rather than to initiate.

Now, despite the (entirely justified) urge to distrust the official line, logically that makes the most sense because that is the only way a keyword-based system would even approach practicality. That doesn't mean that the system can't be abused, of course (which is one of many reasons to argue it be dismantled), but it does mean that one should not cower to exercise his first amendment rights because of it (not that you should in any case). Because if such a thing causes them to snoop you, it is they who are in the wrong, not you.

In response to your implication that people should cow to 'the list' for fear of winding up under special observation by simple mention of particular words. If they are consuming all content from all of the major websites, application of those 'watch words' against the whole of it with no other filter would produce a useless mass of false positives, because all of those words are very common in innocuous news and commentary, etc. But I'm just a software architect, so what do I know about figuring SWAGs and feasibility from requirements.

Nobody is arguing that, or that it's an unnecessary overreach and should be stopped. The point of contention is simply the need for rational analysis and response, rather than FUD.

Nobody is arguing that either. But as with anything, you do yourself a disservice by giving in to paranoia and hyperbole, rather than applying critical thought. The simple fact is that what has been reported in official statements as to how it is used (including that very article about the watch words) makes a lot more logical sense to anyone who knows how databases actually work than do the exaggerated headlines. Sure, it may (and probably does) do other stuff, but the core function and architecture of the system still has to follow the same rules as any other data storage and analysis system does.

If they had made some spectacular breakthrough in data analysis such as people attribute to them, I have a very hard time believing they would be able to keep it to themselves for years. Because such a thing would be worth a very, very large amount of money in the private sector.

They can already do that by looking at public information on Facebook alone, for most people; they have already gladly waived any sort of privacy on that sort of thing. If anyone using Facebook weren't already assuming that were the case, then they're quite simply fools.

Which is an argument for it being not omniscient as you fear. And people who genuinely intend to do harm on a large scale know that well enough to discuss it offline (or not at all, like the leaker).

There's also the case of the Tsarnev brothers, on whom they were even given warnings by foreign intelligence... and still failed to stop.

TL;DR: We agree it needs to stop, but at least apply some critical thought instead of believing (and more importantly, spreading) all the hyperbole you read. If you can't assess and respond rationally, you can't effectively contribute to stopping it.

Not at all. You commented that people should be concerned about deliberate posting of watchword-soup invoking special observation (per that sensationalized headline). I countered that such a concern is not supported by a reasoned, critical analysis of the available information. But beyond that, yes, there's no point in further argument if there isn't going to be an agreement on the matter.

In a toneless medium, there's little distinction between belaboring supposed irony and baiting. And I'd kindly point out that the latter is frowned upon here. There's no point in a forum if we can't have an honest discussion, so if you don't mean it, don't say it.

For some reason, the US likes to portray themselves as a democracy, over and over, and they want to supposedly spread democracy, but the US is a republic. Just do a google search for Democracy vs Republic and a lot of what you get is ...

DEMOCRACY:

• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. <<-- hahaha, ya sure, politics draws psychopaths like moths to a flame.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. <<-- rofl
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.  <<-- WTF?
• Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. <<-- I think that's Oligarchy!

but a republic is also very open to corruption, just look at first republic, Rome, in its last days.

Meanwhile...as this thread teeters on the edge of 'politics' it, too runs the risk of decay and decline into the bowels of the JU 'Politics' Forum....

Before this thread is 'disappeared' - you'd think They'd have had better intel on the Tsarnaevs if They really do listen to and read everything.  Scarier thought is that They actually did.  Have the intel, that is.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20033342-38.html 

talking jobs my ass 

"Don't you remember when I said we want to collect everything and spy on everyone and you all laughed and said 'sure', well..."

That seems to be exactly right. There has been a pattern. In the early day of Obama's disastrous first term  there was a memo circulated by the Dept. of Homeland Absurdity and Secretary Janet Incompitano stating that the Dept. was more interested in looking at right wing extremists and tea party types rather than jihadists. It seemed from the very outset that the Administration was more obsessed with the enemies of the Democratic party than it was with the enemies of the United States. We've already seen how expendable people are to Obama and the Clinton's after they did nothing to save their friend as he was being dragged around the streets of Benghazi and sodomized with a stick. They didn't even send the FBI until a few weeks later even though FOX's Greg Palkot and CNN were there the next day collecting Stevens diary and trying to figure out what happened.