If you don't already know, Watch Dogs is based on the premise that everything in the world is hackable from your phone: other phones, power grids, cars, etc. The Division is a Tom Clancy game (featuring drones) set in the "fragility of society", where a pandemic has crippled New York City, incapacitating most of the population from working, providing services, utilities, etc.

And if you've been living under a rock, a CIA whistleblower exposed PRISM, a NSA government program that supposedly had "backdoor access" to most of the top tech companies. Presumably the access is for national security, but the government had access to the personal data of millions of private citizens. And unmanned drones potentially spying on citizens has been a touchy bipartisan topic for quite some time now.

Watch Dogs and the NSA. The Division and drone warfare.


Are we playing our futures?


Now, I don't mean our literal futures (kinda). But maybe a few generations (or less) down the line I can see a world where Watch Dog's technological hacking "superpower" is possible in a Division-like society that is struggling through structural breakdown. And seeing how incredibly immersive and mindbogglingly awesome both of these games could be, it made me wonder if we might be learning tons of insights on how our Real World societal future might actually be.

It dawned on me when The Division's creative director talked about playing the PVP mode through your tablet. You weren't on the ground with everyone else though, you were controlling a drone that could affect the battlefield. You're basically controlling the Battlefield UAV through your tablet as a means to play the game when you're not at home. Brilliant gameplay mechanic aside, I mean, honestly, doesn't it seem like this sort of drone technology is not too distant in our future?

The connection between Watch Dogs and the NSA is pretty obvious, I would think. If PRISM is allowed to continue in the name of national security, is our "safety" worth giving up our personal lives? I mean I pretty much trust Obama at the helm of this power. But what happens if we get Mr President Ted Cruz (or even worse, Donald Trump) in 2016? (thanks Bill). What happens if we elect another aggressive, warmongering President?

And The Division's "killer virus" plot doesn't currently resemble any real world conflicts, but imagine commonplace drone warfare in a conflict like Turkey's... as of today, the standoff between the government and the protestors has reached 12 days, and the vitriol from both sides is getting worse.

Swiped from here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22866043

***

But Mr Erdogan (prime minister) has stood firm throughout.

He has called the protesters "vandals" and "terrorists".

On Tuesday he told parliament that the movement was an international conspiracy against Turkey to destabilise its economy.

He lashed out at the foreign press for launching "comprehensive attacks" on the country and warned protesters that they were pawns in a wider game. "We won't show any more tolerance," he said.

Vast swathes of the country still back him. The protest movement has made the headlines - but another side of Turkey exists. Mr Erdogan's support base is conservative and more religious.

***

Turkey is not quite the "fragility of society" portrayed in The Division, but if the conflict persists it could conceivably exhibit a similar societal structural breakdown. For other possible real-world "doomsday" catalysts , imagine if the Koch brothers acquired the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, leading to Mr President Cruz in 2016? A flat income tax is instituted, all schools become private, social welfare programs are abolished... Or what if the Keystone Pipeline is built and causes a massive environmental disaster that dwarfs the BP oil spill and Chernobyl combined... setting off a chain of events that accelerates climate change to undeniably cataclysmic levels? Or even what if fucking SCIENTOLOGY takes over the world?

I mean.. these are all fantasies right? These couldn't ACTUALLY happen... right?

So yeah, fuck it. I'm lit and bored, so let's talk some policy and politics with a high tech twist. I'm curious to see what yall think. Feel free to comment on the videogames or the news, I'm interested in both. But let's keep the discourse reasonable and respectful. There are so many grey areas with all this stuff that there's no need to bring agendas into this (I acknowledge I may have put forth polarizing positions).

So yeah... I want to play both these games pretty bad now. The matchmaking in The Division sounds INCREDIBLE. Match me up with "PST", "No Dads", and "No 12 year olds" please. And I've been interested in Watch Dogs for a while now, but I hope the AI is up to par, because that will make or break that game.

It's gonna get real serious if a civilian gets a hold of a domestic fallen drone and somehow uses it for terrorist purposes. Maybe that's just a bit of my paranoia though, but still. It worries me that police departments are supposedly gonna be getting some, at the least.

If war's so bad that it's better not to send our troops to do what drones can, maybe we should just shut down war altogether?

Since we shut down activist, the goddamn patients have been running loose.

i'm out.
_____________________
"WHOLESALE REUSABLE GROCERY BAGS!!"
@etfp

too bad The Dark Knght already covered a lot of this ground

and 24

and...pretty much every god damn thing.

but no, Watch_dogs is prescient because it's the only thing that's ever happened.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You couldn't play The Dark Knight or 24, so those aren't exactly relevant here.

I'm just commenting on the coincidental impending release of both these *games* with their parallels to real world events.

And I never claimed issues of civil unrest and national surveillance are new concepts... the latter became prominent in the 60's and the former has been around since like the dawn of civilization.

But I still think that both these games will offer unique and heavily topical experiences that could foreshadow real world situations. No, video games depicting future or near-future situations obviously isn't new, but neither have they converged with such heavily debated national news before either. And whether you care or not, the PRISM and drone warfare national debates aren't ending any time soon.

.

cuz if it is, and you've made this incredibly insightful connection, you're a genius and I'd like to hear more from you.

Otherwise you've contributed nothing.


also, WOW DID YOU ACTUALLY TYPE "you couldn't play 24 or The Dark Knight"?

http://www.amazon.com/24-Game-Playstation-2/dp/B000B0RWWS



http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Just look at the Battlefield games with UAV's as examples of drone control. But if you actually want to have a serious discussion about this, there are several key differences.

In Battlefield, you're in actual battlefields in a clear war setting. There is no ambiguity with their use in Battlefield; target the enemy team and kill them. You don't have to worry about civilians, towns, non-military installations, etc.

In The Division (not Watch Dogs like you said), war hasn't broken out, you're in NYC (among civilians), and control of the drone is a much bigger deal (instead of a minor perk for a specific class, it's your actual avatar when playing with a tablet). In terms of the actual news, under Obama the use of drones has expanded greatly: questionable targets, poor accuracy, creating more "terrorists" faster than we can kill them, civilian surveillance, etc. Now obviously I haven't played The Division, but their use of drones in a civilian setting closely parallels the real-world debate of drone warfare. Even if the target is eliminated, the risk of civilian casualties is very high and happens often:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67939/peter-bergen-and-katherine-tiedemann/washingtons-phantom-war

Regarding drone warfare, as a nation we're headed down a slippery slope and now here comes a game that puts the gamer directly in control of drones among civilians in a society that is on the verge of collapse.


As for 24: The Game, forgive me for not remembering a game that came out in '06 with a metacritic score of 62:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/24-the-game/critic-reviews

Oh, and there's this really sad post with 2 replies in it:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=56002&mesg_id=56002&listing_type=search

Nevermind the fact that Snowden and the NSA absolutely ECLIPSES any other domestic surveillance scandals in the past (including Nixon), seeing as how it was exposed in an era of smartphones, social media and unprecedented global communications. So no, domestic surveillance and hacking aren't new, but Watch Dogs IS the first game to portray it in such an intimate manner.... which was the point of my original post.

So to reiterate, video games depicting near-future situations isn't new, but neither have they so closely converged with hotly debated national news either. This was the premise of my original post, not that these games were the first to depict these elements. But yeah, if you want to nitpick about minor errors I've made regarding older games in the past (yet with comparatively minor relevance to news at the time), then go right ahead. Avoid the forest for the leaves.... that's always been your lame schtick. It's pretty sad and makes you look like a petulant child.

And oh by the way, I'm still waiting for your rebuttal on the whole "Microsoft had no plans to provide a marketplace/incentive to the consumer to justify the DRM" stance that I had. You've been curiously quiet on that front, especially since I provided several articles proving my point. Are you just going to ignore that too, just like all the other debates we've had in the past? Honestly though, I don't expect a response since you've been wrong almost every single time. You seem to have a natural aversion to admitting an L, so I don't expect anything different this time.



inb4 "I ain't reading all that shit I got a life"

I didn't read that shit.

we are all blessed you have time to write these essays....and no time to even consider checking if the things you're saying are correct or at all well reasoned.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I didn't read that shit.
>
>we are all blessed you have time to write these essays....and
>no time to even consider checking if the things you're saying
>are correct or at all well reasoned.
>
>
>http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

BWAHAHAHAHAHA


SO FUCKING PREDICTABLE

Thanks for proving my point.

Here you are talking about "research" and "reason" and you articulate like a five year old.

How sad is it that you always resort to the "I ain't reading all that shit" response when you're a fucking WRITER.

You WRITE for a living!

How is it possible that you're so consistently and terribly wrong?

There are people who care about the things I write so much that I'm able to make a living doing it.

You think I'm doing it wrong. You write long essays I don't read because you don't know what you're talking about.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


there must be some explanation that makes all of these things fit.


http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

it's all in who you blow

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

is that you keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about...

yet I'm ALWAYS able to explain what I'm talking about.



Can't say the same about you.... "writer."



Edit:

Oh, and as for research?

Not like you'd ever read these, but here's some references:

Statistically, only about 1/7 of drones actually kill their targets, with an even smaller percentage of those being high level operative. Break it down, and this means only about 2% of high level "terrorists" are killed. This link is the non-paywall version of one I linked above:

http://www.rolc.sc.edu/images/Reading%20Materials/March%2015.16.2011/Drone%20Wars%20Article.pdf


On the notion that using drones "creates" more terrorists than it kills. How? The unmanned strikes only serve to inflame the locals more, splinter the terrorist groups and breed anti-US hatred:

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/05/drone_blowback_is_real/

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://gizmodo.com/commercial-drones-are-now-approved-for-aerial-surveilla-965953836?utm_source=feedburner

Commercial Drones Are Now Approved for Aerial Surveillance

Creepy drone spying is no longer just the purview of the military in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration recently cleared two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for commercial use surveilling the Alaskan coast, marking a sharp turn for the future of domestic drone use.

One of the drones, an Insitu Scan Eagle 200, will be used by a "major energy company" for monitoring migrating whales and icebergs off the Alaskan coast, while the other one, an AeroVironment PUMA, will monitor oil spills up in the Beaufort Sea. These are the first of what will surely be a significant number of commercial drones use for aerial surveillance around the country.

The arrival of certified commercial surveillance drones comes as a first step to measures in the FAA Reauthorization Act that President Obama renewed last year calling for new regulations to govern the use of commercial drones by 2015. Until now, drones could only fly with an experimental airworthiness and not for commercial purposes. Although that didn't stop photographers or journalists from using the machines for specialized purposes. It did kickstart an entire industry of commercial drone manufacturing to make sure there are UAVs ready for purchase when the FAA gives the go ahead.

Well, the agency's now got that ball rolling, and 2015 will be here before we know it. In the meantime, it's good to know that a couple of flying robots have their eyes on the Alaskan coast for us. At least, it's better than knowing a couple of flying robots have their eyes on us.

Image via AP

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Should I rehash some of the points I stated above? Do you really want to get into a logical debate with me again?

And, for the record, I didn't post the above article as some sort of "I'm right" shit.

But regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about the premise of my original post, fact is that drones and the NSA are big news nowadays (*cough* XKeyscore *cough*). And one of the biggest "barriers" of drone use just got broken down... commercial use.

So yeah, if you want to actually talk about the topic in a mature, adult way, then I'm all for it.

But if you want to CONTINUE to antagonize me for no reason whatsoever, then fuck you. Bring it. I will shut you down like I did in all the other posts.

I'M SHOCKED


THAT IT'S 2004.

I'VE GOT SOME BETS TO PUT DOWN IN VEGAS BRB

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But you lack reading comprehension, so I might as well state my position one more time:

The drone debate has become bigger news since Obama expanded the use of drone warfare during his administration, contrary to the position he took while campaigning.

And the article I recently linked points out that this is the FIRST time that drones have been approved for commercial use. The intentions may be "harmless" (if this "major energy company" is on the up-and-up), but this is a slippery slope once more private companies get approved for drone surveillance.

So no, drone use isn't new, which was never my position... but access to commercial drones IS new. Which you should have known if you read the article.

So, again, I must repeat myself when I ask you (since you obviously have reading comprehension issues): Do you want to communicate like an adult and actually discuss the topic using bigger sentences than what a six-year-old can muster? Or do you want to revert back to acting like a petulant child by typing in all caps and saying "I didn't read all that BECAUSE I HAVE A LIFE"


inb4 OH SHIT CLAIRVOYANT SON

it's almost like he didn't have anything interesting to say so he wanted to spice it up with some unrelated, untrue, and ultimately silly bullshit.

I dunno why he did that to you, cuz I like you too much to treat you like that.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I can work with this.

So you have an issue with my use of the word "clairvoyant". That's fine, I have no problems with that. However, you go on to say that the content of my post is "unrelated, untrue and ultimately silly bullshit".

Ok, I'll humor you. Please explain how my content was "unrelated, untrue and ultimately silly bullshit".

Complete sentences, please.



Edit: Oh, and don't think I didn't notice that you didn't address a single point of mine in post #23. This is your deflection schtick, I get it. But it's not a good look for you when you consistently have issues with my positions yet cannot articulate how exactly my positions are "unrelated, untrue and ultimately silly bullshit."

Still waiting for a reply on this Rj:

"Ok, I'll humor you. Please explain how my content was "unrelated, untrue and ultimately silly bullshit".

Like I said in post #13, what's funny is that you keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about, yet I'm ALWAYS able to explain what I'm talking about.

Can't say the same about you.... "writer".




"You're rattlin' on and on, and ain't sayin nuthin..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5dOCSBBEI&list=PLAD6ABFD348D6931B#t=2m1s

there's nothing to defend. your words do all the work -- it's hilariously bad.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Professional technology writer unable to write even a modicum of a legitimate response.

I dunno if there's a poster with a better at bat percentage.

-Sig-

“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"

-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Seriously. In all the times we've butted heads on these boards, have you ever once been able to eloquently articulate a winning position against me?

Like I said above, you're so quick to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, yet you can't even write complete sentences when putting forth your "position".

so I don't know what we're competing on, you should hopefully be winning!

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Besides the obvious hyperbole (since in your last reply to me you considered the content of my post "unrelated, untrue, and ultimately silly bullshit"), I know you're blatantly lying because of this:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=283852&mesg_id=283852&page=#284299

Did you forget you posted this somehow? At the time, I thought you had actually matured and took one on the chin to stop this pointless bickering. I believed it earnest so I replied sincerely, but for some reason you still want to antagonize me.

But at least I've got you typing in complete sentences now. And no more yelling... seriously, what was up with that?

I would have to think about you.

this is the flaw in your interpretation of our interactions

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Edit: Oh, and this response was utterly predictable as well. You talk shit, start hemming and hawing about other shit when faced with a logical rebuttal, then resort to some bizarre personal attacks when cornered.

Like clockwork:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=283852&mesg_id=283852&page=#283890

The only thing I know about you is that you've never posted about anything you know anything about.

You're probably a wonderful person, and very attractive to people of various sexual orientations.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I prefer harmony, but every once in a while it feels good to flex the muscles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cs5_Ddq7s0o

Edit:

And accompanying news article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks � what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

Analysts can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing "real-time" interception of an individual's internet activity.

Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst.

And don't get me wrong.. I'm a big Obama supporter. Immigration, gay marriage, job creation... I'm on board with all of those. And I understand the position he's in when trying to negotiate with a conservative base that skews far right.

I just find it unfortunate that Obama has expanded Bush's national security policies to such an extreme.

So Rj, you want to tell me how my posts are "unrelated, untrue and ultimately silly bullshit" again?

�Senator Obama warned about Patriot Act abuses. President Obama proved him right.�

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/02/sen-obama-warned-about-patriot-act-abuses-president-obama-proved-him-right/


The government has argued that records of every phone call made in the United States are �relevant� to counter-terrorism investigations generally, allowing them to obtain information about the private phone calls of millions of Americans � exactly the kind of argument Sen. Obama warned the government would make if the language of Section 215 wasn�t tightened.

Sen. Obama and his colleagues also objected to the lack of transparency and due process in Section 215. �The target of a Section 215 order never receives notice that the government has obtained his sensitive personal information and never has an opportunity to challenge the use of this information in a trial or other proceeding,� they wrote.
Again, this prediction proved prescient. In 2012, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked the NSA for a �ballpark estimate� of the number of Americans who had been subject to NSA surveillance. The NSA refused, claiming that revealing the number would violate the targets� privacy. We now know that the figure was in the hundreds of millions. And prior to NSA leaker Edward Snowden�s disclosures, none of them received notice of the surveillance or an opportunity to challenge it in court.

So what changed Obama�s mind? Obviously, being elected president makes people more comfortable with presidential power and less enthusiastic about limits on that power. It�s also possible that when Obama became president and began receiving intelligence briefings, he became more alarmed about terrorist threats and more willing to limit civil liberties to deal with them. In any event, it seems likely that if Obama were still in the Senate, he�d be joining Wyden in criticizing the NSA�s use of the Patriot Act to spy on millions of Americans.

Correction: This story originally stated, incorrectly, that Ron Wyden signed the 2005 letter. We regret the error.

you have no knowledge of anything

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Seriously, do you even know how to read?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105435/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDtzN6bXAM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ocbvwam7c


NSA spying on networks? on american citizens and communications? who could imagine that in 2013? wallychamp must be the greatest to have figured this out. and the developers of watch_dogs, omg, where did they get this super secret info before it leaked?

totally bizarre that robert redford, sidney poitier, dan aykroyd and ben muthafuckin kingsley were in a movie with exactly this plot two decades ago.

I'ma go sit down, all thistruthfactbomb is making my head spin

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105435/
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDtzN6bXAM
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ocbvwam7c
>
>
>NSA spying on networks? on american citizens and
>communications? who could imagine that in 2013? wallychamp
>must be the greatest to have figured this out. and the
>developers of watch_dogs, omg, where did they get this super
>secret info before it leaked?
>
>totally bizarre that robert redford, sidney poitier, dan
>aykroyd and ben muthafuckin kingsley were in a movie with
>exactly this plot two decades ago.
>
>I'ma go sit down, all thistruthfactbomb is making my head
>spin

Clearly, Ubisoft knew something Will Smith and everyone else who starred in the Enemy of the State did not know. This Patriots conspiracy that Wally has exposed is just too much for everyone to handle. Next thing you know they're going to find a way to hack into Android phones. Wally is the weed smokingest, consistently LOUD and WRONG delusional poster in high-tech. This post needs 200 more replies, some infowars links, and some genuine Wally outrage.

No empathy for white misery (c) BDot

"root for everybody black haters say that's crazy, wow..."

Rj, you got the dumbest poster on okayplayer cosigning your shit

Congrats, you hit a new low

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

How many times have I said in this thread that the issues of national security and the drone debate aren't new? But that due to recent updates in both issues have they become serious national hot button topics? Partly because of both of these issues (moreso Prism/NSA) Obama's approval rating is actually trending lower:

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/310037-obamas-poll-numbers-flagging

"Looking at the Gallup poll�s daily tracking trend line of President Obama�s job approval, the president has been at 45 or 46 percent since the end of last month.
More importantly, he has been upside-down, with higher disapproval than approval, for six of the past eight tracks.

Even Obama�s staunchest supporters from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns were probably annoyed recently when the president lectured on the merits of the National Security Agency�s domestic spying programs."


Until you acknowledge that fact, you stay looking dumb and ignorant as fuck. Go ahead, keep posting IMDB links from movies from 1992. I'll stay posting highly topical, recent links from actual news that's happening RIGHT NOW.

thought this deserved a re-up. I haven't followed development and couldn't jump in the beta, is drone control via tablet still a thing?

As far as the original post, national security is a major campaigning point these days. Trump's entire platform is basically xenophobic jingoism. But it chills me that this line I typed in 2013 is actually still in play:


"If PRISM is allowed to continue in the name of national security, is our "safety" worth giving up our personal lives? I mean I pretty much trust Obama at the helm of this power. But what happens if we get Mr President Ted Cruz (or even worse, Donald Trump) in 2016? (thanks Bill). What happens if we elect another aggressive, warmongering President? "


I remember typing that half-jokingly, but it's fucking shocking that Trump and Cruz are actually the Republican frontrunners at this point in time.

As for drones... less covered these days, but still some significant recent headlines:

Pentagon program Perdix that deployed small drones from jets (with declassified video):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/08/watch-perdix-the-secretive-pentagon-program-dropping-tiny-drones-from-jets/


The Pentagon’s secretive Strategic Capabilities Office has been testing micro-drones that can be dropped from moving fighter jets for nearly two years — and for the first time, there is video to show it.

The video released to The Post shows a flare canister falling after being released from an F-16 fighter jet over Alaska. A tiny parachute slows its fall until the canister breaks open, releasing the drone inside. Another video reviewed by The Post, but not yet released, shows the micro-drones flying in packs of at least 20.


Obama administration to disclose civilian drone deaths for greater transparency:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-to-open-drone-books-disclose-numbers-killed-in-u-s-strikes-1457387859

The Obama administration announced Monday that it will release casualty totals of people killed in U.S. counterterrorism strikes abroad, in an effort to bring greater transparency to one of the most controversial aspects of the war on terrorism.

The assessment, which is due in the coming weeks, will cover both combatant and noncombatant deaths dating back to the beginning of President Barack Obama’s administration in 2009.

“The president’s view is that the American public and the world can have greater confidence in the success and the effectiveness of these programs to fight terrorism if we’re more transparent about them,” Mr. Earnest told reporters Monday.

Edit: And to continue with the Turkey link in the original post, Erdogan also silenced his biggest critic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ergodans-press-assault-1457308765

A Turkish court on Friday effectively shut down Zaman, the country’s highest-circulation newspaper. Zaman has been one of the last institutions standing between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his dream of ruling as a Turkish sultan.

The decision means the state will appoint new management and editorial staff. Large protests broke out at the newspaper’s headquarters in Istanbul over the weekend, with readers and columnists joining the barricades to face down tear gas. Zaman published a defiant final edition on Saturday, and its English-language sister newspaper, Today’s Zaman, continues to post updates online.

“I believe that free media will continue even if we have to write on the walls,” Zaman Editor-in-Chief Abdulhamit Bilici said Friday. Zaman writers who showed up to work over the weekend complained of having to work under the watchful eyes of special-operations forces, and they said they couldn’t access their email accounts or the newspaper’s pagination system to file stories.

Mr. Erdogan now rules Turkey much as his geopolitical rival, Vladimir Putin, rules Russia. One lesson, for established democracies as much as new ones, is to beware of popular authoritarians who promise to punish the press.

... in a world with ISIS threats leading to Apple vs FBI. And that's just the major headlines.

Are you seriously this ignorant?

You saw a trailer for Watch Dogs and The Division as Edward Snowden scrolled across Fox News. You then made a post about it because you feel this developer was clairvoyant and brought attention to some dystopian future.

Anyone that paid attention to the Patriot Act or the FISA Amendments acts realizes that your link in post 49 is old news.

You call me ignorant yet YOU CLAIMED this:

>RE: Watch Dogs and the NSA. The Division and drone warfare. >Clairvoyant?
>
>If you don't already know, Watch Dogs is based on the premise
>that everything in the world is hackable from your phone:
>other phones, power grids, cars, etc. The Division is a Tom
>Clancy game (featuring drones) set in the "fragility of
>society", where a pandemic has crippled New York City,
>incapacitating most of the population from working, providing
>services, utilities, etc.
>
>And if you've been living under a rock, a CIA whistleblower
>exposed PRISM, a NSA government program that supposedly had
>"backdoor access" to most of the top tech companies.
>Presumably the access is for national security, but the
>government had access to the personal data of millions of
>private citizens. And unmanned drones potentially spying on
>citizens has been a touchy bipartisan topic for quite some
>time now.
>
>Watch Dogs and the NSA. The Division and drone warfare.
>
>
>Are we playing our futures?
>
>
>Now, I don't mean our literal futures (kinda). But maybe a
>few generations (or less) down the line I can see a world
>where Watch Dog's technological hacking "superpower" is
>possible in a Division-like society that is struggling through
>structural breakdown. And seeing how incredibly immersive and
>mindbogglingly awesome both of these games could be, it made
>me wonder if we might be learning tons of insights on how our
>Real World societal future might actually be.

You want to quote me? You should also quote post #4:

"I'm just commenting on the coincidental impending release of both these *games* with their parallels to real world events.

And I never claimed issues of civil unrest and national surveillance are new concepts... the latter became prominent in the 60's and the former has been around since like the dawn of civilization.

But I still think that both these games will offer unique and heavily topical experiences that could foreshadow real world situations. No, video games depicting future or near-future situations obviously isn't new, but neither have they converged with such heavily debated national news before either. And whether you care or not, the PRISM and drone warfare national debates aren't ending any time soon."

>But I still think that both these games will offer unique and
>heavily topical experiences that could foreshadow real world
>situations. No, video games depicting future or near-future
>situations obviously isn't new, but neither have they
>converged with such heavily debated national news before
>either. And whether you care or not, the PRISM and drone
>warfare national debates aren't ending any time soon."

COD had a No Russian mission that you left out of your rant but fuck facts.

What drone warfare national debate are you talking about? There isn't a national drone warfare debate in the national mainstream political forum. People have more important things to debate about.

The moral of the story here is this:

STOP TYPING ON THE TOILET WITH ONE HAND ON THE SMARTPHONE WHILE WIPING YOUR ASS. You're getting shit everywhere. You keep talking out of your ass serious as shit with these mind numbing correlations between topics you don't have a full grasp of.

> COD had a No Russian mission that you left out of your rant but fuck facts.

What is a "No Russian" mission? Do you understand the nuance of my argument? Stop cherry picking what you want to debate and ignore the larger point of my argument.

> What drone warfare national debate are you talking about? There isn't a national drone warfare debate in the national mainstream political forum. People have more important things to debate about.

It's an election season and I typed that post three years ago. Since then drones have become a commercial commodity, there are legal battles regarding drone airspace and the global community has long criticized the U.S. for the use of drone strikes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-counterterrorism-idUSKCN0W9231

Obama has reduced the reliance on drone strikes since the height of the backlash and that is a big reason why it is no longer in the national debate:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2016/01/07/cia-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-fall-to-lowest-level-in-8-years-bureaus-annual-report-reveals/

No, drones are not currently in the national debate, although they were at one point and will re-enter it again in the future... for their commercial purposes (cough *Amazon* cough).

> STOP TYPING ON THE TOILET WITH ONE HAND ON THE SMARTPHONE WHILE WIPING YOUR ASS. You're getting shit everywhere.

LOL, did you just bite the shit analogy I typed to Rjcc in the HBO thread?

Seriously, educate yourself on these things before you step into the debate. You might just learn something.

you can post links to every surveillance that ever comes, but it doesn't change the timeline.

you don't have special understanding of things. it's ok. we love you anyway.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You tried this earlier in the post (#21, #23) and you got shot down. You're so dense you don't even realize you're making the same mistakes as before.

Unlike drones, national surveillance is still in the public conversation. XKeyscore and PRISM were mentioned in this NYTimes article just last week:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/technology/in-the-apple-case-a-debate-over-data-hits-home.html

What I find especially hilarious about you is that you're trying oh-so-very-hard to debunk the original premise using these negligible semantic arguments. What is going over your head is the fact that the two issues I highlighted in the original post have evolved and become even more relevant today, three years later. The fact that it took The Division this long to release is just the cherry on top for me.

You're so hellbent on trying to prove me wrong logic never enters your arguments. You're Fox News screaming about Obama bringing ebola to the US, you're Mitch McConnell declaring a Supreme Court justice should be appointed next year, you're Donald Trump saying he doesn't incite violence.

Seriously. Maybe you should reread some of these posts before posting like you're on your period. It's unbecoming for a grown man, let alone one who writes for a living.

you have a problem and it's really kinda scary at this point.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Ad hominem, always deflecting, and scared as shit to stay on topic.

Like. Fucking. Clockwork.

afterwards, there's no topic to stay on except for concern about you

I feel like these posts are a symptom of something deeper and I hope it all works out for you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/

Surprise! NSA data will soon routinely be used for domestic policing that has nothing to do with terrorism

A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy. The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.

This basically formalizes what was already happening under the radar. We’ve known for a couple of years now that the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS were getting information from the NSA. Because that information was obtained without a warrant, the agencies were instructed to engage in “parallel construction” when explaining to courts and defense attorneys how the information had been obtained. If you think parallel construction just sounds like a bureaucratically sterilized way of saying big stinking lie, well, you wouldn’t be alone. And it certainly isn’t the only time that that national security apparatus has let law enforcement agencies benefit from policies that are supposed to be reserved for terrorism investigations in order to get around the Fourth Amendment, then instructed those law enforcement agencies to misdirect, fudge and outright lie about how they obtained incriminating information — see the Stingray debacle. This isn’t just a few rogue agents. The lying has been a matter of policy. We’re now learning that the feds had these agreements with police agencies all over the country, affecting thousands of cases.

On the one hand, I guess it’s better that this new data-sharing policy is acknowledged in the open instead of carried out surreptitiously. On the other hand, there’s something even more ominous about the fact that they no longer feel as though they need to hide it.

It’s all another sobering reminder that any powers we grant to the federal government for the purpose of national security will inevitably be used just about everywhere else. And extraordinary powers we grant government in wartime rarely go away once the war is over. And, of course, the nifty thing for government agencies about a “war on terrorism” is that it’s a war that will never formally end.