Michael Hardner

What I indicated is that over the last dozen years things had changed -- for the worse, with much more documentation required, more levels of approval, more centralization of power at the top. It changed post Chretien because the Tories blamed the bureaucrats for allowing Chretien's adscam games even though it was clear those involved were breaking all kinds of existing rules but being protected by their political masters. No new rules were required, but we got the Accountability Act anyway.

Ok, I see. So it's even worse than I suspected. We need to take these services farther away from the reach of political mismanagers.

No, you're mistaken. The primary goal of politicians as well as senior bureaucrats is ALWAYS their own well-being. If something goes wrong, they catch heat for it. They don't want heat. And they don't much care what needs to be done to protect them from blame for things that go wrong. So the politicians demand huge oversight from the senior executives. They, in turn, not wanting to be blamed for anything, put in place tons of rules, restrictions, policies and procedures so they can micromanage everything that goes on below them. This cascades down and results in huge inefficiencies.

But you indicated that this changed. Why did it change ? I think it's because they're trying to reign in costs.
 

Most of it can be put down to the fact that none of the people in charge trust the people immediately below them to do their job properly. NONE of them. This is why before we can make any changes to our external web site, for example, the assistant deputy minister's office must approve them. What does that mean? It means that even minor changes require reports and documentation for approval by ones manager, then director (in consultation with public affairs), then director general before being forwarded to the ADM's office for their approval. This sort of thing is absolutely routine everywhere in government.

That's so ridiculous. Politicians are so inept at business, my God...

For the technically declined, this is usually the response. It's not meant as an insult, just a reality.

No. You're changing the subject from what I was talking about, and saying 'understanding the technology is very important'. I didn't see the need to respond to that obvious point, and I am sure that I understand the technology better than most citizens.
 

The evidence already came out. How are you dealing with it?

The evidence came out that they actually are listening ? I missed that. Did it really ?

The central banks aren't relinquishing any power soon. When you have the very best thinking that they know what's best nothing will change. Their world will not collapse without a fight that means economic terrorism.

Without specifics, you could be talking about anything from a facebook protest to a revolution...

Actually the progression of Internet technology plays key role in the ability to have this massive data collecting system that has been created. Understand the technology and how they are using it is very very important.

Moving on...

Well, emotions are going to come into it. People kind of get uppity when their government constantly lies to them. As
the saying goes, 'If you are not pissed, then you have not been paying attention'.

So what I suspected (backed by evidence along the way) years ago, is actually happening now. The Internet is simply another weapons system for the US military. This time the sites are on Americans. Sure Obama said they are not listening and no Americans are targeted..... how can anyone believe that?

If evidence comes out, we can deal with it then.

I agree with some secrecy, however this blanket measure does not offer any security at all, it's an infringement on US citizens rights, first and foremost. And the only way someone can argue the legality of this program is because the government changed the laws to make their pactions legal. If they had not changed the laws, then this would be illegal.

If the rules don't allow you to do what you want, then the option is to change the rules. That is what has happened.

We seem to have reached the understanding point of our discussion here.