Hasta La Gadget!

As a matter of faith, some people believe that God can see and hear everything. But as a matter of fact, the U.S. government now has the kind of surveillance powers formerly attributed only to a supreme being.

Top “national security” officials in Washington now have the determination and tech prowess to keep tabs on billions of people. No one elected Uncle Sam to play God. But a dire shortage of democratic constraints has enabled the U.S. surveillance state to keep expanding with steely resolve.

By the time Edward Snowden used NSA documents to expose — beyond any doubt — a global surveillance dragnet, the situation had deteriorated so badly because the Bush and Obama administrations were able to dismiss earlier warnings to the public as little more than heresy.

Eight years ago, in the book “State of War,” New York Times reporter James Risen devoted a chapter to the huge expansion of surveillance. A secret decision by President Bush “has opened up America’s domestic telecommunications network to the NSA in unprecedented and deeply troubling new ways, and represents a radical shift in the accepted policies and practices of the modern U.S. intelligence community,” Risen wrote.

Risen added: “The NSA is now tapping into the heart of the nation’s telephone network through direct access to key telecommunications switches that carry many of America’s daily phone calls and e-mail messages.”

More details on the surveillance state came in 2008 with James Bamford’s book “The Shadow Factory,” which illuminated the National Security Agency’s program for “eavesdropping on America.” And in August of 2012 — nearly 10 months before Snowden’s revelations began — filmmaker Laura Poitras released a mini-documentary on the New York Times website about the NSA’s mass surveillance program.

All three journalists relied on whistleblowers who balked at the NSA’s virtual mission to see and hear everything. Both books (especially “State of War”) depended on information from unnamed sources. The short documentary focused on a public whistleblower — former NSA executive William Binney, who continues to speak out.

Testifying to a committee of the German parliament in Berlin two weeks ago, Binney — whose 30 years at the NSA included work as a high-level intelligence official — said that the NSA has a “totalitarian mentality.”

Days later, speaking at a conference in London, Binney explained: “At least 80 percent of fiber-optic cables globally go via the U.S. This is no accident and allows the U.S. to view all communication coming in. At least 80 percent of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the U.S. The NSA lies about what it stores.”

Since last summer, a backup source of strength for the voices of Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe and other NSA whistleblowers — the fact that Snowden has provided the public with NSA documents — is exactly what has enraged U.S. officials who want to maintain and escalate their surveillance power. Because of those unveiled documents, clarity about what the NSA is really doing has fueled opposition.

NSA surveillance proliferates in a context that goes well beyond spying. The same mentality that claims the right to cross all borders for surveillance — using the latest technologies to snoop on the most intimate communications and private actions of people across the globe — is also insisting on the prerogative to cross borders with the latest technologies to kill.

When a drone or cruise missile implements an assumed right to snuff out a life, without a semblance of due process, the presidential emulation of divine intervention is implicit.

But, in military terms, dominating the world is a prohibitively expensive goal. In the digital age, surveillance has emerged as a cost-effective way to extend the U.S. government’s global reach and put its intelligence capacities on steroids — while tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in annual revenues go to corporate contractors servicing the NSA, CIA and other agencies of the military-industrial-surveillance complex.

So the trend line continues to move in the wrong direction. Speaking last month at a news conference that launched ExposeFacts.org (part of the Institute for Public Accuracy, where I work), Binney said that in recent years the NSA’s surveillance activity has “only gotten worse.” He added: “I mean it’s almost in everything that you do. If you do anything electronically, they’re in it and they’re watching you.”

The information being collected is so vast that NSA operatives face a huge challenge of figuring out how to sift through it on such a large scale — “because they have to manually look at this data,” Binney said. “But the point is, they’re setting the stage for this to continue to the point where everybody could be monitored almost constantly throughout the day. That is an oppressive, suppressive state.”

Since last summer, revelations about NSA programs have been so profuse and complex that it’s difficult to gain an overview, to see the surveillance state’s toxic forest for the digital trees. But the macro picture has to do with a mind-blowing agenda for monitoring the people of the world.

“For me, the most significant revelation is the ambition of the United States government and its four English-speaking allies to literally eliminate privacy worldwide, which is not hyperbole,” journalist Glenn Greenwald said at a news conference three months ago. “The goal of the United States government is to collect and store every single form of electronic communication that human beings have with one another and give themselves the capacity to monitor and analyze those communications.”

Such a goal, formerly reserved for the more fundamentalist versions of God, is now firmly entrenched at the top of the U.S. government — and at the top of corporate America. As Greenwald pointed out, “There almost is no division between the private sector and the NSA, or the private sector and the Pentagon, when it comes to the American ‘national security’ state. They really are essentially one.”

Now that’s the kind of monotheism the world can do without.

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Oscar Pistorius recently visited a nightclub with a cousin and was accosted by a man who aggressively questioned him about his murder trial, his family said Tuesday.

An argument followed and the athlete, who is free on bail, soon left the club, said Anneliese Burgess, a spokeswoman for the Pistorius family. Pistorius had been seated in a quiet booth in the VIP section, she said in a statement. “My client regrets the decision to go to a public space and thereby inviting unwelcome attention,” Burgess said.

Pistorius was accosted by “an individual who has now been identified as a Mr. Mortimer,” according to the statement. The Juice, a South African celebrity news website, said the man who argued with Pistorius is Jared Mortimer, and quoted him as saying that the Paralympic athlete started the confrontation.

The altercation happened Saturday night in Sandton, an upscale area in Johannesburg, according to South African media.

A woman who answered the telephone at The VIP Room, the club where the incident occurred, said club owner Chris Coutroulis was “overseas” and was awaiting reports from club staff who witnessed the interaction.

The club website says it caters to the “nouveau riche” and invites guests to “slip on your diamante dancing shoes or designer suit and dance the night away at the most ostentatious venue in Joburg.”

Pistorius says he fatally shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in his home last year by mistake, thinking an intruder was about to attack him. Prosecutors say he intentionally killed Steenkamp after an argument.

Pistorius, whose running career peaked when he competed against able-bodied athletes in the London Olympics in 2012, faces 25 years to life in prison if found guilty of premeditated murder. He could also be sentenced to a shorter prison term if convicted of murder without premeditation or negligent killing. Additionally, he faces separate gun-related charges.

Closing arguments will be held Aug. 7-8.

We put a ton of trust in technology everyday, but are you confident enough in two-factor authentication to give out any of your passwords? Christopher Mims of The Wall Street Journal is. In a post on the site proclaiming that passwords are “finally…

With Glass and Android Wear, Google has already invested a lot of time and resources into developing the next-generation of wearables, but it’s another of its eye-focused projects that has today received its first major boost. The search giant’s…

GREECE, N.Y. (AP) — An atheist is set to deliver the invocation in a western New York community whose town board won a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding its right to open meetings with a prayer.

Dan Courtney, 52, a mechanical engineer, said he asked the town of Greece right after the 5-4 decision in May for an opportunity to deliver the “non-theist” message. The court’s conservative majority declared the prayers in line with national traditions and said the content is not significant as long as the prayers don’t denigrate non-Christians or try to win converts. The town argued persons of any faith were welcome to give the invocation.

Courtney said his request was granted without question and Tuesday’s 6 p.m. meeting was the first open slot.

Town supervisor William Reilich said Monday a variety of views have been represented during invocations, citing the instance of a pagan Wiccan for one.

“It’s not unusual that we have diversity,” he said. “It’s whoever comes up from the community.”

Courtney, a member of Atheist Community of Rochester, said he is an acquaintance of Linda Stephens, also an atheist, who along with Susan Galloway was a plaintiff in the case challenging the town meeting prayer. They said the Christian prayers made them uncomfortable. Every meeting from 1999 through 2007 had been opened with a Christian-oriented invocation.

A day after the court decision, Stephens and Galloway, who is Jewish, said they would continue to push the board to be more inclusive and hoped to see atheists among those leading the moment of prayer that follows the Pledge of Allegiance.

Courtney said the court’s decision was “ill-advised” at a time of divisiveness in the U.S.

“I think it’s a foolish decision,” he said.

Courtney and Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, will speak at a news conference after the invocation Tuesday. The center describes is mission as fostering “a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.”

Reilich said there has been no backlash against any speaker and he doesn’t expect any on Tuesday.

“The only unusual thing here is that this group notified the press,” he said. “They’re making more of this than there usually is.”