Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on June 10, 2013, 12:38:53 PM
-
The NSA surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden. What do you think of him?
-
Need to add "All of the Above" :P
-
The NSA surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden. What do you think of him?
I think he made the right call. As a child of the post-modern era I hesitate to call anyone a hero, but I think he did the right thing. The interview the guardian did gave me a sense of who he is and I think his heart is in the right place. Coming out in public, with his real name and his motivations, makes him harder to marginalize--and harder to make disappear.
He mentions hoping Obama would roll back these programs but I don't think he voted for him. Some people are saying he was an RP supporter.
I think what he did was right. Illegal? Hell yes. But we of all people know the difference between legality and morality. He knows the ramifications of what he did. I think he's got a big brass set.
-
Lacking an 'all of the above' category, I voted fistful's fault.
Seriously, the part of me that took an oath and held security clearances and whatnot, wants to hammer him into the ground.
But another part of me admires him for what he did, exposing government abuses that were only suspected by a few up until now.
-
Jocasse, one article yesterday I read said he voted for Obama twice. I wonder which it is? And does it really make a difference?
-
If/when he is prosecuted, he should be standing alongside each and every "unnamed Administration/White House official" who selectively leaked pro-Administration intelligence information.
Please don't wake me up; the dream is cozy...
-
Count me in for "all the above".
What the Government is doing is wrong. But they're just following all the protocols we allowed them to put in place. He broke the law. I'm glad he revealed this to us, but I won't shed a tear when he's renditioned back to the US.
-
Another "All of the above" (I'll wait for you to update the poll to fix that little oversight before I vote)
-
Lacking an 'all of the above' category, I voted fistful's fault.
Seriously, the part of me that took an oath and held security clearances and whatnot, wants to hammer him into the ground.
But another part of me admires him for what he did, exposing government abuses that were only suspected by a few up until now.
This. He flagrantly violated the law regarding classified information to reveal corrupt & unconstitutional acts by our gov't.
One almost thinks that the system was set up so that any real whistleblower has to violate the law to do the right thing.
-
Jocasse, one article yesterday I read said he voted for Obama twice. I wonder which it is? And does it really make a difference?
I'll go back and dig if I get a chance. That said, I don't think it makes a difference except it would be nice to know if he was on "our" team.
-
Awkward stage, we are at.
-
Definately deep in the gray area all around.
What will be interesting in the following days are which senators/reps come out in favor of or against the NSA, we should make notes on who stands where on this.
-
Awkward stage, we are at.
This. Yoda nails it. Too soon to tell.
The guy could be a Chinese-paid spy for all we know, and the whistleblowing is just a stunt/smokescreen to try and get a cordon of Amnesty International/Wikileaks lawyer types and NGO's around him.
Or he could be the real deal.
Or he could just be an impulsive screw-up.
-
Awkward stage, we are at staring agape at it in the rearview mirror as it recedes behind rapidly.
Fixed for moar truthitudiness.
-
Whistleblower reveals ILLEGAL activity. He didn't.
He committed espionage.
-
Count me in for "all the above".
What the Government is doing is wrong. But they're just following all the protocols we allowed them to put in place. He broke the law. I'm glad he revealed this to us, but I won't shed a tear when he's renditioned back to the US.
Not quite true. Technically, we never had proof that there were massive, systematic metadata searches of near all phone calls and credit card transactions. Folks "knew" it, but never had real proof. And we were specifically told we were not allowed to have proof, because "national security". Which, as far as I am aware, is not listed as trumping the Constitution on a regular, wide spread basis. Congress was not given broad and detailed oversight. United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is 15 Senators, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has 21 Reps. And those members, as I recall, cannot legally divulge classified illegal programs. Kinda, sorta, not really, maybe.
Technically, there is a mechanism for reporting intel related fraud, waste and abuse. ICWPA is for employees, or contractor employees, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Security Agency can report matters of "urgent concern" to the intelligence committees of Congress. DoD IG Instruction 7050.11 sorta implements the ICWPA within the DoD Office of Inspector General. But what happens when the top of the ICWPA chain refuses to deal with an illegal project, program or action?
I dunno. I fall into "All of the Above". As much as I bitch and gripe here, there are lines I haven't, don't and won't cross. Anything in the public domain already is fair game if it's reasonably well documented or independently validated. Because, well, duh. There's some bad stuff that I know about, that I kept my mouth shut. Because that is the right thing. But what happens when you see something blatantly illegal, unconstitutional and systematic? That Congress knows about, and is ignoring. On one hand, he broke his oath. Or did he? Which comes first? The people, or its laws? It's highest laws or its routine laws?
It's a tough spot. I'm glad I'm not there. These are questions that should have clear answers, and never will. I don't think I would have leaked it if I was in the position to possess such documents. I haven't looked at the details, but from what I understand, he leaked in the most responsible way he could. That he solely leaked the classified court orders, with no sources and methods. That buys ... a measure of respect. Manning leaked sources and methods. He deserves burning, just for that alone. I may be wrong, that is solely what I heard thus far. We'll see.
-
He did the right thing.
This is an expose of .gov gone wrong, not wikileaks bullshit.
To me abuse of power like that, something that is irrevocably harmful to
The citizens of the US is something that is OK to leak.
-
The NSA surveillance whistleblower, Edward Snowden. What do you think of him?
Nice try, Obama. Gotta be smarter than that!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F001%2F461%2FGood_Luck_I_m_Behind_7_Proxies.jpg&hash=9186ee120d9c07b017e2f11b603c5ed0ad435bc6)
-
Based on what I've heard up to now, he just blew the whistle on a government program of surveillance targeting over 100,000,000 Americans.
So far as we know right now, he didn't blow the cover of overseas operatives, sell atom bomb blueprints to the Norks, provide missile guidance systems to the Chinese or anything similar. He just notified 100,000,000+ Americans that their government is playing Big Brother, and really is watching them.
If it turns out he did more than that I'll revise my opinion, but right now, I can't fault him.
-
Which comes first? The people, or its laws? It's highest laws or its routine laws?
These are exactly the questions to ask. I may differ with some of you on the answers, but those are the questions.
Whistleblower reveals ILLEGAL activity. He didn't.
He committed espionage.
Not espionage. Unless it comes out that he sold secrets to the ChiComs, but I think if he had done that his name would be a big secret and he wouldn't be watching his ass and giving interviews to the Guardian.
I was strongly impressed, favorably, by watching his interview. His politics may be crossed up but I think his ideals are solid. He referred to the government's "Architecture of oppression" and the idea that one day this technology will be used as "turnkey tyranny." He also spoke about the eventual criminalization of "everything" and the fear that having everything recorded will enable the watchers to go back and build a case against citizens retroactively for offenses real or imagined.
I believe he is being so public to keep himself from being disappeared. In the interview he did not come across as self-aggrandizing. Smart and knows it, yes. But not a shameless white-knighting bastard.
-
Whistleblower reveals ILLEGAL activity. He didn't.
This ultimately depends on the Constitutionality of the programs he made public.
He committed espionage.
Possibly, but an unusual form of it.
-
If he committed espionage, then he was acting as an agent for the people of the United States, in counterpoint to being an agent of the Government of the United States.
-
The Constitution is the highest law in the land. If Congress passed a law saying (for example) that all journalists had to submit their work to a secret review board who would rewrite and censor because national security, then someone "leaking" the classified documents showing that this was happening would be violating a law that is itself invalid and illegal. All enemies foreign and domestic, and all that. Fed.gov can't just do blatantly illegal and evil things then say but national security! when they're revealed. Well, obviously they can and are but it's silly and hopefully no one takes them seriously.
-
If he committed espionage, then he was acting as an agent for the people of the United States, in counterpoint to being an agent of the Government of the United States.
So he was spying for enemies of the state....
-
I agree with others that it is too early to tell.
One other question: What secrets did he actually reveal? Is it just the existence of these programs like Prism?
-
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/EFF-takes-fight-against-secret-law-to-FISC
It's apparently entirely possible that PRISM was essentially declared illegal in 2011. Snowden is claiming that the NSA lied to Congress when the NSA claimed to be following FISC rulings and whatnot. Also, DoJ is fighting release of the court opinion.
THAT would shift the burden quite a bit.
Also, folks, donate to EFF. They do more for your freedom than any other group in the US, for dirt cheap, and with minimal politics.
-
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/EFF-takes-fight-against-secret-law-to-FISC
It's apparently entirely possible that PRISM was essentially declared illegal in 2011. Snowden is claiming that the NSA lied to Congress when the NSA claimed to be following FISC rulings and whatnot. Also, DoJ is fighting release of the court opinion.
Not really
Also, folks, donate to EFF. They do more for your freedom than any other group in the US, for dirt cheap, and with minimal politics.
Yes, (and I know a inch of their board members)
One other question: What secrets did he actually reveal? Is it just the existence of these programs like Prism?
Yes, and methods.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land. If Congress passed a law saying (for example) that all journalists had to submit their work to a secret review board who would rewrite and censor because national security, then someone "leaking" the classified documents showing that this was happening would be violating a law that is itself invalid and illegal. All enemies foreign and domestic, and all that. Fed.gov can't just do blatantly illegal and evil things then say but national security! when they're revealed. Well, obviously they can and are but it's silly and hopefully no one takes them seriously.
They weren't doing anything illegal
Based on what I've heard up to now, he just blew the whistle on a government program of surveillance targeting over 100,000,000 Americans.
So far as we know right now, he didn't blow the cover of overseas operatives, sell atom bomb blueprints to the Norks, provide missile guidance systems to the Chinese or anything similar. He just notified 100,000,000+ Americans that their government is playing Big Brother, and really is watching them.
If it turns out he did more than that I'll revise my opinion, but right now, I can't fault him.
You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. It wasn't "targeting", do you have idea what is legal or not in this area? Do you know what ICD-501 compliance is? Do you understand the difference between data and metadata, and the pertaining laws? No? The don't talk about it.
He did the right thing.
This is an expose of .gov gone wrong, not wikileaks bullshit.
To me abuse of power like that, something that is irrevocably harmful to
The citizens of the US is something that is OK to leak.
You also have no clue.
Seriously people, you al, consistently deride people who make specious arguments about gun control, without knowing anything about guns, yet you all are totally willing to jaw jack about stuff you have no goddamn clue about.
And another thing, you do realize that google, Facebook, apple, AT&T, Verizon, etc regularly obtain and aggregate the information you are talking about, AND actual content, for their own purposes...something the NSA ISN'T ALLOWED TO DO, and do it totally legal, since they HAVE YOUR PERMISSION?
Or did you think those "free" services were charity?
Also, I know people who have gotten in -SERIOUS- legal trouble for doing what you all seem to think is done as standard. People in the IC know better, you had better be DAMN sure your collection is within the law, because if it blows open, you'll be holding the bag.
In other words, all of you, (with few exceptions) your rantings are a bunch of low-information "Alex jones" kind of crap, as you have proven to have no real knowledge about what actually happens, and have no idea what kind of negative impacts blowing it open can have.
-
http://wapo.st/19ivnfi
a lil gas on flames
-
http://wapo.st/19ivnfi
a lil gas on flames
Only 1,004 people were interviewed? How many American citizens are there now?
They weren't doing anything illegal
How was it not illegal?
-
http://wapo.st/19ivnfi
a lil gas on flames
No, that's not slanted at all:
Most Americans back NSA tracking phone records, prioritize probes over privacy
By Jon Cohen, Updated: Monday, June 10, 3:30 PM
A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.
Fully 45 percent of all Americans say the government should be able to go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor everyone’s online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, say no such broad-based monitoring should occur.
Last I checked 52% would be "Most", not 45%. And last I checked, we were a constitutional Federal Republic, not a Democracy (and sure as hell one not run by polls.)
And Birdman, I will respectfully disagree.
I freely decide and contract with those companies. I don't have to use Facebook, Google, Verizon or my local supermarket. I do, however have no choice but to deal with the .gov.
Facebook can't send men with guns to kick in my door at 3am, shoot my dog, ransack my house, and take anything they think is "evidence".
Google can't make up specious charges and hold me in jail for as long as want until I can prove my innocence. (Yes, I know, innocent until proven guilty. But you are treated as if you are guilty, until, possibly, after the trial.)
The supermarket where I use my special buyer card can't examine my tax returns, call me in for an audit then slap me with fines and penalties (and they sure can't send men with guns to put me in jail.)
Verizon can't go in and look at my health history and deny me coverage or treatment. (The drug that I need to take every two weeks, Aranesp cannot by administered by my Nephrologist. He can only administer a similar drug that isn't nearly as effective, Epoetin. So instead of one stop shopping, I have to go to my Oncologist and get another blood draw before I get the Aranesp shot. It's a Medicare rule.)
The worst thing those private companies can do is provide me with poor service and possibly prevent me from buying/using their product or service and/or refuse me service in their stores.
The .gov can take my freedom, my money, and my life. They can turn my world into a living hell.
-
I'd have to go with "all of the above", too.
-
Birdman, you are quite a scolder. I have no doubt you have detailed knowledge of the regs and statutes. It appears as if you know of people who have gotten in trouble by violating those statutes. It is my assertion that, to the degree those regs and statutes give unwarranted access to metadata, or more likely imho [tinfoil], the actual content of comms, those laws and regs are null and void. Do the agreement I signed with private companies specifically call out giving their records to .gov w/o a warrant? I doubt it.
Birdman, I respect your contributions to these forums, and your service to the country. Your blasé, contemptuous dismissal of our concerns ill becomes you.
-
its not new. they could always do a "phone cover" not listen to calls but see who when and how long. in some cases the patterns established could be used for a real warrant for a real tap
likewise a "mail cover" they check what goes in and out for addresses etc
-
Birdman, you are quite a scolder. I have no doubt you have detailed knowledge of the regs and statutes. It appears as if you know of people who have gotten in trouble by violating those statutes. It is my assertion that, to the degree those regs and statutes give unwarranted access to metadata, or more likely imho [tinfoil], the actual content of comms, those laws and regs are null and void. Do the agreement I signed with private companies specifically call out giving their records to .gov w/o a warrant? I doubt it.
Birdman, I respect your contributions to these forums, and your service to the country. Your blasé, contemptuous dismissal of our concerns ill becomes you.
Yes, the agreements you sign do allow them to give ALREADY LEGAL TO GIVE metadata to government.
CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.
You say "I doubt it" when it comes to what is allowed or not, meaning you don't know and haven't checked, thereby PROVING MY POINT THAT YOU DONT KNOW AND ARE STILL EXPRESSING AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DEFINE.
Do you know what information the NSA processes? No. Do you know what the legal protections are? No.
Do you know that for domestic communication between two US citizens, any content is protected unless a warrant is issued? Apparently not.
So in other words, I'm scolding because everyone is outraged over something THAT ISN'T FREAKING HAPPENING, because they don't understand, and are calling this TRAITOR a "hero" for revealing something that they don't understand, when such things actually don't affect YOU but DO affect our ability to do NON DOMESTIC (ie finding bad guys) activities, and thus compromise sources and methods, which are the things you protect most.
So you chastise me for scolding, then go and PROVE my scolding was valid--I scolded the expressing of outrage when you don't understand the actual issue....which you just admitted.
Maybe you don't get it, I am a HUGE libertarian, and if what you describe we're actually occurring to the extent you see, to believe, I would quit my job immediately, and so would, well, about 80-90% of the intelligence community. You spit on the people that do the job, by implying THEY are compromising their oaths.
Now, IM going to simply shut up, and let you all just rant and rave, and be outraged, since education is worthless when you don't even have the ability to on your own look at both sides of an issue, and would rather knee-jerk your way like a gun control advocate to a conclusion spoon fed to you by the same media you deride out the other side of your mouth.
TL:DR. F this thread.
-
In other words, all of you, (with few exceptions) your rantings are a bunch of low-information "Alex jones" kind of crap, as you have proven to have no real knowledge about what actually happens, and have no idea what kind of negative impacts blowing it open can have.
As a retired member of the IC, I resent the above. I was a staunch defender of the Intelligence Oversight Program during my tenure, and still am, even though I get a monthly check from those very same Appropriated Funds.
That doesn't mean I'm some political hack, it means I've seen how it works, and thanks to my TS/SCI/CNWDI access I got to sign a non-disclosure agreement binding through several decades after I retired. They chose that duration because they knew I'd be dead, so I couldn't write a book about it.
Regardless, if there is potential for something to be abused by a government agency, then it will, in fact, be abused. Quite honestly, that's not an "if", that's a "when". I'd like to think we're all good little boys and girls in the service of the Guv'mint, but even though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night.
-
As a retired member of the IC, I resent the above. I was a staunch defender of the Intelligence Oversight Program during my tenure, and still am, even though I get a monthly check from those very same Appropriated Funds.
That doesn't mean I'm some political hack, it means I've seen how it works, and thanks to my TS/SCI/CNWDI access I got to sign a non-disclosure agreement binding through several decades after I retired. They chose that duration because they knew I'd be dead, so I couldn't write a book about it.
Regardless, if there is potential for something to be abused by a government agency, then it will, in fact, be abused. Quite honestly, that's not an "if", that's a "when". I'd like to think we're all good little boys and girls in the service of the Guv'mint, but even though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night.
I said "(with few exceptions)", and you are obviously an exception. Jesus.
But since you brought it up, abuse on a minority basis is one thing, full blown crap like people think is happening is another.
Additionally, what is the solution if -anything- can be abused? I guarantee its not "reveal sources and methods to the anyone who cares so I can feel better bout myself".
-
>You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. It wasn't "targeting", do you have idea what is legal or not in this area? Do you know what ICD-501 compliance is? Do you understand the difference between data and metadata, and the pertaining laws? No? The don't talk about it.<
Which is why I voted "It's all Fistful's fault"
-
CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.
I am not sure anyone cares.
If it is legal to acquire (and apparently as some pointed out in the thread there may be court rulings to the contrary), it can, and perhaps should, be made illegal.
-
If there are safeguards in place with serious legal consequences for violating innocent folk's privacy then what happened to the people featured in this ABC report? (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1#.UbaQtJyirDd)
-
I was never a full-fledged member of the IC, but I was an MP Officer, including a stint as Deputy Provost Marshal, and some time working in the Reserves in my battalions S-2 shop.
And I'm sorry, but I think it's wrong that they have grabbed everyone's phone records (Do you really expect me to believe that they only looked at Verizon customers?) Yes, I get it they weren't listening in. But one thing I did learn in the 2 shop was that you can learn a lot about the enemy if you know who's talking to whom, when, and for how long. Like someone said, getting the actual conversation is simply bonus.
What truly pisses me off about this more than anything else, is that what a tremendous waste of resources. We have illegals slipping in across the border like it's not there, and the Feds playing catch and release, even after they commit heinous crimes with guns illegally obtained from that very same government. A spiraling out of control national debt. Congress trying to take away civil rights, the IRS going after "political enemies", reporters doing their jobs getting secret indictments, and on and on and on.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but more and more it appears that the laws only apply to us untermenschen and not to our "betters".
The FISC appears to simply be a rubber stamp court. If congress was briefed, they sure seemed surprised and wanted to know if that ordered included them, their offices and staffs (BTW, thanks for looking out for We the People, aholes). But as long as it was only targeted at us untermenschen and not the exalted ones, it's all good then.
I don't care how many we stopped or caught. The number I heard was one. One lousy terrorist for all the time and treasure expended on this? At the cost of my constitutionally guaranteed privacy. I will say that are "infinitely" better then the TSA (NSA-1, TSA-0). And yes, I don't care if the law says they can. They shouldn't and they should know better.
One thing I learned from working with CID while on active duty, was that they made damn sure that rights were protected and gave the "person of interest" every opportunity to to not do whatever they were about to do wrong. Quite a bit of time in the undercover operations and investigations was spent spit-balling with JAG officers, MP Officers and other CID Agents to make sure that when we arrested someone that we not only got the right person, but that we had done everything we could to protect their rights and to try to keep them on the right side of the law.
And to quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but more and more it appears that the laws only apply to us untermenschen and not to our "betters".
Whenever you hear a politician saying "we are a nation of laws, not of men", it's pretty much guaranteed that he's talking about everybody else but excuses his own lawlessness.
-
It seems pretty disingenuous to be angry at folks for not knowing the exact details of classified programs, and to make spurious equivalences between those who don't trust the fed.gov not to overstep its bounds and gun banners.
Hmmm, let me rephrase this part.
Tyranny doesn't happen because of evil people twirling their villain mustaches and plotting to oppress the citizens. It happens because good and earnest people cross lines for a lot of reasons: just doing their job, the ends justify the means, allegiance to an outside entity over ruling morality etc. no one is saying the NSA are a bunch of Bond villains. But what they are doing is wrong, and obviously we only know a frac toon of what they do. It may be in compliance with the letter of the law (it also may not be, but since their is no effective oversight how can we know?) but it's still wrong and against the Constitution.
-
Some of the comments are bordering on personal attacks.
As for Snowden, it's too early to know. I'm just enjoying watching Obama twist in the wind while this unravels.
-
How bad is this?
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
-
Birdman, the point you apparently fail to see is that the government simply has no need to know who 100M Americans are calling on the damn phone. To hell with whether it's legal for them to gather that information or not. It is none of their business, period, full stop.
If they need to know that information about specific individuals suspected of wrong doing, then the government can get a damn warrant and straight up monitor the suspect's comms. They can damn well leave the rest of us alone.
-
And here is a story about how State may be interfering in investigations. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57588456/state-department-memo-reveals-possible-cover-ups-halted-investigations/?tag=socsh)
While not the NSA it shows that it is possible to break major federal laws and get into no trouble for it so why couldn't the same thing be happening at the NSA?
-
When your argument comes off as screaming DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO?? ?? you won't win many converts.
Even if it's legal for the NSA to suck up all this data its morally bankrupt and likely unconstitutional.
-
Birdman, the point you apparently fail to see is that the government simply has no need to know who 100M Americans are calling on the damn phone. To hell with whether it's legal for them to gather that information or not. It is none of their business, period, full stop.
If they need to know that information about specific individuals suspected of wrong doing, then the government can get a damn warrant and straight up monitor the suspect's comms. They can damn well leave the rest of us alone.
Nor does it matter if they think they need to know.
-
How bad is this?
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
That's really interesting, and scary. Got a little into it then saw that it was pretty long. Marked for further reading. [popcorn]
-
There are no natural rights or inalienable rights.
There are only evolving social constructs.
Good luck holding on to rights that were discovered using a philosophical/religious world view in a culture that exalts a materialist world view that denies the existence of anything that cannot be measured.
-
Yes, the agreements you sign do allow them to give ALREADY LEGAL TO GIVE metadata to government.
CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.
You say "I doubt it" when it comes to what is allowed or not, meaning you don't know and haven't checked, thereby PROVING MY POINT THAT YOU DONT KNOW AND ARE STILL EXPRESSING AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DEFINE.
Do you know what information the NSA processes? No. Do you know what the legal protections are? No.
Do you know that for domestic communication between two US citizens, any content is protected unless a warrant is issued? Apparently not.
Some of us know of Smith v. Maryland (442 U.S. 735, 744) that legalized pen registers without a warrant. ;)
However, there *is* 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1) (actually all of Title III of ECPA), which the Patriot Act legally expanded to include computer software analogs of pen registers. It still requires a court order, admittedly with the lowest bar. There are still some legal questions in the matter. One unpleasant part is info illegally obtained by a pen register is NOT legally excluded. So, if they have a sacrificial lamb, they could throw someone to the wolves and keep the info.
Metadata searches of phone records require a court order. National Security Letters used to be considered enough, but a fed judge overruled that. Last I heard, it's waiting on a Supreme Court ruling. Now, telephone data is prohibited from sale, any Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) under Telecommunications Act of 1996. Only applies to telcos. Cell phone company text messages should fall under this as well. Aftermarket text like alternatives or IM utilities do not.
Non-telephone data can be sold freely. Technically, the US government could purchase non-telephone data from say, Facebook, Google, etc for $1. Or get a regular warrant. FB, et al could freely give the info over. When it comes to say, email headers, the ball is mostly in the government's hands because there's a lot of mixed rulings. Encryption is your friend, and assume headers will be intercepted.
Out of curiosity, anyone (including any of the lawyers here) happen to know if the above is wrong anywhere? Because that is the advice I've given to a LOT of companies, and it's been vetted by a lot of corporate lawyers. They're in for a real shock otherwise.
-
How bad is this?
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
Beautiful link, thank you very much Scout! Loved it. And was terrified by it.
-
How bad is this?
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
Traffic analysis 101.
Often, the message is irrelevant. It's nice when you can actually read it. But it gets mangled, folks use encryption, folks use brevity codes, only partial intercepts, you don't have enough Urdu or Bronx English translators, etc. It's riddled with false positives and false negatives. And people LOVE to friggin talk. So, you have enormous amounts of raw data that can be a pain in the neck to sift, organized, tag and whatnot.
Good ol' metadata often is more clean. For cell phones, it's who from, who to, time started, rough location (cell tower) and duration. Just who from and who to gives gives you associations. It's quick and easy (comparatively speaking), and more accurate than intercepts statistically. Call duration or frequency allows you to weight the connections.
You can add another axis, and make it time based as well. It shows you how networks change over time. Which are growing, which are shrinking. Are there feeder networks, factional migrations?
Another axis, for cellular communication, is location. All kinds of juicy geospatial analysis you can do there because you can slug the cell tower info into the records. Not GPS accurate, but it doesn't NEED to be. GPS info can be wrong, cell tower info rarely is.
Tis why the Verizon nation-wide pen register is MORE dangerous. I'd prefer they get each and every voice conversation, rather than just the numbers I used, who they were to, and where they were made. Traffic analysis shows you the big picture. By good ol' fashion grunt work or random blind luck, you just need one starting point and you can take down entire networks even if they are fully encrypted or in a dialect you don't speak.
-
Based on what I've heard up to now, he just blew the whistle on a government program of surveillance targeting over 100,000,000 Americans.
So far as we know right now, he didn't blow the cover of overseas operatives, sell atom bomb blueprints to the Norks, provide missile guidance systems to the Chinese or anything similar. He just notified 100,000,000+ Americans that their government is playing Big Brother, and really is watching them.
If it turns out he did more than that I'll revise my opinion, but right now, I can't fault him.
You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. It wasn't "targeting", do you have idea what is legal or not in this area? Do you know what ICD-501 compliance is? Do you understand the difference between data and metadata, and the pertaining laws? No? The don't talk about it.
Quite the knee-jerk response. Calm down, take a deep breath. A good part of the discussion so far concerns the distinction between what's legal and what's right – and the growing consensus seems to be that gathering and cataloging data on 100,000,000+ Americans certainly isn’t right. And there seems to a growing number of legal scholars who are troubled as well – the legality of what’s being done seems open to question, and will no doubt take time to resolve once the extent of the government's domestic surveillance activity is known.
In the wake of the obfuscations, misrepresentations, and outright lies at the heart of the IRS scandal, people aren't willing to simply accept a Fed.gov spokesman's pronouncement that they didn't do anything wrong.
I made it clear in my post that I don’t have all the info, but considering the continuing stream of public revelations about domestic information gathering, I damn well WILL talk about it. In recent days the news has reported that NSA has its fingers in at least 7 major ISPs – we don’t know what data they’re gathering – and their new data center under construction in Utah will allegedly have the capability of storing and cataloging the equivalent of 500 quintillion (their number not mine) pages of data – data which will be available to not only this administration but FUTURE administrations that may not be as wise and benevolent as Team Obama.
. . . Now, IM going to simply shut up, and let you all just rant and rave, and be outraged, since education is worthless when you don't even have the ability to on your own look at both sides of an issue, and would rather knee-jerk your way like a gun control advocate to a conclusion spoon fed to you by the same media you deride out the other side of your mouth.
TL:DR. F this thread.
Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful conclusion. ;/
-
http://wapo.st/19ivnfi
a lil gas on flames
'Most Americans' voted Obama into office for 2 terms as well....
-
If your system's only protection for the citizenry is secret review panels holding secret programs to secret accountability standards, and the only defense you can give of it is 1. "Well they passed a law saying we could!" and 2. "No, the folks in the secret police are really, really good guys who'd never do anything against their fellow citizens!" then the system is broken.
-
If you think he did they right thing:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/support-grows-petition-pardon-nsa-leaker-edward-sn/
And the State Department cover-up story. Again just shows how out of touch this government has become. If you are one of the "betters" and have pull with Wesley Mouch, then you're untouchable. Do whatever you want. Jeopardize national security with your peccadilloes, no problem we'll quash that investigation, we've got more important things to do like three IRS audit of a private gun club in northern Illinois, cause you know those folks are the real trrrrists.
-
Food for thought.
In all honesty, the IC would really wish to -not- have to examine -any- data, meta or otherwise, from Americans, regardless of legality, as it makes the job of finding the important bad guy stuff easier if there were a way to easily separate it. However, bad guys know the best way to hide is among the innocent, so any intelligence collection has to run a fine line between privacy, legal, and capability. If the metadata is being used, its because its the best way to draw this line.
If there were a really clear way to selectively avoid ANY monitoring of ANY type of communication involving American citizens, they would do it in a nanosecond, as it means the volume analyzed would be millions if not billions of times smaller, cheaper, and more effective.
So if there is metadata monitoring, its because its the best way to balance mission (a sliding scale) with legal (a hard line) and cost (a sliding scale).
That being said, there are appropriate ways of whistleblowing on any -illegal- activities, that DONT involve fleeing the country with classified information with the hope of avoiding prosecution.
My thought is this...if (as he claims) he was trying "to do the right thing", why did he flee? He could have walked into a congressperson's office, reporter in tow, and given his interview right there, or at the NYT, or wherever, made just as big of a scene, had the same effect, but minimized potential damage to the mission.
His behavior smacks more of attempting to cover "I'm going to hurt them" with "I'm doing the 'right' thing".
-
Yeah, because whistleblowers never face retribution.
http://nation.foxnews.com/fast-and-furious/2011/11/30/whistleblowers-punished-over-fast-and-furious
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/08/operation_smear_benghazi_whistleblowers_118312.html
Like Snowden, I don't trust my government to do the right thing anymore.
-
Here's a thought: I get that the NSA agents in charge are not trying to purposefully eat the freedom of Americans with a spoon and do illegal things.
Perhaps, then, Congress should make these activities illegal (which it can).
Not every tool that can make it easier for law enforcement to do its job must therefore be given to law enforcement.
-
Here's a thought: I get that the NSA agents in charge are not trying to purposefully eat the freedom of Americans with a spoon and do illegal things.
Perhaps, then, Congress should make these activities illegal (which it can).
Not every tool that can make it easier for law enforcement to do its job must therefore be given to law enforcement.
Seems most of America (and Europe) is wanting that.
However, our betters do not.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/house-speaker-john-boehner-nsa-leaker-a-traitor/
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/franken-very-well-aware-of-nsa-tracking-phone-records/
Left or Right... a Statist is still a Statist.
With Boehner calling the guy a traitor, he's not likely to give any bill a snowball's chance in Hell DC that would laud Snowden and/or remove NSA authorization for this activity.
That Revere mash-up strikes home exactly how dangerous this is, with the epic levels of anti-government activism and dissatisfaction we currently experience nationwide. When the enemy gets too hard to find, you just find a different enemy.
-
Food for thought.
In all honesty, the IC would really wish to -not- have to examine -any- data, meta or otherwise, from Americans, regardless of legality, as it makes the job of finding the important bad guy stuff easier if there were a way to easily separate it. However, bad guys know the best way to hide is among the innocent, so any intelligence collection has to run a fine line between privacy, legal, and capability. If the metadata is being used, its because its the best way to draw this line.
If there were a really clear way to selectively avoid ANY monitoring of ANY type of communication involving American citizens, they would do it in a nanosecond, as it means the volume analyzed would be millions if not billions of times smaller, cheaper, and more effective.
So if there is metadata monitoring, its because its the best way to balance mission (a sliding scale) with legal (a hard line) and cost (a sliding scale).
That being said, there are appropriate ways of whistleblowing on any -illegal- activities, that DONT involve fleeing the country with classified information with the hope of avoiding prosecution.
No, *much* of the the IC does so wish. Most are decent Americans. But, we both know the Church Commission existed for a reason. This frankly reminds me of HTLINGUAL. The CIA claimed to be taking pictures or otherwise recording the outside of US mail, which is legal AFAIK but IANAL. Reality is, they started opening the mail. It's kinda a routine cycle. Intel goes way too far, gets their chain yanked until the next emergency, and then goes way too far. Repeat.
Also, "way", singular. The appropriate way is "report it to the DOD, through JWICS", who will pass it to Congress. This is legally the ONLY way to whistleblow TS material from the NSA, outside of NSA OIG.
http://www.dodig.mil/programs/whistleblower/icwpa.html
Tice, Binney, Drake, etc attest how well that works. This goes back to ThinThread vs Trailblazer. ThinThread had protection mechanisms, Trailblazer did not. NSA brass and the politicians intentionally went Trailblazer. Which expensively flopped. The rest of the projects under Stellar Winds did not. Intentional or not, the NSA brass allowed projects to NOT have sufficient 4th Amendment protection. I'm willing to grant they were overzealous in trying to track bad guys, and merely failed to properly implement safeguards, under Stellar Winds (or whatever codeword they're using this month). PRISM falls under the bucket. Regardless of intentions, they have gone too far.
I fully admit I do NOT know the full extent of the circumstances and law in this matter. No one can, because very large parts are classified and will never see daylight. Some for the right reasons, some because it helps covering up mistakes. We both remember a dozen clusters that got swept under a TS security blanket to keep it out of the news and cover up some boss's personal mistake.
My thought is this...if (as he claims) he was trying "to do the right thing", why did he flee? He could have walked into a congressperson's office, reporter in tow, and given his interview right there, or at the NYT, or wherever, made just as big of a scene, had the same effect, but minimized potential damage to the mission.
His behavior smacks more of attempting to cover "I'm going to hurt them" with "I'm doing the 'right' thing".
If he was really bright, yes. He'd have turned himself in with multiple reporters from multiple foreign countries. AFTER putting out a Torrent of very very heavily encrypted files with much worse information, and multiple servers outside the US ready to shoot out the key if he was held without communication. It's fairly unlikely he would have been blackbagged and put on a ghost detainee ship, or tortured, or handed over to a foreign government for torture, or whatnot. But certainly not impossible. For that sort of thing, the only life insurance you have is what damage you can do from beyond the grave or salt pit.
Dude still walked from a $200k gig, a nice house in Hawaii, a girlfriend, etc. At best, he's on the run for the rest of his life. At worst, he's the next El-Masri. Or believed he might be. Realistically, due to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the real worst case is life in prison, probably without whatever new term they use for torture. He'll probably do two decades in prison, with a sentence being commuted once he's long faded from memory.
-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/main-core-list-of-millions-of-americans.html
All you fancy government former or current TS guys:
Main Core: Real, or not?
8 million names in 2008 and growing, sounds a LOT to me like it more or less correlates to the fabled "three percent" likely to participate in any kind of revolt/revolution/rebellion.
Add PRISM/Echelon/[whatever system triangulates HAMs] as a collection mechanism to Main Core and you have automatic quelling of communications capability for any possible American Revolution 2.0.
-
Fair enough. But holding the agency responsible for executing its mission within constraints applied to it, to the extent of constraints applied to it, by those responsible for creating those laws (congress) and directing the agency (executive branch) is not the correct way. People said ZOMG terrorism, help us, continued to elect the folks who cotrol the budget and direction, and now are blaming others for the result.
The problem still exists as a wheat/chaff problem, with the chaff being the lawful comms of US citizens. Unfortunately, the bulk of -global- traffic goes through the US, be it merely as data routed straight through, or served/cached/operated on by US commercial entities along the way, and as such, is mixed with our traffic. BY DEFINITION, even attempting to discriminate between foreign and domestic traffic requires "monitoring" (as the term has been extended in this case) of source/destination metadata.
And therein lies the rub--it is IMPOSSIBLE to lawfully select out legal (eg foreign) data WITHOUT observing the metadata of domestic traffic.
In the past, when communications weren't pocket switched, over terrestrial fiber, such discrimination were possible without observation of domestic metadata, but the very nature of modern communications makes it impossible to do so now.
Again, I return to my point regarding metadata--without observation of the metadata it is impossible to even divide the data into "okay to observe" (foreign) and illegal (domestic), so the very nature of our modern communications have created a defacto situation of either observing all of the metadata or none of it. As the latter makes the probability of success zero, the best and most privacy respecting method is to observe the legally allowed level of metadata, if only to -prevent- the observation of private data.
If you eliminate the ability to observe source/destination, how can you possibly determine which data is legal or not. So when calling for zero government observation of metadata, you are in effect stating that you would rather have zero intelligence gathering on communication of foreign sources, than to have that metadata be used to prevent monitoring of domestic communications and allow for appropriate targeting of observation-allowable data.
Blame IP and packet switched networks if you must, but that is the genesis of this problem.
-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/main-core-list-of-millions-of-americans.html
All you fancy government former or current TS guys:
Main Core: Real, or not?
8 million names in 2008 and growing, sounds a LOT to me like it more or less correlates to the fabled "three percent" likely to participate in any kind of revolt/revolution/rebellion.
Add PRISM/Echelon/[whatever system triangulates HAMs] as a collection mechanism to Main Core and you have automatic quelling of communications capability for any possible American Revolution 2.0.
Not real. To put this in perspective, 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails. So, care to build nearly three and a half times as many prisons and jails? Staff them? Feed the inmates? Pay for even basic medical care? Heating/cooling? And in event of housing potential combatants, you need to secure them to a level most of our prisons don't have. The local county jail is not hardened against mortars, snipers, tanks, etc. Max and Supermax prisons are near that level. And hideously expensive.
Take you a decade to build, and easily a hundred billion plus price tag.
-
There are 3 or 4 Active Duty MP battalions that do the I/R and/or EPW mission One at Gitmo, one in Afghanistan and two in the states. There are 1 MP Brigade (2 Battalions) that run Ft. Leavenworth, 230th MP Co that runs Mannheim/Sembach, 508th MP Battalion that handles the facility at Lewis-McChord and one company, 557th, IIRC, at Camp Humphreys Korea. .
Then there are 4 USAR/ARNG Military Brigades that conduct I/R and/or EPW operations all under the command of the 200th MP Command. Run by a Reserve 2 star, while the Deputy is an active duty one star.
11th MP Brigade (6 MP Battalions)
290th MP Brigade (5 MP Battalions)
300th MP Brigade (5 MP Battalions)
800th MP Brigade (6 MP Battalions to include the 372nd MP Co of Abu Ghraib fame)
Each MP company can guard/process/handle roughly 4,000 EPW/CI/DC's Figure on average 4 MP companies per battalion, you get 352,000 folks that can be easily handled by the existing EPW/IR battalions. If pressed they could handle double that. Since MP's have four wartime missions: battlefield circulation control (BCC), area security, and enemy prisoner of war (EPW) operations and law and order operations, other MP units can quickly be added to assist with EPW/IR operations.
So all 8 million. No.
We interned roughly 120,000 Neisei during WWII in 10 camps (there were several smaller ones, but those were mostly transient or only held a few people.) Figure 1 MP Battalion per camp that's roughly 12,000 people per battalion (roughly 700-800 troops, though not all are guards.) However, detained, III%er type Americans aren't going to be nearly as docile as the Japanese-Americans were in the 1940's.
And you don't need to build Supermax style. Lots of wide open spaces with good fields of fire and long clear views (that can also be covered by Ground Surveillace Radars and the like), so unless they are doing a Song Tay type raid with lots of supporting weapons (and lots of friends with guns), chances of staging a mass rescue/escape probably won't fair to well. Attitude of the guard force being the key factor.
-
Was the question whether the Main Core dataset is real or whether there is real threat of imprisoning everyone on that list?
-
Was the question whether the Main Core dataset is real or whether there is real threat of imprisoning everyone on that list?
Main Core: Whether it was or is still named as such, does such a dataset exist?
-
Considering all of the lists the government has been known to make, including of such reasonably boring people as normal protesters, bounty hunters, computer experts, knob creek and gun show attendees, low level drug users, the various militia groups, and everything else the church commission uncovered it is definitely true a few times over. Just look at the lengths the various agencies have gone to to infiltrate various groups in the past, and the expenses incurred to track information on people before computers made it cheap and easy and use that as a benchmark.
I also can't remember the sources, but the infrastructure in locations and spare fencing and the like to detain millions of people around the country has already been thought out. Just look how many people were detained during the Katrina mess and how few people it took to keep them locked up. It would be pretty hard to break out of a large container ship, huge desert, or small island if the government shipped the most likely to escape to those types of locations.
-
Fair enough. But holding the agency responsible for executing its mission within constraints applied to it, to the extent of constraints applied to it, by those responsible for creating those laws (congress) and directing the agency (executive branch) is not the correct way. People said ZOMG terrorism, help us, continued to elect the folks who cotrol the budget and direction, and now are blaming others for the result.
My first reaction is, "Boo-effing hoo, cry me a river whiny civvie spooks."
None of them have signed over their ass to Uncle Sam for a number of years(+/-). They can quit at any time and they won't be tracked down and spend time in Ft Leavenworth for deciding they no longer want to take a salary from fed.gov. Also, as members of the executive branch, they individually are as responsible as any congresscritter for the constitutionality of gov't actions taken by or supervised by them. And agency mgt is responsible for seeing to the same.
Even if the law passes congress. Even if POTUS and SCOTUS wink & nod.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
I don't see any conditions such as, "unless Congress says it is OK or I might lose my job and swell federal benefits."
So when calling for zero government observation of metadata, you are in effect stating that you would rather have zero intelligence gathering on communication of foreign sources, than to have that metadata be used to prevent monitoring of domestic communications and allow for appropriate targeting of observation-allowable data.
Blame IP and packet switched networks if you must, but that is the genesis of this problem.
Get a warrant IAW the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If they are violating the COTUS and not adhering to the limits imposed by the 4th Amendment, then I would rather there be no gathering of such intel. If it were easy, any trained monkey could do it.
The genesis of the problem is ALL the branches of gov't failing to do their duty. And federal employees for whom oaths are a joke. Technology is not responsible for federal employees' andpolicriters violation of citizens' rights. Technology merely presents the opportunity to show what hey are made of.
-
How many were detained during Katrina?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
I tend to think of federal plans to throw large numbers of folks in concentration camps as sort of like the fed.gov plans to invade Canada. Not really evidence that they intend to do it.
-
Overheard at a gun show a few years back where two guys were discussing .gov making lists of people who were NRA/American Legion/etc members... A third guy interjects and says "You make the assumption that the government has the only people making lists."
>:D
Having a large list of Americans who have the potential of causing serious trouble to an out of control government is not the same as having a plan to house them in incarceration. Other regimes in history have systematically 'processed' tens of millions of people with the capacity to house a very small fraction of the numbers.
-
I'm gonna have to side with birdman on this one. I voted the other way, then i read some more on it.
I think there are much more egregious abuses going on. we should focus our efforts on that.
-
I tend to think of federal plans to throw large numbers of folks in concentration camps as sort of like the fed.gov plans to invade Canada. Not really evidence that they intend to do it.
They could always do other things to people Wesley Mouch doesn't approve of: monkey with "tax exempt" status of any organizations the undesirables belong to, add names to "no fly" lists, delay or deny professional licenses . . . and there have been proposals floated to have "not allowed to buy guns" lists based on the same sort of criteria (secret, virtually no appeal) used to create "no fly" lists. Clogging the courts wouldn't matter - they could say "OK, you'll have your day in court . . . but due to workload, it won't be for another six years."
I'm not saying any of this will happen . . . in fact, I see it as rather unlikely. But do we really want .gov to have the tools in place to do this?
-
Fair enough. But holding the agency responsible for executing its mission within constraints applied to it, to the extent of constraints applied to it, by those responsible for creating those laws (congress) and directing the agency (executive branch) is not the correct way. People said ZOMG terrorism, help us, continued to elect the folks who cotrol the budget and direction, and now are blaming others for the result.
The problem still exists as a wheat/chaff problem, with the chaff being the lawful comms of US citizens. Unfortunately, the bulk of -global- traffic goes through the US, be it merely as data routed straight through, or served/cached/operated on by US commercial entities along the way, and as such, is mixed with our traffic. BY DEFINITION, even attempting to discriminate between foreign and domestic traffic requires "monitoring" (as the term has been extended in this case) of source/destination metadata.
And therein lies the rub--it is IMPOSSIBLE to lawfully select out legal (eg foreign) data WITHOUT observing the metadata of domestic traffic.
In the past, when communications weren't pocket switched, over terrestrial fiber, such discrimination were possible without observation of domestic metadata, but the very nature of modern communications makes it impossible to do so now.
Again, I return to my point regarding metadata--without observation of the metadata it is impossible to even divide the data into "okay to observe" (foreign) and illegal (domestic), so the very nature of our modern communications have created a defacto situation of either observing all of the metadata or none of it. As the latter makes the probability of success zero, the best and most privacy respecting method is to observe the legally allowed level of metadata, if only to -prevent- the observation of private data.
If you eliminate the ability to observe source/destination, how can you possibly determine which data is legal or not. So when calling for zero government observation of metadata, you are in effect stating that you would rather have zero intelligence gathering on communication of foreign sources, than to have that metadata be used to prevent monitoring of domestic communications and allow for appropriate targeting of observation-allowable data.
Blame IP and packet switched networks if you must, but that is the genesis of this problem.
Yep. A good number of Americans do act surprised when they demand X, and get the obvious consequences of it. Tis why some of us tried to be the voice of reason. "Your bath tub is more dangerous than Al Qaeda", "Old people driving have killed a hundred times as many folks as all terrorists combined.", "You people wanting to give Bush all this power are gonna be REAL pissed when the next President uses it against YOU.", etc
As Captain Malcolm Reynolds, it's a real burden being right so often. The right answer is to objectively assess situations and respond according. We both know THAT ain't ever happening, politically. So smarter bureaucrats should do their best to appease the guineafowl, while actually trying to take care of the problem in a way that doesn't create worse problems. A rogue intelligence agency, hostile to the population supporting it, is a worse problem. Like a rogue military unit or government agency, things can go off the rails in very short order for the best of intentions. Thankfully that's rare here in the US. We can only keep it that way through eternal vigilance.
There is "we try very hard to only collect foreign material, and dump any US citizen comms immediately and permanently" and
"We use metadata ONLY to make sure we are complying with the law and not spying on you by accident." And then there is "We are intentionally targeting US citizens".
Putting a pen register on the entire country, or at least Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, is not likely to be accidental collection or to use metadata for filtering purposes. It's systematic targeting of the citizenry footing the bill. That's a Real Bad Idea. If illegal, it must be punished. If "legal" under federal laws, it's certainly not under the 4th Amendment and should be correctly identified as such in very short order. I can think of near zero circumstances where a judge should sign a subpoena for the call records of our entire country and not be immediately removed from office. Metadata is already given the lowest form of legal protection under the law and judicial process. However, "lowest" is not "none", and should never BE "none".
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. (Incidentally, they do serve beer there, in case folks were wondering. Some very attractive young ladies too.) I honestly do think most NSA folks think of their mortgage and career first, but are very decent persons. That's all Americans. The brass are being paid the medium bucks to use good judgment when deciding strategic moves. Good brass knows how to interpret orders in a way to avoid really stupid and/or illegal activities.
I and most Americans would be fine with risky data being collected by the NSA in order to prevent Real Bad Things, provided there was extremely strong oversight to ensure things didn't go Full Retard. It is strongly looking like NSA went 3/4th Retard. Probably not Full Retard, but we don't know and we're told we can't ask. Other hand is valid lack of trust. Respectfully, POTUS, Congress and intel folks don't have a lot of credibility when they say "Trust us, everything is peachy."
-
Well said Cap'n Tightpants.
-
Rev, I think you miss my point.
Lets say you wanted a pen register of -only- non-domestic communications...how do you determine which calls ARE non-domestic, without looking at the metadata?
The whole point here is in order to do ANY filtering, you need to look at the metadata of all the inputs on the channel.
So, by definition, if you want to look at any content in a channel, you either have to look at the content of everything, or filter based on something, then look at the selective content. Given the former is by definition illegal, the remaining choice is either filter based on something (domestic / non-domestic) or don't look at anything at all.
My whole point is to ensure ANY privacy, you have to look at some metadata on the entire channel--for the simple reason that due to how the data is moved, there is by definition a mix of data that you want and can get (non-domestic) and data you don't want and can't legally get without a warrant (domestic). Therefore, if you want to protect the protected data in any way, you need to have some way of telling it apart--hence, the routing metadata.
Why doesn't anyone seem to get this?
You all say you don't want the govt looking at US citizen information, and yet are opposed to the only way to determine IF its US citizen data, and therefore are de facto saying "zero collection of foreign information".
-
how do you determine which calls ARE non-domestic, without looking at the metadata?
Non-domestic communication typically takes place through bottlenecks for which the NSA already has real-time monitoring capabilities.
The whole point here is in order to do ANY filtering, you need to look at the metadata of all the inputs on the channel.
Do you contend that the metadata in question is used exclusively for excluding domestic communication from analysis?
You all say you don't want the govt looking at US citizen information, and yet are opposed to the only way to determine IF its US citizen data, and therefore are de facto saying "zero collection of foreign information".
The companies in question are quite adept at determining the international nature of their communications. If the US government were actually interested in obtaining only international communications from a domestic telecom provider such as Verizon, they could have easily requested that specific subset of the data.
-
Non-domestic communication typically takes place through bottlenecks for which the NSA already has real-time monitoring capabilities.
Do you contend that the metadata in question is used exclusively for excluding domestic communication from analysis?
The companies in question are quite adept at determining the international nature of their communications. If the US government were actually interested in obtaining only international communications from a domestic telecom provider such as Verizon, they could have easily requested that specific subset of the data.
Cordex, not that simple. US citizens travel, live and communicate outside the US. It is extremely complex. Mind boggling complex, actually. I'll need an hour to properly respond to birdman, but short long, he has a very good point that it's not exactly trivial. My own point, which is a compliment to the same issue, is that there is a difference between accidental and targeted surveillance.
-
Non-domestic communication typically takes place through bottlenecks for which the NSA already has real-time monitoring capabilities.
Not true
Do you contend that the metadata in question is used exclusively for excluding domestic communication from analysis?
Don't know.
The companies in question are quite adept at determining the international nature of their communications. If the US government were actually interested in obtaining only international communications from a domestic telecom provider such as Verizon, they could have easily requested that specific subset of the data.
Not quite.
-
Rev, I think you miss my point.
Lets say you wanted a pen register of -only- non-domestic communications...how do you determine which calls ARE non-domestic, without looking at the metadata?
The whole point here is in order to do ANY filtering, you need to look at the metadata of all the inputs on the channel.
So, by definition, if you want to look at any content in a channel, you either have to look at the content of everything, or filter based on something, then look at the selective content. Given the former is by definition illegal, the remaining choice is either filter based on something (domestic / non-domestic) or don't look at anything at all.
My whole point is to ensure ANY privacy, you have to look at some metadata on the entire channel--for the simple reason that due to how the data is moved, there is by definition a mix of data that you want and can get (non-domestic) and data you don't want and can't legally get without a warrant (domestic). Therefore, if you want to protect the protected data in any way, you need to have some way of telling it apart--hence, the routing metadata.
Why doesn't anyone seem to get this?
You all say you don't want the govt looking at US citizen information, and yet are opposed to the only way to determine IF its US citizen data, and therefore are de facto saying "zero collection of foreign information".
And this is one of the reasons why this isn't an easy question. Especially since the MetaData IS the data we're worried about. They might be able to use the data to screen for forign coms, then dump the domestic coms before applying any analysis to the domestic data. There might be other ways to protect Americans from this snooping. Heck the NSA MIGHT even be using them, they sure aren't saying in any detail enough to be trustworthy.
But none of that changes the fact that the info that is available from analysis of the metadata shouldn't be collected on Americans by our government. Even if that government thinks it's legal. Yes, that might lead to less useful intel getting collected. That's the cost of being free. And like Rev mentioned, you have to prioritize threats to Americans.
-
Having read a number of books on the NSA over the years, if I am recalling correctly, in the ECHELON program, the NSA or other US agencies would get around domestic spying prohibitions by having the UK or one of the other member Commonwealth programs do it. I wonder if PRISM is more or less an extension of earlier programs such as ECHELON.
-
Cordex, not that simple. US citizens travel, live and communicate outside the US. It is extremely complex. Mind boggling complex, actually.
I get that, but the issue here is not so much "Oops, we accidentally included in our analysis a phone call made by a US citizen from a payphone in Dresden to his mom in Kalamazoo!" It is that going to US telecom providers and hoovering up everything is changing the focus from non-domestic spying to domestic spying.
My own point, which is a compliment to the same issue, is that there is a difference between accidental and targeted surveillance.
Right.
Edit: I should also point out the flip side of the "you need metadata to filter out citizen communications" argument. Metadata does not determine who is actually using the phone.
-
Also, something to consider.
Nearly ALL foreign data (voice or otherwise) goes through the US (I.e. Europe to Japan goes through here), unless both the source and destination are geographically and network topologically local to each other--the US is effectively the choke-point for the world. Once it hits the shore, its over US telco lines, meaning its now mixed. If someone in England makes a call to Japan, that calls data is likely on the same line as someone making a call from NYC to LA. So how do you tell them apart without "monitoring" the metadata?
Also, people keep referring to phone calls and data as two separate things, in the vast majority of cases, they aren't, its all put over the same data lines and the metadata/framing/etc determines what is the type of content.
Also, ID of something being non-domestic is harder than you think for most data.
-
My whole point is to ensure ANY privacy, you have to look at some metadata on the entire channel--for the simple reason that due to how the data is moved, there is by definition a mix of data that you want and can get (non-domestic) and data you don't want and can't legally get without a warrant (domestic). Therefore, if you want to protect the protected data in any way, you need to have some way of telling it apart--hence, the routing metadata.
Why doesn't anyone seem to get this?
I get it; it's just hard to discuss. Because the difference between just filtering on the metadata and analyzing it is subtle. The only legitimate reason to look at all the data is to decide whether to discard it or keep it.
-
The only legitimate reason to look at all the data is to decide whether to discard it or keep it.
You actually think they discard any data?
Want to buy a bridge?
-
Just like they discard all the NCIS checks within 24 hours. ;/
You can't do traffic analysis if you are constantly starting from ground zero. ;)
-
So what you're telling me is that for the NSA to monitor, say, my Internet traffic, they must be able to monitor the traffic of everyone in the world?
I would assume the NSA can, say, plant some kind of software in my computer, or monitor my account with the provider.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/crossing-the-line-on-metadata/
Personally, I'll take my chances with the terrorists.
-
You actually think they discard any data?
Want to buy a bridge?
Just like they discard all the NCIS checks within 24 hours. ;/
You can't do traffic analysis if you are constantly starting from ground zero. ;)
That's the whole point of the controversy. Or most of it, anyway.
-
So how do you tell them apart without "monitoring" the metadata?
It really comes down to a question of who should handle the metadata filtering, doesn't it? And yes, I realize that the telco won't be as thorough in the data they extract as the NSA, but that's partially the point.
Also, ID of something being non-domestic is harder than you think for most data.
That's probably true in some cases. The problem is, to catch the smart bad guys who might feed their transmissions through a network that includes multiple bounces within the US, the NSA would have to not merely filter based on metadata, but include everything in the final analyses, and be trusted to filter out domestic data on the backside of that process.
-
Whistleblower reveals ILLEGAL activity. He didn't.
He committed espionage.
Espionage only if you accept the premise that the people of The United States are the enemy of The United States. I don't accept that.
Since the 80's we have let the government define what is loyalty and patriotism. Now if you challenge war you are unpatriotic. The patriots who love and stand ready to defend this country are now domestic terrorists.
We don't yet know where Snowden fits yet but I am keeping an open mind.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
-
If one follows the 4th amendment and has a specific individual in mind and can get a warrant to present to service providers, there is no need to grab beau coup metdata. The service provider knows its customers, tracks usage, and sends them a bill already.
Also, enough with the rubberstamp secret courts. We already have a federal judiciary system. No need for a parallell kangaroo court.
-
If one follows the 4th amendment and has a specific individual in mind and can get a warrant to present to service providers, there is no need to grab beau coup metdata. The service provider knows its customers, tracks usage, and sends them a bill already.
Also, enough with the rubberstamp secret courts. We already have a federal judiciary system. No need for a parallell kangaroo court.
Warrants are all too TwenCen.
-
If one follows the 4th amendment and has a specific individual in mind and can get a warrant to present to service providers, there is no need to grab beau coup metdata. The service provider knows its customers, tracks usage, and sends them a bill already.
Also, enough with the rubberstamp secret courts. We already have a federal judiciary system. No need for a parallell kangaroo court.
If we follow the requirements of the Constitution, the terrorists win.
Also, come on now... The folks at the NSA are pure as the driven snow, and %90 would quit if called on to violate the Constitution! You know, more than they are already of course. We can totes trust them to not abuse the massive, massive amount of data they're collecting on Americans, even in the nationalistic fervor that would surround something the size and scope of 9/11 but committed by domestic folks. Their purity of heart is all the safeguard I need, thank you very much!
-
Per Joe, it's okay when BHO does it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/11/joe-biden-goes-off-on-very-very-intrusive-domestic-spyingin-2006/comment-page-2/
-
a lil history
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/surveillance-controversy-illuminated-by-history/2013/06/10/ba949844-cf8e-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/12/google-chief-officer-pushes-back-on-nsa-spy-program/
-
Espionage only if you accept the premise that the people of The United States are the enemy of The United States. I don't accept that.
Since the 80's we have let the government define what is loyalty and patriotism. Now if you challenge war you are unpatriotic. The patriots who love and stand ready to defend this country are now domestic terrorists.
We don't yet know where Snowden fits yet but I am keeping an open mind.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Taking classified data and giving it to foreign nationals (eg BRITISH REPORTERS) is f)&$$ing espionage. There is NO wiggle room there. He committed a crime, that crime is espionage. The fact that the American people also saw it doesn't change that fact.
The information he revealed did not reveal -illegal- activity, it revealed technically legal, albeit activity that isn't 'right'.
Don't get me wrong, I wish things weren't monitored the way they apparently are, but dumping classified stuff into the hands of others, not to mention revealing and compromising sources and methods, is NOT the way you do it.
Hell, he could have simply just SAID what was going on to reporters, and it would still be the same crime, but far less damaging (in theory).
He is a criminal, not a hero, and I believe he did what he did to hurt this country, and that's why he fled. If he wanted to "take a stand" he could have done so in a less damaging way, and take his licks...if he was in the right, then maybe a jury would see it that way, HOWEVER, running to a foreign country isn't "doing the right thing" its called f@$$ing espionage.
-
Taking classified data and giving it to foreign nationals (eg BRITISH REPORTERS) is f)&$$ing espionage. There is NO wiggle room there. He committed a crime, that crime is espionage. The fact that the American people also saw it doesn't change that fact.
The information he revealed did not reveal -illegal- activity, it revealed technically legal, albeit activity that isn't 'right'.
Don't get me wrong, I wish things weren't monitored the way they apparently are, but dumping classified stuff into the hands of others, not to mention revealing and compromising sources and methods, is NOT the way you do it.
Hell, he could have simply just SAID what was going on to reporters, and it would still be the same crime, but far less damaging (in theory).
He is a criminal, not a hero, and I believe he did what he did to hurt this country, and that's why he fled. If he wanted to "take a stand" he could have done so in a less damaging way, and take his licks...if he was in the right, then maybe a jury would see it that way, HOWEVER, running to a foreign country isn't "doing the right thing" its called f@$$ing espionage.
Without disputing the rest of your post, I've seen no evidence that he harbors malice towards America. People make bad decisions with good intentions all the time.
-
Without disputing the rest of your post, I've seen no evidence that he harbors malice towards America. People make bad decisions with good intentions all the time.
I know what you mean, I didn't say he did have that reason, I said I believed he did. I'm careful about opinion vs fact, in that post, his reasoning is opinion, what he did, fact.
-
What is worse? A government that is criminaly spying on it's citizens that was told by a court was unconstitutional and yet proceeded? Or a citizen in a position to reveal these criminal unconstitutional actions and did? One might say if he didn't expose it, and he knew or suspected the American MSM would not expose the information, so he went elsewhere, he would be guilty of conspiracy if he kept silent.
-
What is worse? A government that is criminaly spying on it's citizens that was told by a court was unconstitutional and yet proceeded? Or a citizen in a position to reveal these criminal unconstitutional actions and did? One might say if he didn't expose it, and he knew or suspected the American MSM would not expose the information, so he went elsewhere, he would be guilty of conspiracy if he kept silent.
what court ruling do you allude to?
it wasn't smith
-
agreeing with this schmuck hurts http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/peter-king-nsa-fears-too-many-conservatives-have-b/
-
I know what you mean, I didn't say he did have that reason, I said I believed he did. I'm careful about opinion vs fact, in that post, his reasoning is opinion, what he did, fact.
I know, which is why I asked. You might have had (probably do) information I didn't. I do agree that his actions aren't that of a 100% altruistic whistle blower, But he seems genuine in his belief that he did the right thing.
I confess I'm still on the fence. I'm having a Facebook conversation with a friend on this same subject. What he did was DEFINITELY illegal. I'm not sure it was wrong.
-
Taking classified data and giving it to foreign nationals (eg BRITISH REPORTERS) is f)&$$ing espionage.
Glenn Greenwald, the recipient of Snowden's documents, is an American citizen.
agreeing with this schmuck hurts http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/peter-king-nsa-fears-too-many-conservatives-have-b/
Yes, agreeing with him hurts due to the contortions one must perform to stay in agreement with him. Tell me, does he today support terrorists with interesting accents or is he against them? While thinking about it, pass the hat for Noraid around the room, won't you?
-
Glenn Greenwald, the recipient of Snowden's documents, is an American citizen.
Doesn't matter. They have been disseminated to other foreign nationals outside the country. The citizenship of the initial recipient doesn't make it not espionage.
-
What about Snowden showing evidence of the US hacking into Chinese computers? That's no longer defending Americans from an over-obtrusive government. That's treason.
I didn't see any mention of that in any threads, but I could have missed it. Story is all over, including here (http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Snowden-Showed-Evidence-Of-US-Hacking-China-To-4596650.php).
-
Doesn't matter. They have been disseminated to other foreign nationals outside the country. The citizenship of the initial recipient doesn't make it not espionage.
Given your definition every single security incident that results in any bit of classified data getting out in the wild is now espionage. Because foreign nationals have access to the American telecommunications network.
What I have seen, it is almost always negligence, ignorance, or arrogance. Senior folk with their heads up their ass up in the clouds, too important or smart to worry about security as it ought. Former FBI or other federales who bring their sloppy infosec habits into industry. (I consider former federal employees of any sort risks until proved otherwise.) Etc., etc. IOW, just because it eventually gets to foreign ears or eyeballs doesn't make it espionage.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
In Snowden's case, time may tell and evidence (other than vigorous assertions by gov't) may implicate him in espionage. TBD.
[FTR, I am the guy who has no problem grunting out a stinking loaf of security requirements on a conference room table, pet Director project or no pet Director project. Did I rejoice when the Director for Dumbassery and Two-fers got shivved in the reorg? Why, yes I did.]
-
Given your definition every single security incident that results in any bit of classified data getting out in the wild is now espionage. Because foreign nationals have access to the American telecommunications network.
What I have seen, it is almost always negligence, ignorance, or arrogance. Senior folk with their heads up their ass up in the clouds, too important or smart to worry about security as it ought. Former FBI or other federales who bring their sloppy infosec habits into industry. (I consider former federal employees of any sort risks until proved otherwise.) Etc., etc. IOW, just because it eventually gets to foreign ears or eyeballs doesn't make it espionage.
In Snowden's case, time may tell and evidence (other than vigorous assertions by gov't) may implicate him in espionage. TBD.
[FTR, I am the guy who has no problem grunting out a stinking loaf of security requirements on a conference room table, pet Director project or no pet Director project. Did I rejoice when the Director for Dumbassery and Two-fers got shivved in the reorg? Why, yes I did.]
I didn't mean to say he -will- be tried with espionage, just that technically, letting material out into the wild, especially doing so in a foreign country in a non-secure area, that crime is espionage.
-
Not to Godwin the thread or anything,
http://fff.org/2013/06/12/who-were-the-patriots-and-traitors-in-nazi-germany/
-
If one follows the 4th amendment and has a specific individual in mind and can get a warrant to present to service providers, there is no need to grab beau coup metdata. The service provider knows its customers, tracks usage, and sends them a bill already.
Also, enough with the rubberstamp secret courts. We already have a federal judiciary system. No need for a parallell kangaroo court.
http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept
To put in perspective of "rubberstamp", 33949 warrants were applied for, 33942 were granted, 11 were rejected. (Numbers not clean because warrant applications can carry over from previous year.) 143,364 NSLs were applications were completed that involved US persons.
That is a 0.000324 rejection rate, or 99.999676 approval rate. Which deeply says something about those 11 rejected warrants.
It would probably be a better idea to have a rotating system. The judges do need security clearances. So, set up a roster, say a year or two out. They have a year or so to get their clearance, they serve as a FISA judge for say, 3 to 6 months. Then never again. Keep two presiding judges on as permanent staff to provide continuity, but rotate them out every five years or whatnot on an alternating basis.
Taking classified data and giving it to foreign nationals (eg BRITISH REPORTERS) is f)&$$ing espionage. There is NO wiggle room there. He committed a crime, that crime is espionage. The fact that the American people also saw it doesn't change that fact.
The information he revealed did not reveal -illegal- activity, it revealed technically legal, albeit activity that isn't 'right'.
Don't get me wrong, I wish things weren't monitored the way they apparently are, but dumping classified stuff into the hands of others, not to mention revealing and compromising sources and methods, is NOT the way you do it.
Hell, he could have simply just SAID what was going on to reporters, and it would still be the same crime, but far less damaging (in theory).
He is a criminal, not a hero, and I believe he did what he did to hurt this country, and that's why he fled. If he wanted to "take a stand" he could have done so in a less damaging way, and take his licks...if he was in the right, then maybe a jury would see it that way, HOWEVER, running to a foreign country isn't "doing the right thing" its called f@$$ing espionage.
Meh. Yes and no.
He is a criminal, that is definite and beyond question. Maybe a hero, that's a bit subjective.
He hurt his government, that is definite and beyond question. Whether he hurt his country is still yet to be seen.
Bit of an aside, one of the laws in question Internal Security Act of 1950 (aka Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, McCarran Act, etc) is used to suspend the Second Amendment on military bases.
He is guilty of 18 USC § 793 (d)
"(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or"
Sentence is "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Problem is, it's been bitterly disputed since Schenck v. United States. You have the whole Sedition Act thing that was grossly unconstitutional, and got tossed out. The Espionage Act was deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS in Schenck, but not in a comprehensive way. So, short answer is, he's probably definitely guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
However, it'll be up to the courts to say whether exposing potentially or actually illegal activity is covered by the Espionage Act. His lawyer likely will argue that this was unrelated to national defense, because it was aimed against the US population and not foreign enemies. I am not saying I agree with this line of thought, just that it is not my place to decide guilt or innocence.
Short answer is, we'll see. If the operation was primarily aimed at the US citizenry, it's not espionage because it's not related to national defense unless the government argues that it was part of national defense against US citizens. Which it could, but would be suicidal grade bad PR. If the operation was primarily geared against foreign enemies, he should be found guilty (IMHO, IANAL/IANAJ) even if the program itself is illegal. I don't know of any legal "exclusion" rule that exempts unauthorized disclosure of classified material relating to the illegal nature of a program. There bloody well should be, because Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is near useless.
-
Not to Godwin the thread or anything,
http://fff.org/2013/06/12/who-were-the-patriots-and-traitors-in-nazi-germany/
There's something of a difference between Snowden and the Scholl siblings of "The White Rose."
We are engaged in a war against Jihadis, who attacked us directly on 9-11-01. We didn't start the war, we simply engaged in it. One can legitimatly criticize many aspects of this war -- and many people have and do just exactly that without being carted off to labor camps or dark rooms.
Nazi Germany started the war and engaged in active programs to exterminate "undesirable" people like Jews and Gypsies.
What Snowdon did has hurt, to one degree or another, our efforts to gather intel on the Jihadis and that damages our ability to stop them -- which is questionable at best, since we obviously missed the two Russian teens who bombed the Boston Marathon last 15 April 2013.
The United States might no be as pure as driven snow but I think we remain a world above the moral depravity and evil of Das Dritte Reich.
-
since we obviously missed the two Russian teens who bombed the Boston Marathon last 15 April 2013
I gues one could also make the argument that NSA isn't listening to the content of phone calls if they missed the message where the Russians called our FBI (or whoever) and warned that "these two sum-Bleeps are going to bleep up your bleep if you don't keep an eye on them." :laugh:
-
agreeing with this schmuck hurts http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/12/peter-king-nsa-fears-too-many-conservatives-have-b/
From the link: "He also accused his fellow GOPers of misrepresenting the surveillance programs as “spying” and “snooping,” "
Surveillance isn't spying or snooping . . . right.
Why does this parsing of words remind me of "What is, is?"
-
I gues one could also make the argument that NSA isn't listening to the content of phone calls if they missed the message where the Russians called our FBI (or whoever) and warned that "these two sum-Bleeps are going to bleep up your bleep if you don't keep an eye on them." :laugh:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm
-
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm
Annnnnd now we get to the crux of the issue. The US government wants to spy on the citizenry, but ignore the real problems. If I wore tin foil, I'd make a comment about "Why cure the problem when you can make money selling treatments forever?"
But really, it's just incompetence, political correctness and being normal bureaucrats.
-
So, when/where do we establish the APS mosque? :angel:
-
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/FISA-court-Justice-Department-EFF-opinon-surveillance
I love this.
FISA says you (NSA) did something naughty.
EFF gets wind of it, wants to know what. DOJ blocks, says FISA won't let us tell you.
FISA says, oh yes you will come clean. EFF gets to know about the naughty thing that NSA did.
DOJ says, no way. And you, FISA, don't matter, in regards to disclosure of this information to the untermensch. So sit in a corner and be quiet until we need you to let us kill puppies and burn pregnant moms.
EFF then goes to a non-kangaroo court to try and get enforcement. Can they subpoena the FISA judge, or is he too secretsquirrel to trifle with such things?
-
EFF then goes to a non-kangaroo court to try and get enforcement. Can they subpoena the FISA judge, or is he too secretsquirrel to trifle with such things?
FISA court judges are federal district court judges, so the question is, can you depose a federal judge about activities performed as part of their duties, while they are serving? It seems unlikely...but I don't know.
Additionally, they are asking questions about classified duties performed by said judge, so by definition, since disclosure outside of the FISA court would constitute at the least a mishandling crime, the 5th amendment applies, as any testimony would be, by definition, self-incriminating.
-
Annnnnd now we get to the crux of the issue. The US government wants to spy on the citizenry, but ignore the real problems. If I wore tin foil, I'd make a comment about "Why cure the problem when you can make money selling treatments forever?"
But really, it's just incompetence, political correctness and being normal bureaucrats.
Indeed. Every external threat and/or threat we allowed to come on to our land results in the existing citizenry taking it in the jimmy from fed.gov. [Jubal_Early]Does that seem right to you?[/Jubal_Early]
-
Annnnnd now we get to the crux of the issue. The US government wants to spy on the citizenry, but ignore the real problems. If I wore tin foil, I'd make a comment about "Why cure the problem when you can make money selling treatments forever?"
But really, it's just incompetence, political correctness and being normal bureaucrats.
multiple cruxes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/04/AR2010120403720.html
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/13/Bank-robber-NSA-records
another twist out of this. I doubt the guy gets anything.
-
Here is an article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/why-the-nsa-prism-program-could-kill-us-tech-companies-15564220?click=pm_latest) from PopMech that explains just how this NSA thing could just crush US information companies.
-
http://www.despair.com/nsa-freedom.html
-
Here is an article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/why-the-nsa-prism-program-could-kill-us-tech-companies-15564220?click=pm_latest) from PopMech that explains just how this NSA thing could just crush US information companies.
Were I a foreign company seeking net services, I would be leery of any US provider. The Russkies MAY be sniffing my traffic, but you know for certain the Yank spooks are.
-
Were I a foreign company seeking net services, I would be leery of any US provider. The Russkies MAY be sniffing my traffic, but you know for certain the Yank spooks are.
Evidently you have not built a datacenter in Moscow.
They bring in their own black box, hook it up where they want, and you will like it. It's not hidden in a back room or a basement. It surprises no one there.
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
But there's no wiretapping... none?
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
But there's no wiretapping... none?
I am shocked, absolutely shocked I tell you!
No, wait...I'm not. Anybody here think .fed_gov is not out of control?
I wonder what Ms. Wolfe thinks about now.
-
Yes, the agreements you sign do allow them to give ALREADY LEGAL TO GIVE metadata to government.
CSD is correct, metadata (ie phone LUDS) are legal to acquire without a warrant.
You say "I doubt it" when it comes to what is allowed or not, meaning you don't know and haven't checked, thereby PROVING MY POINT THAT YOU DONT KNOW AND ARE STILL EXPRESSING AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DEFINE.
Do you know what information the NSA processes? No. Do you know what the legal protections are? No.
Do you know that for domestic communication between two US citizens, any content is protected unless a warrant is issued? Apparently not.
So in other words, I'm scolding because everyone is outraged over something THAT ISN'T FREAKING HAPPENING, because they don't understand, and are calling this TRAITOR a "hero" for revealing something that they don't understand, when such things actually don't affect YOU but DO affect our ability to do NON DOMESTIC (ie finding bad guys) activities, and thus compromise sources and methods, which are the things you protect most.
So you chastise me for scolding, then go and PROVE my scolding was valid--I scolded the expressing of outrage when you don't understand the actual issue....which you just admitted.
Maybe you don't get it, I am a HUGE libertarian, and if what you describe we're actually occurring to the extent you see, to believe, I would quit my job immediately, and so would, well, about 80-90% of the intelligence community. You spit on the people that do the job, by implying THEY are compromising their oaths.
Now, IM going to simply shut up, and let you all just rant and rave, and be outraged, since education is worthless when you don't even have the ability to on your own look at both sides of an issue, and would rather knee-jerk your way like a gun control advocate to a conclusion spoon fed to you by the same media you deride out the other side of your mouth.
TL:DR. F this thread.
So just to recap, all domestic wiretapping requires a warrant, %90 of the intelligence community would quit if this was violated, and we should all just shut up and trust our betters at the NSA to take care of us. Care to explain this Senate testimony then?
http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-admits-listening-to-us-phone-calls-without-warrants/57589495
-
So just to recap, all domestic wiretapping requires a warrant, %90 of the intelligence community would quit if this was violated, and we should all just shut up and trust our betters at the NSA to take care of us. Care to explain this Senate testimony then?
http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-admits-listening-to-us-phone-calls-without-warrants/57589495
If you ask that question, the terrorists have won. Why do you hate America?
More seriously, regimes' domestic intel & security apparatuses rarely have difficulty staffing up while the regime is perceived as in control. Plus good pay and the security of knowing "Who(1)" one is.
(1) Referring to the old Lenin response to the purpose of politics. "Who? Whom?" was his response. IOW, "Who does what to Whom?" Who is the stuck pig and who is the pig sticker? WHo is getting buggered and who is the buggerer?
-
So just to recap, all domestic wiretapping requires a warrant, %90 of the intelligence community would quit if this was violated, and we should all just shut up and trust our betters at the NSA to take care of us. Care to explain this Senate testimony then?
http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-admits-listening-to-us-phone-calls-without-warrants/57589495
What exactly did the NSA admit?
The quote from the article is:
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
So IF the congressman is correct, it appears they admitted they COULD, not that they did, or did so in any significant capacity.
Also, it isn't clear (since its referring to a meeting and testimony that isn't published) if the listening in question was to a call between two Americans both inside the US (the only situation requiring a legal aspect), or to any other combination of citizenship or location of the call participants. If either party is a non-citizen OR outside the US, a warrant or other legal permission is not required, at least according to what -should- occur.
-
If this is what the law says, then perhaps we should be outraged even if the activities are legal.
-
If this is what the law says, then perhaps we should be outraged even if the activities are legal.
Outraged that if you aren't a citizen, or if the communication is foreign? Um, why? "Unreasonable search" is prohibited by the constitution for citizens, legal residents, and only applies to the United States, so what you are saying is we should be outraged that we don't extend our privacy protections to everyone else on the planet, regardless of the impact on intelligence?
-
Liberty is incompatible with Leviathan.
When the one increases the other always seems to decrease.
-
Liberty is incompatible with Leviathan.
When the one increases the other always seems to decrease.
Agreed.
The reason I am pushing back / debating this the way I am is I don't believe the perception of the liberty lost here matches with reality, and outrage should be better directed at the more significant and damaging losses of liberty first. The IRS and AP things are far worse, far more damaging to our liberty, were done not even to obtain some positive goal, and I believe this NSA thing is functioning too well as a distractor. Notice how the news cycle has shifted, and the egregious politically motivated assault on liberty by the IRS is now back-burner, not to mention the horrifyingly bad immigration bill being debated that is barely in most american's peripheral vision, let alone being looked at carefully.
Has anyone considered the [tinfoil] perspective that this is a less-political "scandal" that is taking attention from the more damaging (to liberty -and- to the administration) other scandals?
-
Agreed.
The reason I am pushing back / debating this the way I am is I don't believe the perception of the liberty lost here matches with reality, and outrage should be better directed at the more significant and damaging losses of liberty first. The IRS and AP things are far worse, far more damaging to our liberty, were done not even to obtain some positive goal, and I believe this NSA thing is functioning too well as a distractor. Notice how the news cycle has shifted, and the egregious politically motivated assault on liberty by the IRS is now back-burner, not to mention the horrifyingly bad immigration bill being debated that is barely in most american's peripheral vision, let alone being looked at carefully.
Has anyone considered the [tinfoil] perspective that this is a less-political "scandal" that is taking attention from the more damaging (to liberty -and- to the administration) other scandals?
Absolutely. And I think there's a valid concern. I also see an element of compounding. I'm less concerned with technical staff at NSA playing fast and loose with security data than I am with political appointees doing it, when we already have evidence that they will use 1) fedgov power to harass and undermine political opposition, (IRS/DoJ/EPA, et al.) and 2) manipulate international security and diplomacy for political reasons, e.g. Benghazi & Fast & Furious. In the latter instances, people who put their asses on the line died because their government broke faith with them. :mad:
So, is NSA a distraction from the main threat? Maybe. But is it reasonable for you to suggest it poses no danger in light of the pattern of separate abuses you've outlined? Tech staff at NSA may follow the letter of the law. Does James Clapper? Eric Holder?
-
So, is NSA a distraction from the main threat? Maybe. But is it reasonable for you to suggest it poses no danger in light of the pattern of separate abuses you've outlined? Tech staff at NSA may follow the letter of the law. Does James Clapper? Eric Holder?
To point, if you are concerned with high level (holder, eg al) abusing the IC for political purposes, it wouldn't matter what the capability of the NSA was w.r.t. either limited gathering or vacuuming up everything, such crap has happened in the past (church commission was the result) when the capability was minimal, be it NSA or otherwise, and will undoubtably happen again. That being said, the graph-theory capabilities of metadata vacuuming are far more useful for finding bad guys than politically targeting domestically, think about it, in general, ones political "enemies" are quite easy to find, since their whole opposition to you is to convince other americans to be in opposition to you. Bad guys, not so much. So whether you had the metadata or not, corrupt pols could still abuse the IC when it comes to specific collection, but not having metadata makes finding unknown targets harder. Do you see what I mean?
Also, another point, people seem to interpret things as "listening to my phone calls" or "reading my email"...think about that for a moment. The US generates roughly 10 million hours of phone calls, several billion text messages, a few billion emails, and about 100 petabytes of data traffic per day, the rest of the world combined, about double that. The reason metadata is useful is so you don't HAVE to look at the content to determine things of interest (bad guys), since if you did, you couldn't.
As a good example: just to archive the above would require 100 racks of enterprise storage PER DAY, using a server infrastructure -bigger- than google (everyone makes a big deal about the supposed huge data center in Utah for the NSA, when it is dinky compared to google), and even if you had 10,000 analysts you could only "listen" or "read" to less than 1/1000th of the traffic, and that's if they did nothing else.
So my point again is any system can be abused, but the part most likely to be abused (the targeted collection) isn't what people are making a big deal about, and has pretty much always existed.
So again, the IC really doesn't care about American to American (ie "yours") emails, phone calls, tweets, web searches, etc, and in fact, if everyone stopped those things, it would make their job a lot easier and cheaper.
-
Outraged that if you aren't a citizen, or if the communication is foreign? Um, why? "Unreasonable search" is prohibited by the constitution for citizens, legal residents, and only applies to the United States, so what you are saying is we should be outraged that we don't extend our privacy protections to everyone else on the planet, regardless of the impact on intelligence?
Even if we assume it happened as you describe (I am not certain), why should we default - in a conversation between a citizen and non-citizen - to the worst possible standard?
-
Also, another point, people seem to interpret things as "listening to my phone calls" or "reading my email"...think about that for a moment. The US generates roughly 10 million hours of phone calls, several billion text messages, a few billion emails, and about 100 petabytes of data traffic per day, the rest of the world combined, about double that. The reason metadata is useful is so you don't HAVE to look at the content to determine things of interest (bad guys), since if you did, you couldn't.
If anything, metadata analysis is far more concerning than actual 'readig' of emails.
I can entirely see - if not now, then within years - the evolution of analysis software that will trigger alerts to law enforcement or even regulators when 'suspicious behavior' profiles are triggered by someone's movements, or communications, or whatnot.
-
I think the metadata shipped has sailed, and there is no calling it back. I don't disagree with you that the NSA "scandal" may have lesser immediate political implications than the others. It is, however, coincidental to them, suggesting a possible pattern. The real question, as Micro observes, is where do we go from here? What guarantee have we that the safeguards in existence today won't be obviated by coming technological advances, or ignored by less scrupulous leadership?
Information is power, and power is subject to abuse, often with seemingly benevolent motives.
-
I think the metadata shipped has sailed, and there is no calling it back. I don't disagree with you that the NSA "scandal" may have lesser immediate political implications than the others. It is, however, coincidental to them, suggesting a possible pattern. The real question, as Micro observes, is where do we go from here? What guarantee have we that the safeguards in existence today won't be obviated by coming technological advances, or ignored by less scrupulous leadership?
Information is power, and power is subject to abuse, often with seemingly benevolent motives.
Just as we regained some 2nd amendment liberties, we can regain 4th amendment liberties and reduce leviathan a bit. So, I would be all in favor of activism to declare such collection illegal and a felony.
-
Just as we regained some 2nd amendment liberties, we can regain 4th amendment liberties and reduce leviathan a bit. So, I would be all in favor of activism to declare such collection illegal and a felony.
Collection without a warrant or equivalent -IS- illegal, and a felony.
As for metadata, well, its not yours to give, nor is it yours to restrict, its owned by your phone company (for your usage stats and other phone metadata), your Internet provider (for browser queries), the software provider (for data mining on free services like gmail) or a telco (for IP routing information).
So unless you want to host all your own stuff, and provide your own telco services, you actually can't restrict access to the data in question, beyond what is specified in your EULA with those providers.
The leviathan to reign in is -who- provides the information...concerned about metadata? Start a telco that refuses to supply any information to anybody (good luck) or only under specific (ie "data on this person") request with a warrant (much better chance). Also host your own email, etc, rent some dark fiber, and peer directly with who you want to exchange data with, and do it in an encrypted and protected basis.
-
So unless you want to host all your own stuff, and provide your own telco services, you actually can't restrict access to the data in question, beyond what is specified in your EULA with those providers.
It is quite easy to restrict, actually.
Here:
"State authority X is prohibited to use any of the funding appropriated under this bill to make copies of metadata, on pain of felony prosecutions of the officials involved. Also, NSA agents are to wear purple shirts while on the job, equipped with blinking lights no smaller than X millimeters across."
-
It is quite easy to restrict, actually.
Here:
"State authority X is prohibited to use any of the funding appropriated under this bill to make copies of metadata, on pain of felony prosecutions of the officials involved. Also, NSA agents are to wear purple shirts while on the job, equipped with blinking lights no smaller than X millimeters across."
Any metadata? Even foreign? Copies meaning what? Kept for how long? (Nano-seconds?)
So on that path, lets say a state authority can't keep the data...your provider does, meaning that with a warrant, a state authority can still access it (in other words, the way it is now) But then what, they can't keep it? So how would you perform a law enforcement action or intelligence gathering action? Seems like you effectively reduce those activities to pre-1960's effectiveness for the sole purpose of eliminating an intrusion that you don't like, but can't describe its negative impact other than its potential impact, and even then, the potentiality of concern is potentially more egregious for the private usage, rather than public, and actually presupposes a capability that likely doesn't even exist.
-
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
f the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.
Doesn't look like any distinction needs to be made before Joe Eavesdropper dives into content. Because in many cases JE can not know the ID of Tx or Rx until after wading through content(1). Did not someone make that point upthread?
An analogy would be a LEO busting down some interesting house's door, getting an ID on the resident, and if the resident proves to be in the class of folk denied civil liberties, all is OK. If not, then well, JE had the best of intentions, I am sure. And besides, if the person who supposedly has civil rights has nothing to hide, what is the big deal? Oh well, when making omelettes, what are a few doors or hard fought for civil liberties?
(1) Unless there is a legitimate warrant that complies with the 4th Amendment, which would require that measures be taken to ensure the surveillance targets only the commo (implying tx & rx) of the person under suspicion. You know, like before the mass-hoovering begins. Little things like identifying the specific electronic devices he uses, his residence, and such. Almost like real police/CI work done in accord with COTUS. Yes, it does sound quaint.
Collection without a warrant or equivalent -IS- illegal, and a felony.
As for metadata, well, its not yours to give, nor is it yours to restrict, its owned by your phone company (for your usage stats and other phone metadata), your Internet provider (for browser queries), the software provider (for data mining on free services like gmail) or a telco (for IP routing information).
So unless you want to host all your own stuff, and provide your own telco services, you actually can't restrict access to the data in question, beyond what is specified in your EULA with those providers.
The leviathan to reign in is -who- provides the information...concerned about metadata? Start a telco that refuses to supply any information to anybody (good luck) or only under specific (ie "data on this person") request with a warrant (much better chance). Also host your own email, etc, rent some dark fiber, and peer directly with who you want to exchange data with, and do it in an encrypted and protected basis.
What you are calling a warrant is nothing more than a bit of paper behind which lurk men with guns who will shoot you in the face, given persistent non-compliance. If it were an actual warrant, it would satisfy the requirements of the 4th Amendment. My suggestion is merely to make the law in accord with the COTUS. Make it easier for those currently breaking their oaths to keep them(1). MicroBalrog's formulation is a nice start.
Police and CI work in a free country is not supposed to be easy. Read the COTUS. It gives the breaks to the citizen and provides obstacles for gov't to surmount. Just about every time, the citizen gets the benefit of the doubt and gov't gets to pound sand.
That metadata is also not the government's to insist upon without a warrant in compliance with the 4th Amendment. Laws enacted to bend telcos to gov't will and protect telcos from customers' ire are every bit as illegitimate as the initial illegitimate demand.
And there is one whole lot more peril possible from fed.gov than any corporation, given misuse of this data.
(1) Which is a great part of the problem. Nobody reads the COTUS or takes it seriously. And oaths to uphold same are meaningless to people who have an empty space inside where their honor & integrity might have been.
And the hilarious part is that this has been enacted to counter a threat an order of magnitude less lethal to American citizens than than automobile accidents. And the cherry on top the confection of absurdity is that these unconstitutional and unAmerican actions are directed by default not at orthodox islam, which got lucky in 2001, but against the American citizenry. Orthodox muslims and their institutions receive greater protection from these actions than average citizens. This is the sort of thing you just can not make up.
-
I guess I'm one of those crazy Liberal/Tea Partiers that believe that modern communications like e-mail, phone calls, text messages fall under the old fashioned term "papers, and effects".
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And here's an interesting tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exclusionary_rule
The rule has been held not to apply in the following circumstances:
probation or parole revocation hearings;[53] tax hearings;[54]
deportation hearings;[55]
military discharge proceedings;[56] child protective proceedings;[57]
sentencing hearings;[citation needed]
evidence seized from a common carrier;[58]
evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents;[59]
evidence seized by probation or parole officers;[60]
evidence seized outside the United States;[citation needed]
evidence illegally seized by a "private actor" (i.e., not a governmental employee);[61] (I'd guess that means a private contractor)
and illegally seized evidence used to impeach the defendant's testimony.
-
a threat an order of magnitude less lethal to American citizens than than automobile accidents. And the cherry on top the confection of absurdity is that these unconstitutional and unAmerican actions are directed by default not at orthodox islam, which got lucky in 2001, but against the American citizenry.
really? http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Bomb-Islamic-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/B001QCX5WG
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100170946/mi6-exposes-the-truth-about-irans-quest-for-nuclear-weapons/
and i am of the opinion we got lucky. that thats all they did
i know what i could put together if so motivated and think its foolish to pretend someone else couldn't too. especially if they are willing to die too
-
I guess I'm one of those crazy Liberal/Tea Partiers that believe that modern communications like e-mail, phone calls, text messages fall under the old fashioned term "papers, and effects".
And here's an interesting tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exclusionary_rule
Actually scout, the common carrier exception is the most apt, compared to the illegal private one. The reason why, as I've pointed out is you have no ownership of the metadata, as you freely communicate that in public (the nature of how the routing is done), it is owned by the carrier, and thus it isn't "unreasonable".
As I've said, if you want to have true 4th amendment protections on something, don't relinquish ownership of it. Otherwise, its a civil matter of whether the contract was violated, not a COTUS matter.
-
Now, please, don't get me wrong, I'm not of the opinion the intrusion is right, or even justified in 100% of the cases, I'm merely pointing out again and again that the situation, potential inadvertent consequences, and even the rules and laws are more complex than the knee jerk reactions that the press is creating.
My initial admonishment is that the arguments and reactions I keep seeing are reminiscent of non-gun folks making arguments for gun control, without digging into the cause/effect, technology, existing laws, etc.
The reason we have had court rulings on common carrier and metadata (eg civilian courts regarding LUDS) is because those issues have arisen before. If we need to revisit them, fine, but just as those decisions created these potential effects, one must also consider the effects of changing it, and if possible, understand what the "it" truly is.
Hell, I've seen people quoting news articles, quoting people, quoting people who spoke in classified meetings (no transcript of course) and treating it without context as fact, and neglecting words like "could" as opposed to "do"...where have I seen that before?
-
Mr. Williams says it much better then I:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1001855_319680094831842_2026268873_n.jpg)
-
Actually scout, the common carrier exception is the most apt, compared to the illegal private one. The reason why, as I've pointed out is you have no ownership of the metadata, as you freely communicate that in public (the nature of how the routing is done), it is owned by the carrier, and thus it isn't "unreasonable".
As I've said, if you want to have true 4th amendment protections on something, don't relinquish ownership of it. Otherwise, its a civil matter of whether the contract was violated, not a COTUS matter.
The use of the metadata is between my and that company. Just like it, I sign a contract for any other good and/or service. The .gov can't just go in and take/make copies of that contract unless they have a warrant.
Just because I do business with XYZ company does NOT give the .gov the right to go and grab any and all information regarding me and my relationship with that company.
That's the whole "Secure in their papers and effects" thing you keep missing.
-
The use of the metadata is between my and that company. Just like it, I sign a contract for any other good and/or service. The .gov can't just go in and take/make copies of that contract unless they have a warrant.
Just because I do business with XYZ company does NOT give the .gov the right to go and grab any and all information regarding me and my relationship with that company.
That's the whole "Secure in their papers and effects" thing you keep missing.
And its the part of the EULA that says they can do whatever they want with "your" data, including giving it to a third party or the govt.
So I DO understand the "secure in their papers" clause, but you don't seem to understand tht the contract you have says the data ISN'T YOURS
-
We get it. Why can't we pass laws to ban the government, which we (well, you, I am not a US citizen) ostensibly control, from doing these things? Or do we not control the government?
-
Seriously, the part of me that took an oath and held security clearances and whatnot, wants to hammer him into the ground.
But another part of me admires him for what he did, exposing government abuses that were only suspected by a few up until now.
I held a security clearance, too. Mine was Secret, not Top Secret, but it's still a security clearance. I also took an oath.
Was what he did "illegal"? Maybe. But ... isn't the Constitution supposed to be the highest law of the land? So if you are in a position to KNOW that your agency of the .gov, all of which is sworn to protect and defend said Constitution, is in fact violating it on a daily and regular basis ... what, exactly, is the "law"?
My vote goes to "Do what's needed to defend the Constitution."
And now that I've posted that, I'll never be asked to sit on his jury if they extradite him.
-
So IF the congressman is correct, it appears they admitted they COULD, not that they did, or did so in any significant capacity.
Keep reading. Two or three paragraphs later our friend from California, Senator Feinstein herself, confirmed that the NSA is eavesdropping without warrants.
-
We get it. Why can't we pass laws to ban the government, which we (well, you, I am not a US citizen) ostensibly control, from doing these things? Or do we not control the government?
That was rhetorical, yes?
-
a threat an order of magnitude less lethal to American citizens than than automobile accidents. And the cherry on top the confection of absurdity is that these unconstitutional and unAmerican actions are directed by default not at orthodox islam, which got lucky in 2001, but against the American citizenry.
really? http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Bomb-Islamic-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/B001QCX5WG
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100170946/mi6-exposes-the-truth-about-irans-quest-for-nuclear-weapons/
and i am of the opinion we got lucky. that thats all they did
i know what i could put together if so motivated and think its foolish to pretend someone else couldn't too. especially if they are willing to die too
Count the dead bodies when they have had everything in their favor. Compare that to automobile fatalities. Don't need to write a book about it. Hard, countable numbers; not Jerry Springer class politico-nuclear porn.
I think the smart money bets that THEY got lucky. This is the same culture that can't rid itself of a few Jews in the world's least defensible terrain to be found this side of a tactician's nightmare.
And domestic mass hoovering of telco & net traffic has zero impact on Iran getting a bomb.
Again, external threats (some real and others imaginary) result in yet more scrutiny of American citizens. Our gov't is not prosecuting a war on orthodox islam or a war on terror. By its actions, it considers the American citizenry the greater threat.
-
I'm all in favor of what the NSA is doing. After all, their collecting of cell phone metadata prevented the bombing of the Boston Marathon.
-
http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked
how many is a problem?
-
. . . Again, external threats (some real and others imaginary) result in yet more scrutiny of American citizens. Our gov't is not prosecuting a war on orthodox islam or a war on terror. By its actions, it considers the American citizenry the greater threat.
Hasn't this - and previous Democrat administrations - summarily rejected threat assessments from Federal law enforcement that named radical Islam as a threat, demanding instead that the threat assessments be rewritten so that American militias, Christian, and patriot organizations be identifed as the REAL danger?
-
http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked
how many is a problem?
One.
-
One.
It is almost as if a principle is at stake.
-
http://news.msn.com/us/spy-agency-says-fewer-than-300-phone-numbers-checked
how many is a problem?
Reuters Photo Illustration. An unclassified paper says fewer than 300 phone numbers received close government scruitiny in 2012, out of millions of records gathered by the NSA.
-
More intelligence community veterans over here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
-
More intelligence community veterans over here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/
i saw that very interesting
why do you suppose the kid hada run? if these folks could stay
-
i saw that very interesting
why do you suppose the kid hada run? if these folks could stay
Because none of them leaked to the extent that Snowden did.
-
How'd that old saying go?
To make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs...
-
Because none of them leaked to the extent that Snowden did.
You mean a treasonous level?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
What about Snowden showing evidence of the US hacking into Chinese computers? That's no longer defending Americans from an over-obtrusive government. That's treason.
I didn't see any mention of that in any threads, but I could have missed it. Story is all over, including here (http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Snowden-Showed-Evidence-Of-US-Hacking-China-To-4596650.php).
This. Still no discussion of this. Arguments could be made either way on treason charges for his leaks about domestic spying, but the dude definitely needs to face charges for leaking the hacking info to the Chinese. There's no non-treasonous justification for that.
-
Today's news of Snowden releasing information embarrassing the British government ahead of a G8 meeting they're hosting confirms in my mind that he's in the employ of the Chinese. I gave the timing of the first release the benefit of the doubt but the timing of the second release removes all doubt that there's a political component here.
-
Just imagine how you'll feel with the 3rd and subsequent releases!
IMHO, he's a dead man walking only because he embarrassed the U.S. Government - the laws he broke are secondary to that.
-
Just imagine how you'll feel with the 3rd and subsequent releases!
IMHO, he's a dead man walking only because he embarrassed the U.S. Government - the laws he broke are secondary to that.
If he were Microsoft, that is the release that would actually work.
-
interesting poll
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/cnn-poll-majority-give-snowden-thumbs-down/
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/18/192996800/Its-Christmas-in-June-China-Revels-In-NSA-Leaks-Story
The PRC Government certainly seems to have enjoyed Mr. Snowden's efforts.
-
i saw that very interesting
why do you suppose the kid hada run? if these folks could stay
They didn't stay. They are "former" NSA officials. And at least one of them was prosecuted persecuted.
-
This. Still no discussion of this. Arguments could be made either way on treason charges for his leaks about domestic spying, but the dude definitely needs to face charges for leaking the hacking info to the Chinese. There's no non-treasonous justification for that.
Anyone have primary source material... the actual source material that Snowden has leaked, pertaining to US hacking of Chinese systems?
[tinfoil]
If I wanted to discredit someone that exposed my supersecret squirrel NSA program that was doing naughty things, I'd embed the assertion that THAT PERSON did naughty things into his own allegations about my naughty things.
In other words, the assertion that Snowden leaked the info about US hacking may be fabricated by CIA/NSA to save face and try and curry political favor for prosecution of Snowden and/or intimidation of other potential future whistleblowers.
/ [tinfoil]
-
Anyone have primary source material... the actual source material that Snowden has leaked, pertaining to US hacking of Chinese systems?
[tinfoil]
If I wanted to discredit someone that exposed my supersecret squirrel NSA program that was doing naughty things, I'd embed the assertion that THAT PERSON did naughty things into his own allegations about my naughty things.
In other words, the assertion that Snowden leaked the info about US hacking may be fabricated by CIA/NSA to save face and try and curry political favor for prosecution of Snowden and/or intimidation of other potential future whistleblowers.
/ [tinfoil]
Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. Seems familiar doesn't it?
-
Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. Seems familiar doesn't it?
This. Last I had heard was all he gave the British reporters were copies of the FISC orders. If he's is running his mouth off to the Chicoms about other stuff....well that puts the ball in a different court. Then he has gone too far.
-
From what I can see from the news articles, Snowden himself told the South China Morning Post that the US has been hacking Chinese systems. This isn't someone else alleging he's told the Chicoms this.
U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told the South China Morning Post on Wednesday.
. . .
The Morning Post said it had seen documents provided by Snowden but was unable to verify their authenticity. The English-language news agency, which operates in Hong Kong, also said it was unable to independently verify allegations of U.S. hacking of networks in Hong Kong and mainland China since 2009.
-
If true, that's espionage.
-
Life insurance policy, courtesy of China?
-
Maybe this has already been posted here. The linked article talks about the NSA minimization procedures. At first glance it looks like they are listening to conversations, reading email, etc.
http://mashable.com/2013/06/20/nsa-data-minimization/
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to:
• Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years;
• Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity(1);
• Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications;
• Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants.
The documents also show that discretion as to who is actually targeted under the NSA's foreign surveillance powers lies directly with its own analysts, without recourse to courts or superiors – though a percentage of targeting decisions are reviewed by internal audit teams on a regular basis.
(1) Traffic volume itself is relevant to cybersecurity.
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/use-of-tor-and-e-mail-crypto-could-increase-chances-that-nsa-keeps-your-data/
-
formally charged extradition sought now it gets fun
-
Hong Kong says paperwork wasn't in order, and let him get on a plane. A plane full of wikilinks lawyer folk.
Which landed in Moscow five minutes ago [tinfoil]
-
Hong Kong says paperwork wasn't in order, and let him get on a plane. A plane full of wikilinks lawyer folk.
Which landed in Moscow five minutes ago [tinfoil]
The "Espionage" side of the balance is getting heavier.
-
Wikileaks lawyers seems to weigh towards "whistleblower."
-
Wikileaks lawyers seems to weigh towards "whistleblower."
Disagree. But I admit I might be influenced by my opinion of PFC Manning.
-
Whistleblower for the win.
And, which I'm sure will come as a surprise to no one, our own government doesn't seem to have a clue what the law is. None other than Nancy Pelosi found herself being booed for saying in a speech that Snowden broke the law. And perhaps he did (as a whistleblower, not as a spy, IMHO), but here's the crucial factoid:
Pelosi defended Obama's handling of the surveillance programs, noting that he met with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board for the first time on Friday. The federal board helps address concerns with the NSA's surveillance programs.
"The fact is that you should reject any notion that President Obama's actions have anything to do with what President Bush was doing or was done," Pelosi said, adding that there was no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court under the Bush administration.
Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307217-pelosi-booed-for-saying-nsa-leaker-snowden-violated-the-law
So Pelosi claims there was no FISA court under Bush. But Obama was elected in 2008 and inaugurated in 2009. The FISA act dates to 2001, so there very certainly WAS a FISA court under Bush.
And I find it amusing that Hong Kong allowed Snowden to depart because the U.S. couldn't even make a request for extradition in conformity with international law. That's just plain sad -- not that Snowden escaped the net, but that the U.S., with all it's over-paid lawyers, can't even prepare a request for extradition that complies with international law.
-
........ That's just plain sad -- not that Snowden escaped the net, but that the U.S., with all it's over-paid lawyers, can't even prepare a request for extradition that complies with international law.
Are we so sure it was incompetance rather than .... deliberate? [tinfoil] --Just askin'.
-
Are we so sure it was incompetance rather than .... deliberate? [tinfoil] --Just askin'.
Now there's an interesting hypothesis.
Would that it were true ...
-
Correction: It seems the FISA court dates to 1978.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-secretive-surveillance-court-rare-scrutiny-in-wake-of-nsa-leaks/2013/06/22/df9eaae6-d9fa-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story_2.html
-
And I find it amusing that Hong Kong allowed Snowden to depart because the U.S. couldn't even make a request for extradition in conformity with international law. That's just plain sad -- not that Snowden escaped the net, but that the U.S., with all it's over-paid lawyers, can't even prepare a request for extradition that complies with international law.
Have you considered the possibility that all was in order, but HK/PRC felt it could defy BHO? IOW, they have no fear or respect for BHO. Some of that "Smart Diplomacy" in action.
-
Have you considered the possibility that all was in order, but HK/PRC felt it could defy BHO? IOW, they have no fear or respect for BHO. Some of that "Smart Diplomacy" in action.
Can't really blame them there.
-
Dude ruminates on the criminal charges leveled against Snowden.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/23/a-look-at-the-charges-against-edward-snowden/
Note that the second and third charges both require the feds to prove that Snowden's release of information to the press was harmful to the United States. This puts our government in the position of attempting to prove that it is harmful to release accurate information about how it is spying on us, and how it is misleading us about spying on us.
Espionage charges usually describe someone with classified information leaking that information to powers hostile to the United States government.
We, the people, are those hostile powers.
-
Have you considered the possibility that all was in order, but HK/PRC felt it could defy BHO? IOW, they have no fear or respect for BHO. Some of that "Smart Diplomacy" in action.
Why is this surprising? China is a rising power with atomic weapons, and a vast balance of trade. What can the US menace them with that would be worth doing over Snowden?
-
Our government's responses to Snowden just needs a "Yakkety Sax" soundtrack.
-
The more unfriendly countries he visits, the more inclined I am to say 'criminal'.
-
The more unfriendly countries he visits, the more inclined I am to say 'criminal'.
This. I can't help but note that after leaking that the goobermint is spying on us and not being transparent, he's seeking refuge in countries that do significantly more spying on their own citizens, and are orders of magnitude less transparent.
-
He gave the Chinese intel on our spying on them including IP addresses we use to hack into them. If that's not treason, then slap my ass and call me sally, because I don't know what is.
He's released information that the American people needed to know. But he still needs to have a sack put over his head, get whisked out of whatever shithole country is harboring him, and wake up in a federal courthouse.
-
Our government's responses to Snowden just needs a "Yakkety Sax" soundtrack.
Ha ha! It could be represented graphically by a dot moving around on a map being chased by blue uniform with badges dots, zig-zagging erratically across a map of the world, to "Yakety Sax."
Benny Hill where are you when we need you?!?!??!?!!!???!?!?!
-
This. I can't help but note that after leaking that the goobermint is spying on us and not being transparent, he's seeking refuge in countries that do significantly more spying on their own citizens, and are orders of magnitude less transparent.
Those are the countries who don't much care for extradition treaties. And if he expects to take refuge in some of those places, you can be damn sure a bit of treason will be the entry fee.
-
Those are the countries who don't much care for extradition treaties. And if he expects to take refuge in some of those places, you can be damn sure a bit of treason will be the entry fee.
Which kills any credibility he has to me. Is the cost of what he's selling out worth what he revealed to us?
-
I'm very sympathetic to releasing the info on how many tens of millions of Americans are being tracked & surveilled - I see nothing wrong with blowing the whistle on Big Brother looking over everyone's shoulders just because he can, and I'm highly skeptical of BB's claims that he's not reading emails, not listening to phone calls, and only looking for "patterns of metadata" or something of the sort, especially in light of recent events involving misuse of government power for political purposes.
BUT . . . as information is coming out in regard to Snowden "leaking" info about how we spy on foreigners in other countries, my support for him is quickly dwindling. Now, if it's just a case of "We're looking at you" . . . so what? It's to be ASSUMED that EVERY country is keeping an eye on everyone else, so his assertions that we do in fact spy on everyone (including allies) is pretty insignificant.
But if it involves releasing new details of the methods we use . . . or confirming what we've learned . . . uh uh, that's crossing a line no American should cross.
-
All the things that Snowden might be are not mutually exclusive.
Which kills any credibility he has to me. Is the cost of what he's selling out worth what he revealed to us?
The PRC already knew we were hammering them. As they hammer us. If Snowden "revealed nothing not already known to people who followed the PATRIOT ACT debates," (as some folk argue) the same applies to his "revelation" that we snoop at the PRC.
So, what is the cost of revealing data already in the wild? Realistically, some folk who assumed (mistakenly) that US gov't did not go after PRC net targets have been butthurt.
As to how we snoop...again, the PATRIOT ACT debate was informative. Just cut out all the BS happy-talk about requiring any sort of oversight or respect for the COTUS. Plus, all the foreign traffic running through the net backbone located CONUS. While the hardware requirements and implementation for this sort of thing are impressive and daunting, how it is being done is not so crazy sophisticated that a sharp chinaman couldn't suss it out.
Those are the countries who don't much care for extradition treaties. And if he expects to take refuge in some of those places, you can be damn sure a bit of treason will be the entry fee.
Most decent countries have extradition treaties with the USA. That leaves the indecent countries.
Snowden's utility at this point is little more than as a symbol and a thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam. Were he to have been compromised and kept working at NSA, he could have done some real damage. He might have been able to do damage in the few days/hours when gov't still did not know it was him. The moment he opened his mouth to the Guardian, his value as a hard intel asset to a foreign power went "poof." Remember: "Tier 1 Help Desk," not "inner circle planning operations."
Still, it is possible he managed to smuggle something useful out of the NSA and he means to exchange that for a safe haven. He could be whistleblower and criminal and traitor. They all push up against some mighty thin lines.
-
At this point I am far from sure he wasn't compromised and equally unsure the total extent of the damage.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
At this point I am far from sure he wasn't compromised and equally unsure the total extent of the damage.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
I would need some serious supporting evidence, due to the way this has played out, to buy that. Besides, not even US gov't is claiming that.
If he were compromised as an employee of the NSA, I expect he would have dropped off the map, not spoken with Glenn Greenwald. We would not know about him unless he was nabbed and went on trial. Surfacing in HK and spilling the beans would make it harder to get to a safe haven and spend any filthy lucre obtained betraying Uncle Sam. Hard to suck down fruity drinks on the beach in luxurious obscurity when everyone with a TV or net connection knows what you look like.
Whistleblowers are usually odd personality types and his behavior, being as it is non-optimal for him, tends to support that. There are many smarter plays he could have made if you are correct.
I am sure more will come out. We will see.
-
I find it hard to label him as a hero or innocent, but I do get a bit bent out of shape when I see oath-breaking politicians talk about stringing him up or locking him away for the rest of his life. It doesn't mean he is an innocent whistle blower, but I am reserving judgement on that.
I also appreciate the point I heard that the reason he had to go to foreign media to break this story is none of the Obama fan-boys in the mainstream media would have given this story much play.
-
I would need some serious supporting evidence, due to the way this has played out, to buy that. Besides, not even US gov't is claiming that.
If he were compromised as an employee of the NSA, I expect he would have dropped off the map, not spoken with Glenn Greenwald. We would not know about him unless he was nabbed and went on trial. Surfacing in HK and spilling the beans would make it harder to get to a safe haven and spend any filthy lucre obtained betraying Uncle Sam. Hard to suck down fruity drinks on the beach in luxurious obscurity when everyone with a TV or net connection knows what you look like.
Whistleblowers are usually odd personality types and his behavior, being as it is non-optimal for him, tends to support that. There are many smarter plays he could have made if you are correct.
I am sure more will come out. We will see.
you presume hes rational? he confessed in public to giving the chinese the info. and now admits/claims he got the nsa job with the intent to "expose " them.
hes questionable on so many levels. including some of his claims about his life
-
CSD:
What you wrote neither buttresses your previous post nor answers anything in my post.
If we assume irrationality, any action he takes, no matter how deleterious to his position, can be counted as support of one's opinion of him. Anyone's opinion, even diametrically opposed opinions.
I find the following post closely mirrors my thoughts on Snowden. But note the last sentence. What we think of Snowden or his actual motivations are minuscule relative to the significance of the NSA program and its offenses against the 4th Amendment.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/171311/
THE CORRECT ATTITUDE ON SNOWDEN: “I doubt everything.”
As I wrote when the story was new, “There’s a good chance that even Snowden doesn’t really know who he’s working for. Bear that in mind.” For all we know he may be a catspaw in an elaborate scheme to get disinformation, or malware, into Chinese or Russian intelligence. (Or for all he knows).
As Rep. Frank Underwood comments, sagely: “What a martyr craves more than anything is a sword to fall on. So you sharpen the blade, hold it at just the right angle, and…3,2,1… #Snowden.” But then, he’s fictional himself.
And none of this has much to do with whether we think the NSA spying program can be trusted not to be abused — except that, if Snowden really is an anti-American traitor, well, then, the NSA, which put him in this position, doesn’t look like it’s up to the job of policing itself.
Here's thorny quesiton:
Assume the worst about Snowden. He was paid in baby harp seal pelts by commie Nork queer abortionists to infiltrate the NSA and reveal in living color the full extent of its surveillance against America.
Does it matter what a slimy SOB he is if he manages to make America aware of the NSA's blatant, horrific, monumental-beyond-belief offenses against the 4th Amendment?
Follow-up question: Still assuming the worst about Snowden, is he any worse than the people who implemented the NSA Panopticon?
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1044370_427379477359682_1833939506_n.jpg)
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1044370_427379477359682_1833939506_n.jpg)
And some of them may have to take the same exact plane back to Moscow again (instead of, say, hopping on a flight to Canada), as they didn't have the required Cuban journalist visas and the Cuban government wouldn't let them off the plane.
:rofl:
-
funny we should follow his advice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/26/four-years-ago-ed-snowden-thought-leakers-should-be-shot/
-
He's a hero in my book just for doing that to the CNN journalists! :lol:
-
He's a hero in my book just for doing that to the CNN journalists! :lol:
its a nice one except he did go to russia
-
He's a hero in my book just for doing that to the CNN journalists! :lol:
Agreed.
And, I love this thread for giving someone an excuse to use "Panopticon" conversationally.
-
Snowden was tasked by foreign powers to provide information to discredit the Obama Administration and weaken US standing internationally. Not only did he succeed in that, he showed the American people important crimes the gov't perpetrated against its own citizenry. For that, the American public owes Snowden a debt of gratitude...which can be expressed at his espionage trial.
He's not a traitor....just another spy....
-
Snowden was tasked by foreign powers to provide information to discredit the Obama Administration and weaken US standing internationally. Not only did he succeed in that, he showed the American people important crimes the gov't perpetrated against its own citizenry. For that, the American public owes Snowden a debt of gratitude...which can be expressed at his espionage trial.
He's not a traitor....just another spy....
[Citation needed]
-
Snowden was tasked by foreign powers to provide information to discredit the Obama Administration and weaken US standing internationally. Not only did he succeed in that, he showed the American people important crimes the gov't perpetrated against its own citizenry. For that, the American public owes Snowden a debt of gratitude...which can be expressed at his espionage trial.
He's not a traitor....just another spy....
I don't think anyone could discredit the Obama Administration and weaken US standing any more than Obama has ;/ :P
-
[Citation needed]
Simple inductive reasoning.....why would China & Russia offer him so much assistance unless he was working for one or both?
-
Simple inductive reasoning.....why would China & Russia offer him so much assistance unless he was working for one or both?
Why, to keep the Yakety Sax show rolling and for the Lulz...
-
Simple inductive reasoning.....why would China & Russia offer him so much assistance unless he was working for one or both?
Two reasons. It makes the US look incompetent, and whether he went into it working for them he likely has access to valuable information or knowledge of systems that could prove useful.
-
http://bootsrandolph.com/music%20files/Yakety%20Sax.mp3
[popcorn]
-
Two reasons. It makes the US look incompetent, and whether he went into it working for them he likely has access to valuable information or knowledge of systems that could prove useful.
This. They can make BHO & America look weak at no cost to themselves.
-
This. They can make BHO & America look weak at no cost to themselves.
Not like it's hard to do ;) :lol:
-
Two reasons. It makes the US look incompetent, and whether he went into it working for them he likely has access to valuable information or knowledge of systems that could prove useful.
So, they would employ him as a consultant......or an informant....
-
Hero.
Govt d-baggery needs to be exposed at all levels.
-
Now the story takes a slightly weird turn:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/ex-russian-spy-anna-chapman-proposes-marriage-edward-171009157.html
-
I'd go to that special hell.
-
Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session
https://soundcloud.com/madiha-1/students-question-the-nsa-at?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter
Hell hath no wrath compared to the wrath of a sharp young lady with a well-tuned BS-detector.
-
Now the story takes a slightly weird turn:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/ex-russian-spy-anna-chapman-proposes-marriage-edward-171009157.html
*Cough*Archer*cough*
-
*Cough*Archer*cough*
Perhaps we haven't heard from Snowden because he's off the coast of Malaysia, living as a pirate king.
-
Asylum has been offered by Venezuela and Nicaragua. Let's see who else offers a helping hand.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/06/snowden-fate-up-in-air-after-nicaragua-venezuela-say-theyre-willing-to-grant/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/06/snowden-fate-up-in-air-after-nicaragua-venezuela-say-theyre-willing-to-grant/)
If I were him, I'd spend my days smoking cigars and drinking coffee. And hiding.
-
The US forced a plane carrying a South American politician to land so they could search for Snowden. This unsurprisingly backfired and now 3 other S American countries are offering him asylum.
Also, for the folks pointing out that Snowden allied himself with unsavory countries as evidence of his evil intent... What do you make of all the wweapons the US has given/sold to evil dictatorships or terrorist groups when we felt it served our national interests? By that logic the US selling guns to the Al Queda aligned Syrian rebels or the Islamic extremists in the Muslim Brotherhood are just as conclusive proof of how evil the .gov is right?
-
By that logic the US selling guns to the Al Queda aligned Syrian rebels or the Islamic extremists in the Muslim Brotherhood are just as conclusive proof of how evil the .gov is right?
They proved they were evil looooonnnnnnggggggg before that.
-
They proved they were evil looooonnnnnnggggggg before that.
Right, but the default position of the folks calling for Snowden's head is that he deserves punishment for transgressing against the state so...
-
I thought this was an interesting and cyber-whatever related
http://m.infoworld.com/d/security/in-his-own-words-confessions-of-cyber-warrior-222266?mm_ref=http%3A%2F%2Fm.slashdot.org%2F
-
Now the story takes a slightly weird turn:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/ex-russian-spy-anna-chapman-proposes-marriage-edward-171009157.html
That's a dude.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/ex-russian-spy-anna-chapman-proposes-marriage-edward-171009157.html
I'd jump on that if I were him. =)
Does Rooshia have resident priviledges for spouses of its citizens ???
-
That's a dude.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anna+Chapman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anna+Chapman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch
Just following the standard APS meme protocol.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anna+Chapman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch
If that's a dude, I might just be gay.....
-
If that's a dude, I might just be gay.....
but do you look FABULOUS?
-
If that's a dude, I might just be gay.....
Maybe.....
:rofl:
-
but do you look FABULOUS?
I always look fabulous....good genes, I guess... :cool:
-
She is a doppelganger for Kaylee. (Jewel Staite)
-
If he does get asylum granted by some banana republic, I wonder what his chances are of actually arriving without an intercept and divert courtesy of USAF, USN, or a NATO ally?
-
I always look fabulous....good genes, I guess... :cool:
Wrangler or Levi ?
-
Wrangler or Levi ?
More like Hackman & Wilder.... :cool:
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/14/snowden-chose-not-to-release-most-damaging-data/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/14/snowden-chose-not-to-release-most-damaging-data/)
"Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States," [Greenwald] told the paper in an interview published on Saturday.
[popcorn]
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/14/snowden-chose-not-to-release-most-damaging-data/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/14/snowden-chose-not-to-release-most-damaging-data/)
[popcorn]
....and that target on his back just keeps getting bigger.... ;/
-
....and that target on his back just keeps getting bigger.... ;/
Not if that information is on a dead man's switch. Arrest/kill Snowden, and the data goes out.
-
Not if that information is on a dead man's switch. Arrest/kill Snowden, and the data goes out.
You can't stop the signal :lol:
-
Not if that information is on a dead man's switch. Arrest/kill Snowden, and the data goes out.
There are plenty of parties that want that info released. So it makes him an attractive target for both those who want it disclosed as well as those who want the info to remain secret. I bet being a spy isn't as much fun as it first seemed like to him.
-
There are plenty of parties that want that info released. So it makes him an attractive target for both those who want it disclosed as well as those who want the info to remain secret. I bet being a spy isn't as much fun as it first seemed like to him.
Yeah, no shinola. Someone in his place ought to have redundant, layered data stashes.
-
Somehow I bet they skipped the layered dead man info stash part of field craft in his analyst training class.
This guy needs to quit bragging. If he shuts up long enough for American Idol to start he'll be home free.
-
There are plenty of parties that want that info released. So it makes him an attractive target for both those who want it disclosed as well as those who want the info to remain secret. I bet being a spy isn't as much fun as it first seemed like to him.
That's the tricky part of dead man's switch. You want it ugly enough to discourage its target from attacking, but not THAT ugly that the enemy of your enemy wants it pressed. And you want folks to believe that dead man's switch is in that happy middle ground.
It's less than pleasant. You might find that sweet spot, and have some party believe it's a bluff. Or that you're lying. Or whatever.
-
But they know that he's being assisted by the Wikileaks people, so it's reasonable to surmise that Wikileaks has a copy of everything, and that the dead man's switch has been armed.
-
Nobody can actually know. Perhaps he left it on a USB Key with his girlfriend. Or gave a copy to Assange. Or both. Or backed up on a site that requires he log in each morning. Or all three.
-
Each day more and more comes out about the NSA and Fed.gov are listening to citizens.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130816/02532424205/okay-now-will-people-admit-that-ed-snowden-is-whistleblower.shtml
-
I'm kind of surprised the guy is still sucking air.
-
There's a reason he's in hiding in Russia.
-
If we had smart & moral folks running out gov't, Snowden would be offered immunity for a full dump of everything he knows about our rogue agencies.
-
If we had smart & moral folks running out gov't, Snowden would be offered immunity for a full dump of everything he knows about our rogue agencies.
Damned starry-eyed dreamers, ruining our Aristocracy of Pull and the machine that feeds it. ;)
-
AZ44:
I know you are joking, but I have been so accused in the past. Which leaves me with a case of "WTF? Face." ???
Because my predilection for less authority in the hands of gov't is largely based on my dark view of human nature.
-
If we had smart & moral folks running out gov't, Snowden would be offered immunity for a full dump of everything he knows about our rogue agencies.
That would require that the PTB (Powers That Be) recognize and acknowledge that the NSA is a rogue agency. They don't. They are still engaging in denial and damage control. So what if the NSA snoops violated to rules of engagement something like 2400 times in ONE year? That's only 6.75 times PER DAY on average. They were honest mistakes. We weren't TRYING to intercept those particular conversations.
-
From the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html
The NSA audit obtained by the Post dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.
So who's going to jail for those that were not unintended?
-
Snowden continues to slowly release worse and worse information. It seems that he's trying to make the point to Congress and the press with the least required damage to the United States and it's reputation globally but neither Congress nor the press are getting the point. That seems to leave Snowden having to escalate more and more to get the point made. How bad will it get before we act?
-
How bad will it get before we act?
Simple. We won't.
-
And We won't because... TRRSM! ZOMG!!
-
If we had smart & moral folks running out gov't, Snowden would be offered immunity for a full dump of everything he knows about our rogue agencies.
They probably think that they can get the full dump of everything he knows without full immunity, indeed judging by the detention of his partner in London yesterday they might have it already.
-
They probably think that they can get the full dump of everything he knows without full immunity, indeed judging by the detention of his partner in London yesterday they might have it already.
That was Greenfield's boyfriend who got detained, not Snowden's.
-
That was Greenfield's boyfriend who got detained, not Snowden's.
Got a link? I tried Googling but couldn't find a story.
-
Got a link? I tried Googling but couldn't find a story.
Here are a few, here (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a3e35152-08a6-11e3-ad07-00144feabdc0.html) and here (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/19/white-house-had-advance-notice-on-heathrow-detention/?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories) and here. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow)
-
Holy crap! Clearly no justification for a terrorism charge in the UK and yet they hold him for 9 hours. That's what we can expect in the UK or the US - except in the US they can hold you forever, KGB style.
And the US had nothing to do with it? Really? The British police weren't trying to help their American comrades? I'll never believe that it wasn't at the request of the US. Even if it was not, it's just plain sad that these things happen in what we used to know as free countries.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters
They're making direct threats at the newspaper. Which likely means someone thinks they have more damaging things they can release.
-
Der Speigel reports that the NSA was breaking into and bugging UN offices in NYC.
Turns out while tapping the video feeds and others, they discovered that the ChiCom'shad already done the same !!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh yeah, we're bugging/tapping/stealing their computer info of/electronic spying on our EU allies also.
-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documents-show-how-the-us-spies-on-europe-and-the-un-a-918625.html
Codename 'Apalachee'
Also, Germany is suspending trade talks.
Technically, this is a violation of many international agreements, and could theoretically nullify the diplomatic status of many of our embassies. If true, of course.
-
Crap I forgot to add the Der Speigel link. :facepalm:
Thanks Rev for covering for my mistake. :cool:
-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documents-show-how-the-us-spies-on-europe-and-the-un-a-918625.html
Codename 'Apalachee'
Also, Germany is suspending trade talks.
Technically, this is a violation of many international agreements, and could theoretically nullify the diplomatic status of many of our embassies. If true, of course.
It only matters (to us.gov) if they can make it stick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue
...for we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.
Is it unpatriotic of me to sort of hope they (Germany & others) can? (Make it stick.)
-
It's truly sad that despite listening in to, pretty much the world, our Foreign Policy is a freakin' train wreck.
-
It's truly sad that despite listening in to, pretty much the world, our Foreign Policy is a freakin' train wreck.
Good information still requires a decision-maker applying intellectual/moral consistency to be of effective use...
-
hero?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/snowden-trove-foreign-hands-includes-58000-highly-/
British officials said Friday that the trove of documents taken by National Security Agency leaker Edward J. Snowden, which it seized earlier this week at Heathrow airport, contains more than 58,000 “highly classified UK intelligence documents,” which the government now assumes are in foreign hands.
Oliver Robbins, the deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, told a court in London that Mr. Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk,” including personal information that would allow British intelligence staff, some serving overseas, to be identified.
SEE ALSO: NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications
The 58,000 documents were among 60 gigabytes of encrypted data seized from David Miranda during a nine hour detention under special terrorism powers Sun
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/snowden-trove-foreign-hands-includes-58000-highly-/#ixzz2dUSKyrjY
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Lacks Torrent link.
-
hero?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/snowden-trove-foreign-hands-includes-58000-highly-/
British officials said Friday that the trove of documents taken by National Security Agency leaker Edward J. Snowden, which it seized earlier this week at Heathrow airport, contains more than 58,000 “highly classified UK intelligence documents,” which the government now assumes are in foreign hands.
Oliver Robbins, the deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, told a court in London that Mr. Snowden “indiscriminately appropriated material in bulk,” including personal information that would allow British intelligence staff, some serving overseas, to be identified.
SEE ALSO: NSA collected thousands of U.S. communications
The 58,000 documents were among 60 gigabytes of encrypted data seized from David Miranda during a nine hour detention under special terrorism powers Sun
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/snowden-trove-foreign-hands-includes-58000-highly-/#ixzz2dUSKyrjY
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
He's running from the US gov't. If he didn't have an insurance policy, I'd be surprised.
-
hero?
More I hear, more I'm leaning that direction. Smart guy, doling out the leaks one at a time. Keeps it in the news cycle. Even if the politicians ensure the NSA suffers no legal or budgetary repercussions, folks will remember. It tarnishes the reputation of the NSA, and maybe makes folks be a little more secure.