Government Spying on Millions (Verizon)

B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
One thing is access. Snowden had the keys to the kingdom and the time to pick and choose; Manning had to scoop what he could get. He could not afford to be as discriminating.

Another is sexuality. Snowden appears straight; Manning is reported gay. What was done to him (Manning) when he was on "suicide watch" would be strongly decried by 90% of the American population.

Not only do the (great) majority of Americans think of Snowden as a whistle blower, and the margin is growing; but, 51% of Republicans consider him a whistleblower.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Not only do the (great) majority of Americans think of Snowden as a whistle blower, and the margin is growing; but, 51% of Republicans consider him a whistleblower.

I read an interesting article on that earlier today. It's telling that a growing majority of conservatives identify Snowden as a whistleblower.

From an article in The Atlantic titled "How Secrecy Has Already Corroded Our Democracy in Concrete Ways":

The effect of secrecy on democracy isn't abstract. The consequences of secret law and policy are not something we're risking, or that we might suffer at some time in the indeterminate future.

Secrecy is already corroding our democracy. It's impossible to see at the time, and obvious in hindsight, when the truth outs.

In 2011, the debate surrounding the re-authorization of a major piece of domestic legislation was, indisputably, a sham. Legislators were misled. Careful, informed commentators contributing arguments and analysis in the press unwittingly misled readers with content that lacked crucial context. Hard-news articles were just as useless for formulating an informed opinion.

Even those elected representatives informed about the full extent of government surveillance were deprived of normal legislative practices -- like floor debate, letters and phone calls from constituents, input from experts outside government, and public-opinion polls -- that properly factor into their typical deliberation and voting decisions. And Americans were deprived of the right to know what their representatives really approved, meaningfully robbing them of the ability to cast a meaningful vote in the Congressional races of the 2012 cycle, a key check and balance.

And, apologies in advance for getting philosophical here, but the I found the following snippet from an interview with Quentin Skinner to be very relevant to some of the disagreements here:

Q: Recent revelations make it clear that the state intelligence services, linked up with specialist corporations, either have or are certainly attempting to ‘Master the internet’ and map and record all our metadata, tracing every electronic relationship, web search, Skype conversation and text message that we make. The general response across the British media, from the BBC to the Telegraph and the Murdoch papers, is ‘What did you expect? Everyone does it? What have you got to hide?’. How do your arguments impact on the issue of surveillance?


A: The idea that there is no problem with surveillance as long as you have nothing to hide simply points to the complacency of the liberal view of freedom by contrast with the republican one. The liberal thinks that you are free so long as you are not coerced. The republican agrees, of course, that if you are coerced then you are not free. But freedom for the republican consists not in being free from coercion in respect of some action, but rather in being free from the possibility of coercion in respect of it.

When William Hague told the House of Commons that no one has anything to fear so long as they have done nothing wrong he was missing an absolutely crucial point about freedom. To be free we not only need to have no fear of interference but no fear that there could be interference. But that latter assurance is precisely what cannot be given if our actions are under surveillance. So long as surveillance is going on, we always could have our freedom of action limited if someone chose to limit it. The fact that they may not make that choice does not make us any less free, because we are not free from surveillance and the possible uses that can be made of it. Only when we are free from such possible invasions of our rights are we free; and this freedom can be guaranteed only where there is no surveillance.

I think it very important that the mere fact of there being surveillance takes away liberty. The response of those who are worried about surveillance has so far been too much couched, it seems to me, in terms of the violation of the right to privacy. Of course it’s true that my privacy has been violated if someone is reading my emails without my knowledge. But my point is that my liberty is also being violated, and not merely by the fact that someone is reading my emails but also by the fact that someone has the power to do so should they choose. We have to insist that this in itself takes away liberty because it leaves us at the mercy of arbitrary power. It’s no use those who have possession of this power promising that they won’t necessarily use it, or will use it only for the common good. What is offensive to liberty is the very existence of such arbitrary power.

The situation is made much worse once you come to know — as all of us now know — that we are in fact subject to surveillance. For now there is a danger that we may start to self-censor in the face of the known fact that we may be being scrutinised by powerful and potentially hostile forces. The problem is not that we know that something will happen to us if we say certain things. It’s that we don’t know what may happen to us. Perhaps nothing will happen. But we don’t know, and are therefore all too likely to keep quiet, or to self-censor. But these are infringements of liberty even according to the liberal account. Surely the liberal and the republican can agree that, if the structures of power are such that I feel obliged to limit my own freedom of expression, then my liberty has to that degree been undermined.

It may of course be objected that liberty is only one value, and that liberty may sometimes have to be compromised in the name of other and supposedly higher values, such as security. One answer is that we are perhaps too willing at the moment to allow questions about security to outweigh questions about liberty. But even if this is not so, the current situation seems to me untenable in a democratic society. Let us agree that it is one of the undoubted obligations of the state to maintain security. Let us also concede that this may require some level of surveillance. But if the resulting powers are to be democratically exercised, then several constraints not currently in place will have to be imposed. People must know in advance exactly what activities are subject to surveillance, and why, and what penalties will potentially be incurred. And the use of surveillance will have to be undertaken by bodies that have to respond to Parliament, not merely to the Executive, which we often have no good reason to trust.

Much of the argument in this thread has revolved around differing concepts of freedom.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
20130808_double-o-bama.jpg
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
But what about the occasional third "versus" spy???
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Curvaceous gray areas exist and "sing" their siren songs ...

The vixen was good. REALLY good.

Many times I've lied........ and many times I've listened.
Many times I've wondered how much there is to know...........
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Telling opponents to leave the country and calling them conspiracy theorists are two sure signs of a weak argument. Not to mention the first is something a fascist would say. "Well we, the government, won't let this program have it's day in court, so if you don't like it leave the country. OH BUT BY THE WAY WE RECORD WHAT YOU DO ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD."

I don't consider you an opponent, just a friend who's wrong :)

To help all you detractors......

serenityprayer.jpg
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Many times I've lied........ and many times I've listened.
Many times I've wondered how much there is to know...........

Sure. Play the Zep card! This was both a "pump up" before classes and a "settle down" after tune my freshman year.
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
To help all you detractors......

This does not sit well with me, an anti-war hippie who "came of age" during the Viet Nam debacle. There was an annoying and incessant cry of "America, Love It or Leave It" by certain parties at the time. There was never a "Work To Change It" option posited.

The very core of what it is to be an American is to view, experience, judge and confront what is within our control to change. One tenet of the objections to British rule over the colonies was the presumption that British troops had every right to plop their arses down in whatever household they chose. The guvmint claiming the right to glom onto phone, internet and shopping preferences "intel" ain't far off from "legally," forcibly quartering soldiers.

Broad and long term thinking is required. Consideration of broad and long term consequences as well.
 

Woneone

New member
Messages
1,445
Reaction score
125
Thought this fit in well here:

NSA Firing 90% of Its Sysadmins - Slashdot

So basically, he's telling a bunch of NSA Sys Admins, in advance, that they're "reducing" their numbers because it's a matter of "trust". That they can automate things and make it more secure.

Think about that for a second.

He just told a bunch of people who have access to a bunch of top secret documents, just like what was leaked, that you're about to be out of a job. Yea, that shouldn't make them too upset.

Yea, I bet nothing else gets leaked.

The NSA. Just, wow.

And from the comments -

From The Article:

Using technology to automate much of the work now done by employees and contractors would make the NSA's networks "more defensible and more secure," as well as faster, he said at the conference.

Which sounds eerily like:

The strategy behind Skynet's creation was to remove the possibility of human error and slow reaction time to guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attack.

Skynet was originally activated by the military to control the national arsenal on August 4, 1997, at which time it began to learn at a geometric rate. On August 29, it gained self-awareness, and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to deactivate it. Skynet perceived this as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
 

NDFan4Life

Forum Regular
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
254
NSA collected thousands of US communications
By KIMBERLY DOZIER
AP Intelligence Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Security Agency declassified three secret U.S. court opinions Wednesday showing how it scooped up as many as 56,000 emails and other communications by Americans with no connection to terrorism annually over three years, how it revealed the error to the court and changed how it gathered Internet communications.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper authorized the release Wednesday.

The opinions show that when the NSA reported that to the court in 2011, the court ordered the NSA to find ways to limit what it collects and how long it keeps it.

The NSA reported the problems it discovered in how it was gathering Internet communications to the court and shortly thereafter to Congress in the fall of 2011.

Three senior U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday that the NSA realized that when it was gathering up bundled Internet communications from fiber optic cables, with the cooperation of telecommunications providers like AT&T, that it was often collecting thousands of emails or other Internet transactions by Americans who had no connection to the intended terror target being tracked.

The officials briefed reporters on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the program publicly.

While the NSA is allowed to keep the metadata - the address or phone number and the duration, but not the content, of the communication - of Americans for up to five years, the court ruled that when it gathered up such large packets of information, they included actual emails between American citizens, it violated the Constitution's ban against unauthorized search and seizure.

In the opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denouncing the practice, the judge wrote that the NSA had advised the court that "the volume and nature of the information it had been collecting is fundamentally different than what the court had been led to believe," and went on to say the court must consider "whether targeting and minimization procedures comport with the 4th Amendment."

For instance, two senior intelligence officials said, when an American logged into an email server and looked at the emails in his or her inbox, that screen shot of the emails could be collected, together with Internet transactions by a terrorist suspect being targeted by the NSA - because that suspect's communications were being sent on the same fiber optic cable by the same Internet provider, in a bundled packet of data.

These interceptions of innocent Americans' communications were happening when the NSA accessed Internet information "upstream," meaning off of fiber optic cables or other channels where Internet traffic traverses the U.S. telecommunications system.

The NSA disclosed that it gathers some 250 million internet communications each year, with some 9 percent from these "upstream" channels, amounting to between 20 million to 25 million emails a year. The agency used statistical analysis to estimate that of those, possibly as many as 56,000 Internet communications collected were sent by Americans or persons in the U.S. with no connection to terrorism.

Under court order, the NSA resolved the problem by creating new ways to detect when emails by people within the U.S. were being intercepted, and separated those batches of communications. It also developed new ways to limit how that data could be accessed or used. The agency also agreed to only keep these bundled communications for possible later analysis for a 2-year period, instead of the usual 5-year retention period.

The agency also, under court order, destroyed all the bundled data gathered between 2008, when the FISA Court first authorized the collection under section 702 of the Patriot Act, until 2011 when the new procedures were put in place.

The newly released court opinions revealed the court signed off on the new procedures, deeming them constitutionally acceptable.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House still contends there is no domestic surveillance program despite new revelations about the scope of U.S. emails and Internet communications that can get swept up by the NSA. He said the program is specifically to gather foreign intelligence, adding that the fact that the extent of incidental American surveillance has been documented is proof positive that accountability measures are working properly.

"The reason that we're talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur," Earnest said.

News from The Associated Press
 

enrico514

New member
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
45
NSA chief's admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders - Washington Times

The Obama administration’s credibility on intelligence suffered another blow Wednesday as the chief of the National Security Agency admitted that officials put out numbers that vastly overstated the counterterrorism successes of the government’s warrantless bulk collection of all Americans’ phone records.

Pressed by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two — far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
NSA chief's admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders - Washington Times

The Obama administration’s credibility on intelligence suffered another blow Wednesday as the chief of the National Security Agency admitted that officials put out numbers that vastly overstated the counterterrorism successes of the government’s warrantless bulk collection of all Americans’ phone records.

Pressed by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing, Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two — far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration.

figures...although there are many on here that would trade everyone's liberty for one...suspect that's representative of the country.

NSA is just a bad moon arisin...
 

ND NYC

New member
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
209

this partof the article was most disturbing to me.
cant believe CIA, NSA are "farming out" how they do securty/background checks and grant security clearancees on their employees to a private company:

The revelation of the C.I.A.’s derogatory report comes as Congress is examining the process of granting security clearances, particularly by USIS, a company that has performed 700,000 yearly security checks for the government. Among the individuals the company vetted were Mr. Snowden and Aaron Alexis, who the police say shot and killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard last month
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
this partof the article was most disturbing to me.
cant believe CIA, NSA are "farming out" how they do securty/background checks and grant security clearancees on their employees to a private company:

The revelation of the C.I.A.’s derogatory report comes as Congress is examining the process of granting security clearances, particularly by USIS, a company that has performed 700,000 yearly security checks for the government. Among the individuals the company vetted were Mr. Snowden and Aaron Alexis, who the police say shot and killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard last month

...I don't like the outsourcing of this function, nor any function associated with contracts. Just not in the interest of the people for those to be non organic functions.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Anybody watch "Good Wife?" I never laughed so hard until I cried in my life.


And we pay for this!
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Google's Schmidt says NSA spying outrageous if true - WSJ

Reuters
54 minutes ago

(Reuters) - Google Inc Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said widespread U.S. government spying on its data centers would be outrageous and potentially illegal if true, the Wall Street Journal reported.

"It's really outrageous that the NSA was looking between the Google data centers, if that's true," Schmidt said in an interview.

"The steps that the organization was willing to do without good judgment to pursue its mission and potentially violate people's privacy, it's not OK."

Schmidt told the newspaper in Hong Kong that Google had registered complaints with the National Security Agency (NSA), President Barack Obama and Congress members.

According to a Washington Post report on Wednesday, the NSA had tapped directly into communications links used by Google and Yahoo Inc to move huge amounts of email and other user information among overseas data centers.

Responding to the report, the NSA said the suggestion that it relied on a presidential order on foreign intelligence- gathering to skirt domestic restrictions imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other laws "is not true."

"I can tell you factually we do not have access to Google servers, Yahoo servers," NSA Director General Keith Alexander said at a conference last week. "We go through a court order."

When contacted by the WSJ, the NSA referred to its previous statements that press articles about the NSA's collection had misstated facts and mischaracterized the NSA's activities.

Schmidt said in the interview that the NSA allegedly collected the phone records of 320 million people in order to identify roughly 300 people who might be at risk.

"It's just bad public policy…and perhaps illegal," he told the paper. (Google's Eric Schmidt Lambastes NSA Over Spying, Following New Snowden Revelations - WSJ.com)

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would tighten controls on the government's sweeping electronic eavesdropping programs but allow them to continue.

(Reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore)
 
Top