The NSA Goes Rogue

Propublica--World of Spycraft

NSA and CIA operatives have determined that online role-playing games are opportune platforms on which to conduct terrorist acts or plots. Intelligence agencies have determined with some revelation that online games are becoming more and more prominent, and due to the anonymous nature of such games, and the ways that violence already pervade in them and their culture, video games are ideal for creating terrorist plots. With agents in these online worlds searching for seeds of terrorism or domestic/international threats, (or perhaps just getting their Death Knights to level 90) can we maintain our sense of privacy? Internet culture with respect to gaming often features brutal and violent personalities, for the veil of the computer screen and miles of distance make it easy to antagonize people--you likely won't feel any repercussions. Still, there are some who play to entertain themselves or meet other like-minded individuals. While many speak on the internet without carefully considering their words, and likely don't care how they offend others, they may find the federal government knocking at their doors. What may be intended as a tasteless joke in a competitive gaming scenario may be misinterpreted as a threat to national security.

While the government probably will not misinterpret "im gonna kill u" said by sk8rboi420 to be a glimpse into the psyche of a rampant murderer, the frequency at which violence is discussed in video games today makes it nearly impossible to distinguish what is real and what is a waste of time. Are NSA agents looking to lounge around and play World of Warcraft while collecting their paychecks? Or are there really Dwarven Engineers who may be engineering plots against the government? Regardless of whether or not the national government uncovers terrorism in the World of Warcraft, they have drawn some ground-breaking conclusions such as "players under age 18 often used all capital letters both in chat messages and in their avatar names."

Author: Andrew W. Lehren

CNN--Snowden Condemns NSA

Snowden attacks the NSA’s actions as offensive and shocking. In a letter to a German magazine, Snowden vividly describes how objections to government surveillance, which prompted many other national governments to conduct their own investigations.

Author: Chelsea J. Carter & Susanna Capelouto

Washington Post--NSA Intelligence Gathering

Washington Post puts the magnitude of the surveillance into perspective by claiming that the NSA gains billions of phone records every day with information on the whereabouts of phones and mobile devices. NSA agents attempt to hide the sheer number of documents collected, as well as other figures.

Author: Julie Tate

Catching Liars

Who wants to be a millionaire? I'd think nearly everyone, save Buddhists, minimalists, and billionaires. The question is, what price are we willing to pay to get there? Some get caught up in the rat race, some steal and ransack, but most never quite make it to that 6th zero. Charles Ingram was desperate as any to make a bit of money, and when he was called up as a contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? he saw his opportunity. Charles Ingram is by no means incompetent. He's clearly experienced in playing the system, as he develops a system with one Tecwen Whittock, another contestant, to cheat on the show and win the million dollars. He's quickly found out, however, as his system is almost comical to behold.

Here's the first part right at your fingertips. Should you decide you're interested, the rest are linked below.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Still, both Tecwen Whittock and Charles Ingram remind us of a societal flaw that seems to pervade more and more with time. Cheaters seem to prosper. In their case, they were discovered, but in countless insurance fraud instances across the nation every year, people are able to get away with murder, nobody the wiser (in fact, over 30% of murders in the U.S. went unsolved in 2012). Charles Ingram didn't seem to be heard from much afterwards, but did receive some sort of comeuppance referenced at the end of the documentary. Still, justice didn't seem to be the focus of this documentary. It only seemed to further the point that, if done correctly, cheating can be highly beneficial. Others may learn from his mistakes and, as time goes on, there's no telling how cheating might involve, for just as the technology to prevent it advances, the same advancements can be used to break it.

Do cheaters receive more than just a slap on the wrist? More often than not, yes. But they must be caught first, and in that condition lies a great failure of our system--we either ignore cheating when it occurs right before our eyes, or are unable to recognize it before it escalates.

A Quick Way to Become a Social Outcast

There's nothing more frustrating than someone arguing irrefutably incorrect information. Strike that, there's nothing more frustrating than someone arguing irrefutably incorrect information without realizing it's incorrect. That's the case for me, at least. With the possible exception of being condescended, it's my number one pet peeve, and it happened at Chamber Retreat. Each section was required to present a game to play--a way to unwind after hours of singing. One such game was the classic outdoors sensation known as camouflage. For those of you who aren't familiar, the rules can be found here:

http://www.ultimatecampresource.com/site/camp-activity/camouflage.html

The purpose of camouflage is simple--be camouflaged. That entails being able to see someone without them seeing you. So when the game is explained where it's very easy to sit out of sight and have a distinct advantage over the person in the center, it becomes something entirely different--the infamous Waiting Game (hardly a game if you ask me.) Now upon explanation of "camouflage," to clarify, I attempted to suggest the simple correction to the game that would transform it back into what it was intended to be. We had it set up to where, if you read the rules, rather than hold up a finger to ensure vision was maintained throughout the process of calling people out, the central scouter simply shouted out colors. This completely eliminates the purpose of the game, and when Sheryl Warfield, bless her heart because she can't stand the same things I can't, and I opened our mouths, we were met with exasperated sighs and demonization.

Boom. Instant pariahs.

Granted, the presenter may have felt disrespected, because as he was taught to play the game, it made sense to him, but it was simply incorrect. Looking around, I made eye contact with plenty of people whom I knew had experience playing the game correctly, and they confirmed that I wasn't crazy, but they simply kept their mouths shut. I thought them wiser than I. They foresaw the inevitable consequence of everyone's disdain and scorn. I was impetuous, and for whatever reason, I felt as though I was some sort of crusader against the injustice of a game. Well, Sir Jeffrey the Impetuous, that was a dumb way to look at it. I wasn't "saving" anything, and rather than attempt to enjoy the Waiting Game, I let the flaws burden on me and even got into a verbal fight with the presenter, a good friend of mine. Sure, we're fine now because it was too trivial to get in the way of a good friendship, but there was simply no purpose.

So why do people keep their mouths shut? Why don't people complain when the train reaches 85 degrees or they don't like the music in Abercrombie and Fitch? Because it's just. not. worth it. It isn't worth the disapproval and the dirty looks. It isn't worth starting an argument over something so trivial, and most of all, whether people agree with you or not, you're likely not going to receive much support. We are condemned to silence, and in that silence, we build character.