Edward Snowden Q&A

[Desnudo]

Pretty amazing discussion. The gov is going to have a hard time because he clearly has a plan, is articulate, and also clearly doesn't give a shit about what they might do to him.

Reddit has a better view than the guardian.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden live Q&A 11am ET/4pm BST : technology (http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1gihc9/nsa_whistleblower_edward_snowden_live_qa_11am/)

[panerd]

As one of the board's resident conspiracy theorists I will probably get more eye rolls than I will positive responses but this guy doesn't seem "right". From what angle I am not sure but much like Julian Assange he just seems to be too articulate and has far too many answers. At least Assange had a journalism background. Maybe he is all he seems to be (and either way its great that he is waking some people up to the government surveillance state) but it just all seems really fishy.

Possibilities?
A) Legit who he says he is
B) Who he says he is but now getting help from another country
C) Foreign operative
D) CIA/NSA Disinformation
E) Someone powerful out to get Obama

I don't have an answer why right now on B-E but could come up with a list of possibilities.

[panerd]

Regardless I did like this answer though...

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

[Young Drachma]

Meh fuck that guy.

[Desnudo]

Thanks for adding to the discussion

[Young Drachma]

Thanks for adding to the discussion

Seriously, he's a self-important asshole who doesn't care about anyone but himself under the guise of "doing it for the people." He's endangering a bevy of lives all under this false idea that he's exposing information that's going to make people ask hard questions about what the NSA and government have been doing and do.

Do I think it's a conversation we ought to have? You betcha. Do I think his antics have furthered that discussion? Not an iota.

[lighthousekeeper]

Do I think his antics have furthered that discussion? Not an iota.

howso? there was zero discussion before because we didn't know of its existence. so whether you support what he did or not, he surely furthered the discussion, right?

edit:
Seriously, he's a self-important asshole who doesn't care about anyone but himself under the guise of "doing it for the people."

you talking about Snowden now, or every politician ever

[jeff061]

I can't think of any other way of furthering the discussion.

[rowech]

Nobody wanted to have the discussion because they assumed they weren't checking on just anybody they wanted to. People who aren't upset by this are simply naive.

[Young Drachma]

The difference is simple. You can expose government hypocrisy and still decry Snowden. He's a coward and a know-nothing who thinks he's a bigger linchpin to all of this than he is. But keep believing he's exposed something they didn't want you to know.

[lighthousekeeper]

The difference is simple. You can expose government hypocrisy and still decry Snowden. He's a coward and a know-nothing who thinks he's a bigger linchpin to all of this than he is. But keep believing he's exposed something they didn't want you to know.

You're either not making sense or I need more caffeine.


Are you saying the NSA wanted this information leaked and be forced to testify and admit this program was going on? Or are you referring to a different "they"?

[cartman]

As I posted in the other thread, the PRISM project was budgeted for $20 million. If the NSA could implement a broad, catch-all program of data collection, mining and interpretation for only $20 million, then we are screwed anyway. The amount of press that PRISM has gotten far outweighs any actual impact it has on privacy.

[molson]

He's definitely sparked a discussion. I don't know how in-tune the discussion is with reality, but there's a discussion. Ultimately, he'll indirectly help establish that the programs are constitutional, once the knee-jerk media-seeking lawsuits all go down in flames. Policy-wise though, he's managed to open a big can of worms and get people really riled up, I'm sure we'll have more politicians at least pretend to cater to those concerns in upcoming elections. It's a issue people care about now. The Patriot Act has always been an issue people cared about generally, but this time it has more teeth because it's a specific application of it that really infuriates some people.

[dawgfan]

The difference is simple. You can expose government hypocrisy and still decry Snowden. He's a coward and a know-nothing who thinks he's a bigger linchpin to all of this than he is. But keep believing he's exposed something they didn't want you to know.
This.

[dawgfan]

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/

[JonInMiddleGA]

He deserves two rounds in the back of the head. Period.

[lighthousekeeper]

He deserves two rounds in the back of the head. Period.

in fairness to snowden, you basically feel that way about all people, from what i can tell.

[flounder]

in fairness to snowden, you basically feel that way about all people, from what i can tell.

That's unfair. He doesn't feel that way about Tim Tebow.

[lighthousekeeper]

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/snowden-and-greenwald-beginning-to-self-destruct-the-nation-and-mother-jones-raise-questions/

informative - i was also misled by taking some previous news stories face value.

[JonInMiddleGA]

in fairness to snowden, you basically feel that way about all people, from what i can tell.

Or at least all treacherous vermin like this piece of crap.

If his actions aren't treason, I'm not sure there's really any point in the word remaining a part of the legal code, or perhaps even the English language.

[Desnudo]

That's unfair. He doesn't feel that way about Tim Tebow.

What if Tim Tebow is behind it? Pop pop.

[dawgfan]

Here's another link of interest: http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2428809

[Young Drachma]

Is Edward Snowden's story unravelling? Why the Guardian's scoop is looking a bit dodgy – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100221535/is-edward-snowdens-story-unravelling-why-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/)

[rowech]

I think one of the more frightening things in this story is how much someone who works for three months is privy to right from the start.

[lighthousekeeper]

I think one of the more frightening things in this story is how much someone who works for three months is privy to right from the start.

but shouldn't be too surprising for any of us who work in IT, and especially for any of us who work for gov't IT.

[jeff061]

but shouldn't be too surprising for any of us who work in IT, and especially for any of us who work for gov't IT.

I was going to type the same thing. Even low level shlubs get more access to sensitive material than VPs do. I believe execs don't realize this, while most IT management see it as a borderline necessity that's difficult to "fix" and look the other way.

[dawgfan]

I was going to type the same thing. Even low level shlubs get more access to sensitive material than VPs do. I believe execs don't realize this, while most IT management see it as a borderline necessity that's difficult to "fix" and look the other way.
From the USA Today interview with previous whistleblowers:

"They should be doing that automatically with code, so the instant when anyone goes into that base with a query that they are not supposed to be doing, they should be flagged immediately and denied access. And that could be done with code.

But the government is not doing that. So that's the greatest threat in this whole affair."

[molson]

From the USA Today interview with previous whistleblowers:

"They should be doing that automatically with code, so the instant when anyone goes into that base with a query that they are not supposed to be doing, they should be flagged immediately and denied access. And that could be done with code.

But the government is not doing that. So that's the greatest threat in this whole affair."

But wouldn't it be IT guys that would have to write that code?

I'm sure there's some kind of security pyramid of IT guys, but it seems like it'd be tough to make a fool-proof system.

[dawgfan]

But wouldn't it be IT guys that would have to write that code?

I'm sure there's some kind of security pyramid of IT guys, but it seems like it'd be tough to make a fool-proof system.
Sure, there's going to be vulnerabilities because someone (or some group) has to create the security protocols. But one would certainly hope that a hierarchy of trust could be established in terms of who touches what - that's SOP for anything regarding security in my experience.

[Coffee Warlord]

At the end of the day, however, many IT jobs REQUIRE having a higher level of access than other departments, simply to do one's job - particularly in the sysadmin and development roles.

[molson]

And really, the information this Snowden guy had wasn't THAT sensitive. It's a pain in the ass for the government, but the basics of this program were out there already. I'm sure there's much higher up IT guys with access to much more sensitive information. Like the IT guys working for the secret department that hides aliens and stuff.

[Desnudo]

Is Edward Snowden's story unravelling? Why the Guardian's scoop is looking a bit dodgy – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100221535/is-edward-snowdens-story-unravelling-why-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/)

#1 and #2 were asked and answered pretty reasonably. If that's the best they got, they're really in trouble.

[kcchief19]

Nobody wanted to have the discussion because they assumed they weren't checking on just anybody they wanted to. People who aren't upset by this are simply naive.
I'm not particularly upset by this and far from naive. I think it was naive to not realize this was happening because we already knew that it was and that it is not illegal. I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this affair.

I am surprised that the government may not be doing deep enough vetting of its IT guys. It seems like Snowden has the personality, background and temperament of someone who should not have a security clearance.

[dawgfan]

#1 and #2 were asked and answered pretty reasonably. If that's the best they got, they're really in trouble.
Link?

[Desnudo]

Link?

In the chat with Guardian, linked in the original post, he says he went to Hong Kong because of legal process there. For salary, he told the Guardian reporter he made up to 200k in his career and took a pay cut to work at the NSA. That got paraphrased to made 200k.

Edward Snowden 'arrives in Moscow' | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-arrives-moscow)

[GrantDawg]

I'm not particularly upset by this and far from naive. I think it was naive to not realize this was happening because we already knew that it was and that it is not illegal. I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this affair.

I am surprised that the government may not be doing deep enough vetting of its IT guys. It seems like Snowden has the personality, background and temperament of someone who should not have a security clearance.

This is where I am at as well. There have reports of stuff like this even before 9-11, and especially after. I guess the main thing this "exposes" is how easily NSA and national security techs can find specific peoples recorded information to listen and collect for their own jollys (like celebrity's communications and such). I guess some are also "shocked" that the US gathers intelligence that is really non-threat related on other countries, including our allies. Again, that really isn't shocking at all, and if you don't think every country in the world doesn't do that, then you are pretty naive.

[kcchief19]

So Snowden gives his story to a British tabloid, makes off to China, then shoves off for Moscow with plans to hide out in Ecuador.

Does this sound less and less like a guy is a "patriot" and wanted to expose what his government was doing and more and more like a "traitor" who has found a way to make a lot of money off his story? Does anyone believe China and Russian haven't found a way to "debrief" him? Between The Guardian, China and Russia, you have three entities not afraid to reimburse him for his trouble.

Maybe the guy is a genius. Maybe he's found a way to be a spy, but rather than sell his secrets to Russia or China and be hidden in a dark hole the rest of his life fearful he'll get traded back to the U.S. in exchange for another spy, he's found a way to make money from both governments, the high tail it to Ecuador and "safety."

Someone has got to be asking that question.

[rowech]

So Snowden gives his story to a British tabloid, makes off to China, then shoves off for Moscow with plans to hide out in Ecuador.

Does this sound less and less like a guy is a "patriot" and wanted to expose what his government was doing and more and more like a "traitor" who has found a way to make a lot of money off his story? Does anyone believe China and Russian haven't found a way to "debrief" him? Between The Guardian, China and Russia, you have three entities not afraid to reimburse him for his trouble.

Maybe the guy is a genius. Maybe he's found a way to be a spy, but rather than sell his secrets to Russia or China and be hidden in a dark hole the rest of his life fearful he'll get traded back to the U.S. in exchange for another spy, he's found a way to make money from both governments, the high tail it to Ecuador and "safety."

Someone has got to be asking that question.

Yeah...I've changed my opinion totally.

[panerd]

I'm still sticking with a lot of missing information and a lot of sudden "honesty" by our government to the press. Pretty sure there are major pieces to this story that we aren't being told and the world traveler story of Hong Kong, China, Russia, Equator seems a little too forthcoming to me.

[Desnudo]

So Snowden gives his story to a British tabloid, makes off to China, then shoves off for Moscow with plans to hide out in Ecuador.

Does this sound less and less like a guy is a "patriot" and wanted to expose what his government was doing and more and more like a "traitor" who has found a way to make a lot of money off his story? Does anyone believe China and Russian haven't found a way to "debrief" him? Between The Guardian, China and Russia, you have three entities not afraid to reimburse him for his trouble.

Maybe the guy is a genius. Maybe he's found a way to be a spy, but rather than sell his secrets to Russia or China and be hidden in a dark hole the rest of his life fearful he'll get traded back to the U.S. in exchange for another spy, he's found a way to make money from both governments, the high tail it to Ecuador and "safety."

Someone has got to be asking that question.

Maybe those were the only places he could go? Big difference between Hong Kong and China. He could have gone to Iceland and you would make the same statements, just phrased differently. This is turning out to be one of the more polarizing situations where I don't think people are going to change their opinions regardless of what happens in the future.

[panerd]

Yeah there seems to be a lot of confusion about Hong Kong and China. I realize that the UK transferred it over like 15 years ago but Hong Kong is still regarded worldwide as probably the freest country in the world where China usually finds itself pretty far down the list with the African countries. Hong Kong is not communist China.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hong Kong is not communist China.

But they were quite content to defer any decision on this back to Beijing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

For all the big talker out of some in Congress, let's see if they'll actually put their money where their mouths are. Ecuador has rcvd $225 million dollars in U.S. aid in the last 5 years, another $25m scheduled next year.

Country Overview | Just the Facts - U.S. military aid to Latin America and the Caribbean (http://justf.org/Country?country=Ecuador)

[Desnudo]

The US has an extradition treaty with Ecuador.

[RendeR]

The US has an extradition treaty with Ecuador.


This is the thing that has bothered me about his so called "plans"


Why would he intentionally attempt to go to and hide in a nation who has an explicit treaty to return him? What about that treaty makes him feel safer there (if in fact he even realizes it exists)?

[Young Drachma]

Espionage is not covered under the extradition treaty with Ecuador. Plus the sticking point here is that Ecuadorian officials will not honor extradition requests that are deemed politically motivated and that's what they're calling this despite what the U.S. government is saying.

Also, the Ecuadorian government is helping Julian Assange, so they have a history of this. In contrast to say, Venezuela which is relatively unsafe if you have no money, Ecuador is small enough that he can manage to stay under the radar and the political situation is relatively stable and President Correa has expressed anti-American sentiments and is in his third term. Assange was granted asylum there too, his problem is he can't leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London without being arrested.

So he might not be able to hang out there forever, but would presumably have a few years provided the current regime stays in power and he doesn't manage to piss them off.

He didn't/doesn't have very many options of places to go that would intentionally stick their nose at the U.S. on this issue and given he's probably not privvy to enough to really give away more than what people already know, doesn't exactly make him as high value an asset as he fashions himself.

So if Ecuadorian government is willing to stick their nose at the U.S., remember this is the same embassy that's housing Assange in the U.K. and stopping him from being extradited to Sweden and provide a way for him to travel now that his passport has been cancelled, that's probably the holdup for why he hasn't left Moscow yet...the Ecuadorian government needs to get him a travel doc so he can get from there to Cuba and then to Ecuador -- no direct flights -- unless Team Wikileaks is arranging some kind of charter.

[Young Drachma]

There's some unconfirmed reports I've read that Snowden got a refugee travel document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_travel_document) from Ecuador last week before he left Hong Kong.

[kcchief19]

But they were quite content to defer any decision on this back to Beijing.
Precisely. It's not like he went to Taiwan. There is no way Snowden went to Hong Kong with no contact from the Chinese government.

I was actually beginning to swing his direction until this latest escapade. For a supposedly ordinary guy trying to right a wrong, he has had remarkable high-level assistance from foreign governments.

[kcchief19]

Initial reports say Snowden missed his flight from Moscow to Havana because the flight plan required the plane to fly over US air space. What kind of international incident would this have been if the US used fighter jets to order an Aeroflot plane to land in the US?

[molson]

The whole concept of an American actually getting political asylum for a situation like this is pretty interesting. Maybe it creates a new category of asylum seeker - if you embarrass the U.S. on an international level, you get priority consideration.

[cody8200]

I don't care about Snowden. Who is going to lead the charge to repeal the 'Patriot' Act? Paul?

[Young Drachma]

Initial reports say Snowden missed his flight from Moscow to Havana because the flight plan required the plane to fly over US air space. What kind of international incident would this have been if the US used fighter jets to order an Aeroflot plane to land in the US?

ATC would've just ordered the pilot to land in NYC. No fighter jets needed.

[panerd]

I don't care about Snowden. Who is going to lead the charge to repeal the 'Patriot' Act? Paul?

The impression I get (admittedly anecdotal) is the "Who cares about the NSA looking at my phone records? I have nothing to hide!" crowd is the same group that supports the Patriot Act. "I'm not a terrorist! I'm a patriot like the name of the law!" Maybe I am wrong but it seems like the minute Obama took office the opposition that did exist grinded down considerably. There seems to be still opposition from both the far left and some conservative wings of the right but mostly people in the middle who think oppressive regimes can only take over governments outside of "USA!"

[kcchief19]

I don't care about Snowden. Who is going to lead the charge to repeal the 'Patriot' Act? Paul?
Not Paul. No member of the Paul family could get consensus in Congress that the sky is blue.

I'm generally sensing what panerd said. I don't really see a massive shift in anyone's view so far. Supporters of the Patriot Act don't seem to be bailing en masse. If anything, the rank and file supporters of the Patriot Act generally seem to think this is appropriate, and if there was any overreaching it's Obama's fault, not the law.

I'm not sure even the majority of opponents of the Patriot Act are motivated because they already knew this was happening.

It seems most of the attention is a media frenzy on the very small minority for whom this is a major issue. Wait a few more weeks an no one will care. Won't even be a 2016 campaign issue.

[cody8200]

kcchief, I hope that isn't the case. I certainly do care as do many of my 30-something friends (none of us are really part of the Reddit crowd either). There was a thread a while back about having a 'Privacy' candidate and wondered if they could win on the platform of privacy. I'm not sure nationally but in the right district/state, I think it is certainly possible. I am bothered that the media was able to shift the focus entirely away from the Patriot Act and squarely on a single individually but single individuals are so much easier for the average person to label. Meanwhile the Patriot Act is extremely large, complicated and its pro's and con's can't be distilled into a 15 second quote which makes writing about it difficult for the modern journalist and their audience.

If what the NSA did isn't an over-reach of the PA (and I really don't know the answer), then it certainly needs repealed in my opinion. No amount of 'safety from terrorism' is worth the breach of privacy.

[cody8200]

The impression I get (admittedly anecdotal) is the "Who cares about the NSA looking at my phone records? I have nothing to hide!" crowd is the same group that supports the Patriot Act. "I'm not a terrorist! I'm a patriot like the name of the law!" Maybe I am wrong but it seems like the minute Obama took office the opposition that did exist grinded down considerably. There seems to be still opposition from both the far left and some conservative wings of the right but mostly people in the middle who think oppressive regimes can only take over governments outside of "USA!"

On the people who say, "Who cares?" - I have seen this from both older and younger people I have spoken to (on both sides of the aisle). It is worrying to me. However, I have noticed (certainly anecdotal) that people from 25-45 (perhaps the largest set of original 'net users) are much more interested in protecting their privacy.

So many people are up in arms about their guns but the pen is mightier than the sword and the private info that doesn't hurt you today could hurt you later in life if laws change/policies change/etc.

[panerd]

Not Paul. No member of the Paul family could get consensus in Congress that the sky is blue.

I'm generally sensing what panerd said. I don't really see a massive shift in anyone's view so far. Supporters of the Patriot Act don't seem to be bailing en masse. If anything, the rank and file supporters of the Patriot Act generally seem to think this is appropriate, and if there was any overreaching it's Obama's fault, not the law.

I'm not sure even the majority of opponents of the Patriot Act are motivated because they already knew this was happening.

It seems most of the attention is a media frenzy on the very small minority for whom this is a major issue. Wait a few more weeks an no one will care. Won't even be a 2016 campaign issue.

I think you underestimate the power of Rand Paul. He is much more pragmatic and plays the game differently than his dad(IMO a bad thing but in national politics I guess it's good?) He supported Romney for president and seems to get more national attention and attention from his own party. He's actually on the committee for foreign relations! Though the House is obviously a different beast Ron Paul wouldn't have been allowed in the same room as a committee on foreign relations.

With all that being said I could see Rand offering some sort of compromise on the Patriot Act that really does nothing thinking it will help him in a run for president. And in doing so not gaining any mainstream GOP support and losing the Libertarian leaning support he somewhat enjoys. But I think he is much more of a power player than his dad. (They talk shows may mock him more but that's a step up from completely ignoring his father)

[panerd]

On the people who say, "Who cares?" - I have seen this from both older and younger people I have spoken to (on both sides of the aisle). It is worrying to me. However, I have noticed (certainly anecdotal) that people from 25-45 (perhaps the largest set of original 'net users) are much more interested in protecting their privacy.

So many people are up in arms about their guns but the pen is mightier than the sword and the private info that doesn't hurt you today could hurt you later in life if laws change/policies change/etc.

But the younger crowd also carry a double edged sword don't they? They claim they want to protect their privacy but list almost all of their pertinent information on facebook and tweet when they had their last bowel movement. Their heroes are people who live their whole lives in front of cameras. (Again not describing you or your friends necessarily but a more general look at the younger crowd)

[Easy Mac]

So the latest interviews say he specifically took the Booz Allen job to gain access to NSA servers to find information. That's not really a whistleblower.

I was inclined to believe he should get whistleblower protection in the beginning, but the more that comes out, the more it seems he was deliberately acting in his own interests and as a wannabe spy.

[cody8200]

Very true panerd. I think that is especially true of high school/college crowd. I have certainly noticed it for people well into their 30's but I also have noticed far more restraint, if only because they are worried it won't allow them to get a job (a good reason to worry).

[TroyF]

Not Paul. No member of the Paul family could get consensus in Congress that the sky is blue.

I'm generally sensing what panerd said. I don't really see a massive shift in anyone's view so far. Supporters of the Patriot Act don't seem to be bailing en masse. If anything, the rank and file supporters of the Patriot Act generally seem to think this is appropriate, and if there was any overreaching it's Obama's fault, not the law.

I'm not sure even the majority of opponents of the Patriot Act are motivated because they already knew this was happening.

It seems most of the attention is a media frenzy on the very small minority for whom this is a major issue. Wait a few more weeks an no one will care. Won't even be a 2016 campaign issue.


A lot of it is because of the hive mentality that many people have politically right now. I live getting into political debates with people who look at both sides of an issue. Sadly, many of those folks are gone. It is about "my party is right, yours is wrong"

So this is now multifaceted. There are plenty of Republicans who believed in it from the start. This does nothing to change their mind. There are many Republicans who believed GW was wrongly and unfairly attacked numerous times. Even if they think this goes too far, their message is not that it went too far, it is "see, we told you Bush was not that bad"

Then you have the democrats who believe Obama can do no wrong. They ave to make excuses for this. It does not fit in with his message at all, but they would rather take a kick to the groin than admit that either Obama lied or that Bush was right.

I will admit to being apathetic on the issue. I never have had a feeling that my calls or records were ever safe. Nor do I feel they will be after this outcry is over.

[panerd]

So the latest interviews say he specifically took the Booz Allen job to gain access to NSA servers to find information. That's not really a whistleblower.

I was inclined to believe he should get whistleblower protection in the beginning, but the more that comes out, the more it seems he was deliberately acting in his own interests and as a wannabe spy.

I guess its possible that this guy is the world's biggest narcissist and/or idiot but I personally have a hard time believing he went through all this careful meticulous planning to get the information, then the planning to release it to the public, the careful choice of who to interview with, planning his escape, and now an a short interview happens to say things that do nothing but reverse course 180 degrees to make himself look bad and the United States correct. Its kind of like the Assange rape charges, a bit fishy. I'm not even sure this guy is who he says he is and that there isn't some other side issue at play.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rare that I have a chance to say anything good about the current administration, but I love what Carney's comments today imply about the U.S. reaction to the Chinese inaction.

"The Chinese have emphasized the importance of building mutual trust," Carney added. "And we think that they have dealt that effort a serious setback. If we cannot count on them to honor their legal extradition obligations, then there is a problem. And that is a point we are making to them very directly."

In the language of diplomacy, that seems like some pretty strong stuff.

[cody8200]

I will admit to being apathetic on the issue. I never have had a feeling that my calls or records were ever safe.

But do you believe you have the right, under the Bill of Rights, to expect that privacy (safety)? I do and my worry (and it gets played out in every argument ever used) is regarding it being a slippery slope. Sure, attack drones aren't currently allowed over American airspace but that is a policy, not a law. And while this may be hyperbole - while the friend you emailed today is a fine, upstanding citizen, maybe he will be convicted of some crime in 20 years and they will come back to a conversation you had via email a generation earlier and begin questioning you. Those kinds of scenarios seem unlikely but not impossible.

[TroyF]

But do you believe you have the right, under the Bill of Rights, to expect that privacy (safety)? I do and my worry (and it gets played out in every argument ever used) is regarding it being a slippery slope. Sure, attack drones aren't currently allowed over American airspace but that is a policy, not a law. And while this may be hyperbole - while the friend you emailed today is a fine, upstanding citizen, maybe he will be convicted of some crime in 20 years and they will come back to a conversation you had via email a generation earlier and begin questioning you. Those kinds of scenarios seem unlikely but not impossible.

Do I have the right? Sure. But have I ever actually had tat right? I do not think I have. If the slippery slope happened, my guess is I would be one of the thousand missing perons each year, rathe than go before a judge.

I just have to hope you idiots never do anything to put me in a bad situation. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just have to hope you idiots never do anything to put me in a bad situation. :)

Good luck with that

:D

[cody8200]

I just have to hope you idiots never do anything to put me in a bad situation. :)

Ha :p

[molson]

And while this may be hyperbole - while the friend you emailed today is a fine, upstanding citizen, maybe he will be convicted of some crime in 20 years and they will come back to a conversation you had via email a generation earlier and begin questioning you. Those kinds of scenarios seem unlikely but not impossible.

They don't even do that now with information that's publicly available. When someone commits a crime cops aren't breaking down the doors of everyone in the guy's fantasy baseball league. If they really wanted to, they could dig up a lot of friends and associates from the last 20 years without spying on anyone. It's the pretty rare case where that benefits any investigation though.

Edit: But if the worst case scenario is that a federal agent comes to my house in 20 years to ask me if I recall any signs that TroyF (sorry Troy) was going to become the world's most notorious terrorist, then there's definitely more immediate, real-world issues of governance I have a lot more concern about. Hey, maybe this is all a government conspiracy to distract Americans with fantasy slippery slope stuff so we don't notice how much we get screwed by the healthcare industry right now. (sarcasm). I mean, we pay the most amount of money for the western world's worst healthcare system. That bothers me. Not that the fact that I called for kennel reservations yesterday might have been logged in a giant database somewhere. Though even before the news broke last week, and if I was a terrorist and/or drug dealer, I would always assume that the government was listening, I think smart criminals do, they have since at least the 50s. Most times they're not listening, there's just not that many of them, but it's always better to be safe and mix it up or meet in person.

[molson]

So the latest interviews say he specifically took the Booz Allen job to gain access to NSA servers to find information. That's not really a whistleblower.

I was inclined to believe he should get whistleblower protection in the beginning, but the more that comes out, the more it seems he was deliberately acting in his own interests and as a wannabe spy.

I think maybe he'll be considered more of a hero if it was all a plan from the start, rather than if he willingly took a job with the evil government without such a plan to screw them.

[Ajaxab]

Just a couple of links on how metadata is/could be deployed--one on the broader prospects of metadata for social engineering...

http://www.thenation.com/article/174776/meta-question?page=0,1#axzz2XAZ75ErY

and one on a sociologist writing up how using metadata could help find someone like Paul Revere...

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

[kcchief19]

Rare that I have a chance to say anything good about the current administration, but I love what Carney's comments today imply about the U.S. reaction to the Chinese inaction.

In the language of diplomacy, that seems like some pretty strong stuff.
Agree completely. The White House has to be ticked beyond belief that China let this go. It sounds like China was hoping they could punt him on a technicality. But they probably hit the double-whammy by not only rejecting the extradition request but then letting him slip out the back door to Russia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and one on a sociologist writing up how using metadata could help find someone like Paul Revere...

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

Which might be one of the best sample arguments for having the data on hand one could make.

[kcchief19]

I think you underestimate the power of Rand Paul. He is much more pragmatic and plays the game differently than his dad(IMO a bad thing but in national politics I guess it's good?) He supported Romney for president and seems to get more national attention and attention from his own party. He's actually on the committee for foreign relations! Though the House is obviously a different beast Ron Paul wouldn't have been allowed in the same room as a committee on foreign relations.

With all that being said I could see Rand offering some sort of compromise on the Patriot Act that really does nothing thinking it will help him in a run for president. And in doing so not gaining any mainstream GOP support and losing the Libertarian leaning support he somewhat enjoys. But I think he is much more of a power player than his dad. (They talk shows may mock him more but that's a step up from completely ignoring his father)
Actually Ron Paul was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is the House equivalent of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. They are both extremely easy committees to get on to because generally no one wants these assignments -- there's no purse strings, no lobbyists and no fundraisers.

Paul can't get anything done because he can't even build a coalition in his own party. He may talk differently than his dad, but the party faithful don't trust him any more than they do his dad. He's always going to be an outsider.

I think this is largely a only-Nixon-can-go-to-China issue. The only person who will be able to gain traction on this issue is likely a law-and-order Republican-type who says we need a compromise on the issue and is able to bring enough Republicans along to pass it. A Democrat or a Libertarian can't get it done. It's got to be someone who has supported the Patriot Act or FISA in the past and says we need to fix it.

[sterlingice]

I will admit to being apathetic on the issue. I never have had a feeling that my calls or records were ever safe. Nor do I feel they will be after this outcry is over.

I'm pretty sure the outcry is over unless some more substantial details come to light. We've already spent more of the past week talking about the person as opposed to what was brought to light.

SI

[sterlingice]

Just a couple of links on how metadata is/could be deployed--one on the broader prospects of metadata for social engineering...

The Meta Question | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/174776/meta-question?page=0,1#axzz2XAZ75ErY)

I'm not sure I can buy the implications here as he makes some logical jumps that I'm not sure are fair. However, it certainly paints quite the picture.

"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

SI

[Dutch]

Rare that I have a chance to say anything good about the current administration, but I love what Carney's comments today imply about the U.S. reaction to the Chinese inaction.



In the language of diplomacy, that seems like some pretty strong stuff.

That's pretty good and the one thing I would agree with is that the Democrats talked a good "dove" game to win votes but have maintained a very strong American "hawk" stance towards our competitors.

Speaking of China, have they ever reached out to us for better relations or are we doing all the work? And they are blowing us off?

And speaking of Snowden, want to know the damage of spying? Check out this article in the German Newspaper...most likely every word of it is bullshit but who wouldn't believe it in Germany? Pretty much nobody. The affects on German/American relations could take decades (if ever) to correct...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/30/us-usa-germany-spying-idUSBRE95T04B20130630

As soon as this guy gets back on American soil, he needs to be fully prosecuted under the laws of treason.

[molson]

So he's still just hanging out at the Moscow airport. No valid American passport, no Russian visa, no direct commercial flights to Ecuador, no money for a private jet. This could take a while. I wonder if he'll just crack at some point and allow himself to be sent back to the U.S.

Edward Snowden Stars In ‘The Terminal 2: This Time For Real’ « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources (http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/edward-snowden-stars-in-the-terminal-2-this-time-for-real/)

[Dutch]

As far as I'm concerned he can rot right where he is. His only value now is information and if the Russians can't find anything worthwhile to extract from him, he'll rot there or be sent back. The reality is that the Russians are probably thinking, "Really? This is all you got?"

The Russians are probably the one nation that is bigger on loyalty than we are. In the end they have ZERO respect for this "American" that is trying to fuck America. They will extract what they can and then dispose of him how they see fit.

[MIJB#19]

That's pretty good and the one thing I would agree with is that the Democrats talked a good "dove" game to win votes but have maintained a very strong American "hawk" stance towards our competitors.

Speaking of China, have they ever reached out to us for better relations or are we doing all the work? And they are blowing us off?

And speaking of Snowden, want to know the damage of spying? Check out this article in the German Newspaper...most likely every word of it is bullshit but who wouldn't believe it in Germany? Pretty much nobody. The affects on German/American relations could take decades (if ever) to correct...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/30/us-usa-germany-spying-idUSBRE95T04B20130630

As soon as this guy gets back on American soil, he needs to be fully prosecuted under the laws of treason.You can safely replace "Germany" with "European Union" here.

[Dutch]

You can safely replace "Germany" with "European Union" here.

Yeah, I read another article about the EU President basically saying that America is GUILTY until proven INNOCENT because of this moron.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and then dispose of him how they see fit.

If they'd like some suggestions, they could give me a call.

[Dutch]

If they'd like some suggestions, they could give me a call.

If I had my way, I'd send him to middle Georgia in a fucking heartbeat. :)

[Dutch]

The Russians are probably the one nation that is bigger on loyalty than we are. In the end they have ZERO respect for this "American" that is trying to fuck America. They will extract what they can and then dispose of him how they see fit.

Well, there ya go....here's Putin on the subject...

"If he wants to go somewhere and there are those who would take him, he is welcome to do so," Putin said. "If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: He must stop his activities aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners, no matter how strange it may sound coming from my lips."

Read more: Snowden breaks silence amid request for asylum in Russia, reportedly vows to continue leaking | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/01/snowden-breaks-silence-amid-request-for-asylum-in-russia-vows-to-continue/#ixzz2XqM8TLs9[/quote)]

[JonInMiddleGA]

The phrase "for thou art crunchy & goeth well with ketchup" just popped into my head.

[kcchief19]

His latest "statement" goes to the Hamlet complex this guy has. It's not about him, it's about silencing and scaring all the people that come after him. No, it's about taking your treasonous ass and hanging it from the nearest yardarm.

I still see a huge gap between Snowden and Manning versus leakers such as Ellsberg or Mark Felt. Maybe there is no difference. If he thinks he is innocent and that America is a great country, he should avail himself of the justice system. If he thinks justice is better in Hong Kong, Russia or Ecuador, he's might confused.

[Young Drachma]

Glad I was right about him. He's so fucked though. He ran his mouth, he's losing friends fast and his pals at wikileaks aren't going to be able to save his tail. Wonder how long he'll last in Russia before they get tired of him and boot him out. I doubt they'd extradite him, but..they can basically make him take a hike.

[Young Drachma]

Rafael Correa not considering Snowden asylum: helping him was a 'mistake' | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-correa-snowden-mistake)

[sterlingice]

It's odd to me: I would have thought the story that would have legs would have been the news about the NSA not about the leaker himself. Then again, I should have known better. I don't think there's a nefarious government plot to hush it up. I don't think they needed to - we just don't have the attention span for a complicated debate, sadly. And this story was told in 2006 tho without the "yeah, we're doing it" from the President. Similarly our news attention span is driven by celebrity so everything has been able this guy rather than and his "daring" escape from the law, hiding in a damn airport.

SI

[Desnudo]

I think there's a difference between loving your country and loving your government and people are confusing that.

[Dutch]

I think there's a difference between loving your country and loving your government and people are confusing that.

And there is a difference between questioning your government and premeditating treason without knowing the real truth. The former is expected in the US, the later is criminal.

The way to fix problems in America has always been by way of politics. If you have a problem with America, get voted into office and do something about it. Spying on your nation with the assumption that Russia or Ecuador are better is laughable (at best).

[Blackadar]

And speaking of Snowden, want to know the damage of spying? Check out this article in the German Newspaper...most likely every word of it is bullshit but who wouldn't believe it in Germany? Pretty much nobody. The affects on German/American relations could take decades (if ever) to correct...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/30/us-usa-germany-spying-idUSBRE95T04B20130630

As soon as this guy gets back on American soil, he needs to be fully prosecuted under the laws of treason.

Why would you think the article is bullshit? Because you don't like the contents?

Germany is a country where a lot of intelligence tends to pass back and forth. It's a gateway to Russia, to the Middle East and has strong ties to Africa. It is a communications, technology and financial hub. It would make sense to focus intelligence-gathering efforts there. Even if the US is just intercepting US-bound traffic, that could account for much or even all of the traffic referred to in the article. And when it says the phones were "tapped", that's a poor (but not 100% inaccurate) headline - the meta data was recorded. And we know that's happening.

For all the outrage on Snowden - and I'm not a fan of the way he's pursued this - I have much bigger issues with the NSA program than him. Shoot the messenger all you want (and yeah, he's a dick), but don't forget about the message. You talk about closing the program down politically, but the public may never have known without him in the first place. How are you going to get the political pressure to shut down the spying program when no one knows about it in the first place? That's why these secret FISA courts and shit like that are so damned dangerous.

[cody8200]

I have much bigger issues with the NSA program than him. Shoot the messenger all you want (and yeah, he's a dick), but don't forget about the message. You talk about closing the program down politically, but the public may never have known without him in the first place. How are you going to get the political pressure to shut down the spying program when no one knows about it in the first place? That's why these secret FISA courts and shit like that are so damned dangerous.

100% agreed.

[kcchief19]

I think there's a difference between loving your country and loving your government and people are confusing that.
I don't disagree, but to me turning your back on one is turning your back on both. I don't love everything my government does, but it's the best government on the planet. Snowden may hate the U.S. government, but his anti-government actions are hurting the country.

Snowden thinks he's the next in line of people who are influencing U.S. policy. I keep referring to Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers because I think it's an apt comparison. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the President and his administration lied, at times under penalty of perjury, about the success of the Vietnam War and our ability to win. I have no doubt that those revelations were part of what led to the U.S. withdrawing from the war and kept the U.S. from fighting losing wars in Iran, Lebanon, Libya and elsewhere in the 1980s.

Snowden has yet to reveal anything illegal, only embarrassing. If Snowden had leaked illegal government activity, it would be different. But now he's damaging our reputation by confirming to the world that we're spying on them. They know we're spying on them, and they are spying on us. But this lets them have the upper hand and appear to be taking the high road.

[kcchief19]

It's odd to me: I would have thought the story that would have legs would have been the news about the NSA not about the leaker himself. Then again, I should have known better. I don't think there's a nefarious government plot to hush it up. I don't think they needed to - we just don't have the attention span for a complicated debate, sadly. And this story was told in 2006 tho without the "yeah, we're doing it" from the President. Similarly our news attention span is driven by celebrity so everything has been able this guy rather than and his "daring" escape from the law, hiding in a damn airport.

SI
If Snowden had never stepped forward and taken credit, the debate would be on this information and not on the leaker. But as soon as he began craving the spotlight, he overshadowed the debate. Ironic that he's taking the spotlight away from the activity he meant to expose.

If he had never put his name to the leaks, I think there would be a debate about the leaks.

[molson]

Status of current asylum requests according to the BBC. It's kind of like applying for college.

BBC News - Edward Snowden's asylum options narrow (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887)

Rejected: Austria, Brazil, Finland, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland

Withdrawn: Russia

Pending: Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua

Unconfirmed: France, Venezuela

[panerd]

Why do I picture JiMGa and Dutch leaving the theaters disappointed at the endings of movies like the Bourne Identity and Enemy of the State? :)

[sterlingice]

Status of current asylum requests according to the BBC. It's kind of like applying for college.

BBC News - Edward Snowden's asylum options narrow (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23145887)

Rejected: Austria, Brazil, Finland, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Spain, Switzerland

Withdrawn: Russia

Pending: Bolivia, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua

Unconfirmed: France, Venezuela

"I'm sorry, you didn't score high enough on your CYAs. You'll need to go to a safety school like Ecuador"

SI

[Dutch]

Why would you think the article is bullshit? Because you don't like the contents?

And what makes you think it's not bullshit? Because you read it on the internet?

Germany is a country where a lot of intelligence tends to pass back and forth. It's a gateway to Russia, to the Middle East and has strong ties to Africa. It is a communications, technology and financial hub. It would make sense to focus intelligence-gathering efforts there. Even if the US is just intercepting US-bound traffic, that could account for much or even all of the traffic referred to in the article. And when it says the phones were "tapped", that's a poor (but not 100% inaccurate) headline - the meta data was recorded. And we know that's happening.

How do you know that's happening? Because you read it on the internet?

For all the outrage on Snowden - and I'm not a fan of the way he's pursued this - I have much bigger issues with the NSA program than him. Shoot the messenger all you want (and yeah, he's a dick), but don't forget about the message. You talk about closing the program down politically, but the public may never have known without him in the first place. How are you going to get the political pressure to shut down the spying program when no one knows about it in the first place? That's why these secret FISA courts and shit like that are so damned dangerous.

Are you sure the NSA program is up to enough no good that you have a bigger problem with it than with Snowden? Why? Because you read it on the internet?

In my time in the military, I worked at a lot of different places in a lot of different organizations. Now, to clarify, I am not a wealth of information on this subject, but one thing I do know is that the government of the USA (including the NSA) is full of Americans from all walks of life. Right-wing, Left-wing, far Right, far Left, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, capitalist ideologies, socialist ideologies, from EVERY possible background that you can think of...including skeptical FOFC Left-winger types. Man, if we were up to no good, there would be all kinds of activism regarding the corrupt US government. No need to whistle-blow...just a bunch of pissed off retired/ex-Govt left-wingers would be enough. But there isn't. Why? Because the US government has basically forced us to follow rules that NO OTHER COUNTRY follows. US Title 10 authority, US Title 50 authority come to mind. I've also seen SOFA agreements followed strictly. (SOFA = status of forces agreement between the US and it's host nation.) It's the primary reason why we can exist so peacefully in our allies homelands. Those SOFA laws include things like in Germany when they say you simply cannot do something because it's illegal on their soil, the US Government, from my experience, has gone out of it's way to respect those laws....even when there are no Germans around to see it. That's pretty fucking amazing right? So perhaps, in this case, the "information" that this douchebag, who was in the NSA for all of THREE months found wasn't in full context of what is really happening. He's got his own meta data and didn't properly analyze it. And again, I'm no expert on this stuff, so don't think I'm trying to talk about something I really know about, but what if calls were being monitored WITH THE PERMISSION of the German government and what if that was classified information? Should Germany fess up to it because some treasonist 3-month employee douchebag started chirping about something? Did Snowden analyze that? Not a chance, he was only there for THREE months. He's clueless. Of course, that's just a hypothetical. I don't know any more than you do. I just thought about it after reading some shit on the internet.

[cartman]

How do you know that he was only at the NSA for THREE months? Because you read it on the internet?

[Dutch]

How do you know that he was only at the NSA for THREE months? Because you read it on the internet?

EXACTLY! :)

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/v_CgPsGY5Mw/hqdefault.jpg

[molson]

Now, to clarify, I am not a wealth of information on this subject, but one thing I do know is that the government of the USA (including the NSA) is full of Americans from all walks of life. Right-wing, Left-wing, far Right, far Left, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, capitalist ideologies, socialist ideologies, from EVERY possible background that you can think of...including skeptical FOFC Left-winger types.

This has been the case in my experiences in government as well. It's amusing when any government agency or activity is portrayed as this well-oiled machine of closely-guarded conspiracies, all with the single-minded focus of violating as many rights as possible. I wish it were that organized and coherent. It may be easiest to discuss "government", just like "corporations", as this living, breathing organism with one brain that makes decisions and has agendas but that's not really the case.

[flounder]

It's not like there has to be a government wide conspiracy for any of this. Just a few people without any checks on their conduct.

[sterlingice]

It's not like there has to be a government wide conspiracy for any of this. Just a few people without any checks on their conduct.

That's exactly it. It doesn't mean that guy picking his nose at the DMV has to be in on every "government conspiracy". It's not like there's a big meeting and they have to vote unanimously to have something happen, much as it feels like that's what it takes to get something done in Washington these days. It takes a few hand picked people that no one else knows about to do something nefarious and a bunch of other people just doing what they are told to do and not asking questions. In a work environment, is this very hard to envision?

SI

[molson]

It's not like there has to be a government wide conspiracy for any of this. Just a few people without any checks on their conduct.

Everybody in government has checks on their conduct. Nothing can ever be fool-proof, a military pilot on a training exercise could crash his plane into a residential neighborhood if he felt like it.

[panerd]

It's not like there has to be a government wide conspiracy for any of this. Just a few people without any checks on their conduct.

Yep. Spy agency: A bunch of lower level employees who have no idea what is going on and are happy to collect a paycheck. A bunch of mid level employees who may have some inclination of what is going on but are happy to collect a bigger paycheck. A bunch of higher level employees who could guess what is going on but also collect an even bigger paycheck and already see what happens when you go against the machine. Finally the small group of people at the top who know exactly what they are doing. I get what Dutch and Molson are saying but think they are incredibly naïve if they don't think there are some people at the top doing some seriously screwed up shit. Not even saying it might not be in the best interest of the United States or doubting that it provides the freedom that I enjoy but to claim that we are America and everything our government spy agencies do is transparent is a lot more "tinfoily" than the crowd they are poking fun at.

[molson]

That's exactly it. It doesn't mean that guy picking his nose at the DMV has to be in on every "government conspiracy". It's not like there's a big meeting and they have to vote unanimously to have something happen, much as it feels like that's what it takes to get something done in Washington these days. It takes a few hand picked people that no one else knows about to do something nefarious and a bunch of other people just doing what they are told to do and not asking questions. In a work environment, is this very hard to envision?

SI

Is this an argument that government shouldn't have power then, because it's too risky?

[sterlingice]

Is this an argument that government shouldn't have power then, because it's too risky?

No, it's an argument that in the case where there is a huge potential if not already ongoing abuse of power, brushing aside concerns as a bunch of people wearing tin foil hats seems intellectually dishonest.

SI

[panerd]

Is this an argument that government shouldn't have power then, because it's too risky?

No its just a rebuttal of your assertion that due to checks and balances the United States government can't do anything nefarious and anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy nut.

[molson]

but to claim that we are America and everything our government spy agencies do is transparent is a lot more "tinfoily" than the crowd they are poking fun at.

How do you have a "transparent" spy agency?

[panerd]

How do you have a "transparent" spy agency?

I don't know was just rebutting your line of thought.

Everybody in government has checks on their conduct. Nothing can ever be fool-proof, a military pilot on a training exercise could crash his plane into a residential neighborhood if he felt like it.

[molson]

No its just a rebuttal of your assertion that due to checks and balances the United States government can't do anything nefarious and anyone who thinks otherwise is a conspiracy nut.

Ya, that's not what I said. The risk and reality of government abuse in inherent in the existence of government power. Your rhetoric goes way beyond just alleging that government abuse just exists though. We can certainly agree on that limited point.

[molson]

I don't know, was actually quoting you.

Did you miss the "nothing is foolproof" part?

Edit: Obviously, no spy agency can be transparent. That only exists in panerd's fantasy America. In real life, if it's transparent, it's not a spy agency.

[panerd]

Ya, that's not what I said. The risk and reality of government abuse in inherent in the existence of government power. Your rhetoric goes way beyond just alleging that government abuse just exists though. We can certainly agree on that limited point.

Yes I would agree that I think the NSA and CIA and other agencies of the sort go well beyond what is technically "legal". Again it is a whole other thread or debate on whether or not that keeps us safe but I am hardly the naive nut in the debate of whether it is actually happening or not.

[molson]

Let's back up here. Government is a bloated, inefficient mess that does some things pretty well and some things horribly. Improvements are possible everywhere. Abuse and corruption abounds. I only oppose the over-cynical, conspiracy-based, "government is evil in all contexts", nutjob rhetoric. Like all of panerd's posts. The issues don't matter, the facts don't matter, no analysis matters. If the government is involved, the viewpoint of the panerd types is 100% automated and predictable every time.

[flounder]

Everybody in government has checks on their conduct. Nothing can ever be fool-proof, a military pilot on a training exercise could crash his plane into a residential neighborhood if he felt like it.

What do you consider to be the checks on the conduct of the NSA in regards to spying on Americans?

[panerd]

Did you miss the "nothing is foolproof" part?

Edit: Obviously, no spy agency can be transparent. That only exists in panerd's fantasy America. In real life, if it's transparent, it's not a spy agency.

Ad hominem for $500 Alex. Scroll up to the beginning of the page where you quote Dutch as saying the wide range of types of people working for the government would make any sort of nefarious activity next to impossible. Than flounder, SI, and myself all say it doesn't require a lot of people. Now you are acting like you never said that and instead trying to say "Of course panerd feels that way". Try sticking with what the three of us commented on.

[panerd]

Let's back up here. Government is a bloated, inefficient mess that does some things pretty well and some things horribly. Improvements are possible everywhere. Abuse and corruption abounds. I only oppose the over-cynical, conspiracy-based, "government is evil in all contexts", nutjob rhetoric. Like all of panerd's posts. The issues don't matter, the facts don't matter, no analysis matters. If the government is involved, the viewpoint of the panerd types is 100% automated and predictable every time.

:rolleyes: on the edit as well.

[panerd]

What do you consider to be the checks on the conduct of the NSA in regards to spying on Americans?

I will wait for him to answer you because I am just a "nut case" who deserves no answer for why he refutes himself within a span of 10 posts.

[molson]

Ad hominem for $500 Alex. Scroll up to the beginning of the page where you quote Dutch as saying the wide range of types of people working for the government would make any sort of nefarious activity next to impossible. Than flounder, SI, and myself all say it doesn't require a lot of people. Now you are acting like you never said that and instead trying to say "Of course panerd feels that way". Try sticking with what the three of us commented on.

I agreed with his perspective that the government has a huge variety of people with different agendas. I don't know how you got from that that I think "nefarious activity is next to impossible." To clarify, again, I don't. Nefarious activity happens every day.

[molson]

What do you consider to be the checks on the conduct of the NSA in regards to spying on Americans?

You don't think Snowden and other employees have bosses? Rules regarding their conduct? Rules can be broken, and the rulebakers can hide in Russian airports, but these guys aren't operating in vacuums. It's more likely these guys have 20 more supervisors then they need, rather than zero.

[Blackadar]

And what makes you think it's not bullshit? Because you read it on the internet?

Why don't you rethink your response with the understanding that I used to work in the intelligence community (under William Webster) and then worked in telecommunications (pre- and post- 9/11) due to my security clearance I obtained from the CIA. I am no longer an expert on such things, but I do know about a great deal of the wire tapping and data gathering because I know the guys who fucking programmed the switches.

So rethink your response and try again.

[cartman]

What do you consider to be the checks on the conduct of the NSA in regards to spying on Americans?

It is supposed to be the FISA court. And so far nothing has come out that hasn't been approved by the FISA court. We don't have any instances of 'rogue' initiatives that circumvented the FISA approval process.

[panerd]

I agreed with his perspective that the government has a huge variety of people with different agendas. I don't know how you got from that that I think "nefarious activity is next to impossible." To clarify, again, I don't. Nefarious activity happens every day.

I witnessed a circular argument in the NFL offseason thread that went on for like 4 pages the other day and don't wish to get caught in the same here. You liked Dutch's reasoning on why there are just too many people for any sort of conspiracy to occur and then said well of course illegal stuff is happening but that's different than the illegal stuff you were talking about.

Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. (What we are saying a group of people "in the know" are doing)

[flounder]

You don't think Snowden and other employees have bosses? Rules regarding their conduct?

Who creates those rules and makes sure they're enforced? Who is the check on the conduct of the NSA as a whole? If the Director of the NSA orders surveillance on an American citizen, who makes sure that he follows those rules?

The executive branch isn't the sole authority over this. There are two other branches of government.

[flounder]

It is supposed to be the FISA court. And so far nothing has come out that hasn't been approved by the FISA court. We don't have any instances of 'rogue' initiatives that circumvented the FISA approval process.

If the NSA conducted surveillance on the massive scale that is alleged, it would have been impossible for the FISA court to have approved every single instance. They would have had to give blanket approval for it, in which case they are no longer serving as a check.

[molson]

I witnessed a circular argument in the NFL offseason thread that went on for like 4 pages the other day and don't wish to get caught in the same here. You liked Dutch's reasoning on why there are just too many people for any sort of conspiracy to occur and then said well of course illegal stuff is happening but that's different than the illegal stuff you were talking about.

Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. (What we are saying a group of people "in the know" are doing)

The NFL thread "debate" had Suicane75 on one side and every single other poster including myself on the other. Not sure how anything there was "circular".

I never said there were "too many people for any sort of conspiracy to occur." I was agreeing with his characterization of the human element of giant organizations that are subject to personification. "Government" does this and has this motive, "Corporations" do this and have this motive. I think that's a limiting way to analyze an issue, especially involving speculation of widespread conspiracies that is based mostly on general distrust about anything government does in any context. I don't even remember the rest of the post I quoted. That part just resonated with me.

I'm not even sure what conspiracies we're talking about. The NSA was obviously conducting this activity, in secret. They were exposed, and pissed off about that. They maintain the practice is legal, and until an appellate court says otherwise, that's just a matter of opinion with reasonable arguments in both directions.

As for the risk of individual government employes going against the NSA's broader programs and abusing rights, that's definitely a risk. Anybody with power can abuse it. That has to be a big concern in any spy agency ever. Because spy agencies, by their nature, are inherently secret, so there's not any public oversight of the regulation of individual employees. That doesn't mean that that oversight doesn't exist. It most definitely does.

[molson]

Who creates those rules and makes sure they're enforced? Who is the check on the conduct of the NSA as a whole? If the Director of the NSA orders surveillance on an American citizen, who makes sure that he follows those rules?



I have no idea. I was responding to the idea that it only takes a few rogue employees to do damage if there's no oversight. I guess that's two distinct concerns here. The activity of the organization as a whole, and the activities of individuals within the organization which might go against the broader goals of the organization in abusive ways. The former is really a legal debate, I thought were talking more about the latter just now.

[Suicane75]

The NFL thread "debate" had Suicane75 on one side and every single other poster including myself on the other. Not sure how anything there was "circular".

A lot of people agreed with me, they just didn't wanna get caught up in it. Is what I tell myself. :)

[sterlingice]

Why don't you rethink your response with the understanding that I used to work in the intelligence community (under William Webster) and then worked in telecommunications (pre- and post- 9/11) due to my security clearance I obtained from the CIA. I am no longer an expert on such things, but I do know about a great deal of the wire tapping and data gathering because I know the guys who fucking programmed the switches.

So rethink your response and try again.

oh snap

SI

[cartman]

If the NSA conducted surveillance on the massive scale that is alleged, it would have been impossible for the FISA court to have approved every single instance. They would have had to give blanket approval for it, in which case they are no longer serving as a check.

Just what has been alleged? Unless I missed something, it was that the NSA was 'pre-staging' the metadata. Even though the data was being gathered, they still had to go to the FISA court for approval to access the data. There haven't been any formal allegations at this point that the data was accessed without FISA approval.

[flounder]

I have no idea. I was responding to the idea that it only takes a few rogue employees to do damage if there's no oversight. I guess that's two distinct concerns here. The activity of the organization as a whole, and the activities of individuals within the organization which might go against the broader goals of the organization in abusive ways. The former is really a legal debate, I thought were talking more about the latter just now.

I might be confused. I was talking about the former. I'm not as concerned with random bad eggs abusing their authority. Like you said, there's not a lot you can do to stop that from happening, you can only hope to catch them after the fact.

[DaddyTorgo]

Blackadar wins - he's tapping all of our phones himself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Damn, the world is full of some paranoid m'fuckers.

[DaddyTorgo]

Just what has been alleged? Unless I missed something, it was that the NSA was 'pre-staging' the metadata. Even though the data was being gathered, they still had to go to the FISA court for approval to access the data. There haven't been any formal allegations at this point that the data was accessed without FISA approval.

That's a pretty weird way to operate it IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's a pretty weird way to operate it IMO.

How so?

Gathering the data takes X amount of time & effort. Having the data on-hand in order to access it when needed would reduce the time it takes between need & action.

[molson]

I might be confused. I was talking about the former. I'm not concerned with random bad eggs abusing their authority. Like you said, there's not a lot you can do to stop that from happening, you can only hope to catch them after the fact.

Fair enough. They maybe blend together too. One of the arguments I've heard a lot is that the NSA's activity, at least the part that we know about now, doesn't itself abuse anyone's privacy rights, because they're just logging stuff into a database, but it COULD, if it was abused, by the bad eggs.

[flounder]

Just what has been alleged? Unless I missed something, it was that the NSA was 'pre-staging' the metadata. Even though the data was being gathered, they still had to go to the FISA court for approval to access the data. There haven't been any formal allegations at this point that the data was accessed without FISA approval.

Just collecting the data without FISA approval is illegal according to my understanding of the FISA amendments act (which may be incorrect).

Fair enough. They maybe blend together too. One of the arguments I've heard a lot is that the NSA's activity, at least the part that we know about now, doesn't itself abuse anyone's privacy rights, because they're just logging stuff into a database, but it COULD, if it was abused, by the bad eggs.

I agree with that argument, but I think it's a separate issue.

[cartman]

Just collecting the data without FISA approval is illegal according to my understanding of the FISA amendments act (which may be incorrect).

Nope, not illegal at all. The metadata is actually property of the various communication companies. The FISA court approved the collection of the metadata, with the provision that it could only be accessed with subsequent FISA requests. If it were the actual contents of the communications, then it would be illegal. But the collection of the metadata is considered ok.

[flounder]

How does that square with this language in the law (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50-chap36-subchapVI-sec1881a.htm)?

§1881a. Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons
(a) Authorization

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
(b) Limitations

An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)—

(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

[cartman]

It would be intentionally targeting if they were getting the records for one person. That covers 1 to 3. They aren't getting the actual communication, so that covers 4. And since they have to get court approval to access and use the metadata, that covers 5.

[molson]

Isn't that about the specific targeting of individual non-Americans abroad (as in, people we want to spy the shit out of, including recording the substance of any communications), as opposed to the PRISM mass-collection of domestic metadata, which is what I think cartman is talking about?

[flounder]

It would be intentionally targeting if they were getting the records for one person. That covers 1 to 3.

I disagree with that. If they collect data on one person that's illegal, but if they collect it on everyone that's ok? That seems to be equivalent to saying that if a cop stops someone for no reason and searches them it's unconstitutional, but if he stops everyone for no reason it passes muster.

[cartman]

I disagree with that. If they collect data on one person that's illegal, but if they collect it on everyone that's ok? That seems to be equivalent to saying that if a cop stops someone for no reason and searches them it's unconstitutional, but if he stops everyone for no reason it passes muster.

That's kind of the thinking around why DUI/traffic checkpoints are ok. You are checking everyone, not just singling one person out.

[flounder]

Isn't that about the specific targeting of individual non-Americans abroad (as in, people we want to spy the shit out of, including recording the substance of any communications), as opposed to the PRISM mass-collection of domestic metadata, which is what I think cartman is talking about?

You're right, but the same protections (or greater) should apply to domestic surveillance.

[molson]

I disagree with that. If they collect data on one person that's illegal, but if they collect it on everyone that's ok? That seems to be equivalent to saying that if a cop stops someone for no reason and searches them it's unconstitutional, but if he stops everyone for no reason it passes muster.

The difference is in what they're collecting. There's higher hurdles to directly record, and analyze, and listen to, communications involving a single person. There's lower hurdles (actually none, apparently), in collecting the data maintained by private companies on everyone, that can't be accessed without subsequent justification.

[flounder]

That's kind of the thinking around why DUI/traffic checkpoints are ok. You are checking everyone, not just singling one person out.

I have to concede that the current Supreme Court agrees with that argument. However, driving (being a privilege and all that) is a different sort of activity than phone and internet communications and arguably the protections offered to each should be different.

[sterlingice]

Nope, not illegal at all. The metadata is actually property of the various communication companies. The FISA court approved the collection of the metadata, with the provision that it could only be accessed with subsequent FISA requests. If it were the actual contents of the communications, then it would be illegal. But the collection of the metadata is considered ok.

Be careful with that line of reasoning when we're talking about something that is infrastructure. "Electricity is the property of the electric company so they can turn you off whenever they want" or better yet "Water is the property of the water company so they can put whatever they want in it".

SI

[cartman]

Be careful with that line of reasoning when we're talking about something that is infrastructure. "Electricity is the property of the electric company so they can turn you off whenever they want" or better yet "Water is the property of the water company so they can put whatever they want in it".

SI

But in this instance the communications companies have been granted immunity for sharing this data with the government.

[flounder]

The difference is in what they're collecting. There's higher hurdles to directly record, and analyze, and listen to, communications involving a single person. There's lower hurdles (actually none, apparently), in collecting the data maintained by private companies on everyone, that can't be accessed without subsequent justification.

The fact there are no hurdles to the access of this data is the heart of the issue I think. What other data are they collecting that isn't subject to oversight?

[sterlingice]

But in this instance the communications companies have been granted immunity for sharing this data with the government.

We are arguing both "what's legal" and "what's ethical", right? Legally, I think they have dotted and crossed the correct letters because there aren't many laws governing this. That doesn't mean it's right and that we shouldn't try to get it changed.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

The fact there are no hurdles to the access of this data is the heart of the issue I think.

Umm ... says who?

edit to add: Wasn't it established up the thread a bit that accessing the data (by the government) is subject to judicial approval?

[DaddyTorgo]

The fact there are no hurdles to the access of this data is the heart of the issue I think. What other data are they collecting that isn't subject to oversight?

Yeah - the thing that gets to me is that there's no practical hurdles to them accessing it after they collect it other than essentially their word that they won't.

Their promise not to do so doesn't really hold any weight with me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah - the thing that gets to me is that there's no practical hurdles to them accessing it after they collect it other than essentially their word that they won't.

Their promise not to do so doesn't really hold any weight with me.

There's no substantial practical hurdle to somebody stealing a bicycle out of my yard either ... except the risk of punishment for breaking one or more laws.

[molson]

What kind of hurdles would you suggest? Now that it's all public anyway, would it solve the problem if the same federal judge who would approve the FISC warrant approved a warrant in the course of his or her regular duties? Like any warrant, they couldn't be challenged before they're executed anyway (and they'd still be secret at least until then). And they couldn't even really be challenged afterwards except to fight a criminal charge.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's what confounds me about this whole "controversy".

Prism is a program that's been subjected to Executive, Congressional and Judicial oversight ... and yet people are still whining.

Seems to me that's about as good as governmental oversight is going to get. I'm honestly not sure what else a reasonable person could ask for.

[flounder]

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

[cartman]

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

I guess this where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just the collecting of the metadata constitutes surveillance. To me it doesn't become surveillance until you access the data. Just as having a room full of books doesn't mean you know their contents and have knowledge of what is in them. It isn't until you start to read them that there is any value to the contents. And has been discussed, the NSA hasn't been give carte blanche to use the metadata. They still have to get approval each time they go to access the data.

[flounder]

I guess this where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think that just the collecting of the metadata constitutes surveillance. To me it doesn't become surveillance until you access the data. Just as having a room full of books doesn't mean you know their contents and have knowledge of what is in them. It isn't until you start to read them that there is any value to the contents. And has been discussed, the NSA hasn't been give carte blanche to use the metadata. They still have to get approval each time they go to access the data.

I can see your point, and I might even agree if I was confident the data was used exactly as you are saying. However, the behavior of the government throughout this whole mess doesn't give me that confidence, and I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.

I'd go as far as to say it's unfortunate that it's necessary ... but I'd say failing to do utilize the abilities of Prism would be unconscionable negligence at best.

[molson]

I think that if the NSA or any government agency wants to conduct surveillance or collect data on the activities of an American citizen, they should have to have a judicially approved warrant specific to that person. This, to me, is required by the 4th amendment.

If the judicial and legislative branches are signing off on blanket surveillance, then they are not functioning as effective oversight.

I'm not sure surveillance is the right term when they're collecting data from private companies. Government can get all kinds of information about you from third parties that wouldn't implicate the 4th amendment.

I think I see what you're arguing though, is that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from compelling mass collection of data from private companies, even if they don't ever actually access it.

And the government would say, damn right we need judicial approval to collect data about an individual, but we have no ability to even go down that road if the data is deleted by the time we have a real legal justification for it. And since that data is almost always deleted pretty regularly in the regular course of things, we have the right to to preserve it so that we can ever use that warrant power.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm not sure surveillance is the right term when they're collecting data from private companies. Government can get all kinds of information about you from third parties that wouldn't implicate the 4th amendment.

I think I see what you're arguing though, is that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from compelling mass collection of data from private companies, even if they don't ever actually access it.

And the government would say, damn right we need judicial approval to collect data about an individual, but we have no ability to even go down that road if the data is deleted by the time we have a real legal justification for it. And since that data is almost always deleted pretty regularly in the regular course of things, we have the right to to preserve it so that we can ever use that warrant power.

That is the essential Catch-22 here. I'd feel better if there was some like...independent oversight that verified that they weren't accessing the data.

[molson]

That is the essential Catch-22 here. I'd feel better if there was some like...independent oversight that verified that they weren't accessing the data.

And when it comes to domestic crimes, it's easy enough to say "too bad government," you have no right or duty to prosecute crimes where the only evidence of the crime disappears before you even know about it. And maybe that same general idea should apply to national security too. But at the very least, it's a completely different ballgame, because we're less content to just try to arrest the bad guys after the crime when it comes to terrorism. If we care at all about stopping them BEFORE terrorist acts happen, communications and spying and intelligence are the key. It's better than marching into some random middle eastern country, anyway. There's a million posts in this and the Obama thread about how national security is just an "excuse" to get this stuff. That "keeping us safe" is some phony pretense for the real motivation here. That's what I really disagree with, that kind of rhetoric. An excuse for what? What's the real goal? It makes perfect sense to me why this program is so important, and so effective, though I get the concerns and legal arguments against it too. But I see it as a really efficient tactic that has pretty low risk for abuse, especially when compared to other "war on terror" tactics. I just don't believe they'll use the data and say, funnel it to state law enforcement agencies to bust drug dealers, or people with subversive thoughts about government. They could do that, hypothetically, but government can do a lot of shit hypothetically.

[Dutch]

Why don't you rethink your response with the understanding that I used to work in the intelligence community (under William Webster) and then worked in telecommunications (pre- and post- 9/11) due to my security clearance I obtained from the CIA. I am no longer an expert on such things, but I do know about a great deal of the wire tapping and data gathering because I know the guys who fucking programmed the switches.

So rethink your response and try again.

Why the fuck are guys that hold a compartmentalized security clearance telling the fucking phone guy anything? I smell bullshit.

[Dutch]

Oh wait...you said CIA...those guys are bunch self-important bufoons...so its possible they were blathering to impress. Still, I wouldn't believe their bullshit. Did they start off by ssying, "Dude, check this out...this is a no-shitter!"? :)

[DaddyTorgo]

And when it comes to domestic crimes, it's easy enough to say "too bad government," you have no right or duty to prosecute crimes where the only evidence of the crime disappears before you even know about it. And maybe that same general idea should apply to national security too. But at the very least, it's a completely different ballgame, because we're less content to just try to arrest the bad guys after the crime when it comes to terrorism. If we care at all about stopping them BEFORE terrorist acts happen, communications and spying and intelligence are the key. It's better than marching into some random middle eastern country, anyway. There's a million posts in this and the Obama thread about how national security is just an "excuse" to get this stuff. That "keeping us safe" is some phony pretense for the real motivation here. That's what I really disagree with, that kind of rhetoric. An excuse for what? What's the real goal? It makes perfect sense to me why this program is so important, and so effective, though I get the concerns and legal arguments against it too. But I see it as a really efficient tactic that has pretty low risk for abuse, especially when compared to other "war on terror" tactics. I just don't believe they'll use the data and say, funnel it to state law enforcement agencies to bust drug dealers, or people with subversive thoughts about government. They could do that, hypothetically, but government can do a lot of shit hypothetically.

Oh I agree, that's the Catch-22 about it.

[Dutch]

or people with subversive thoughts about government.

I've actually already mailed a letter to the government (I would've called but...you know) about Blackadar, he should get picked up any day for tax-evasion or something.

[Blackadar]

Why the fuck are guys that hold a compartmentalized security clearance telling the fucking phone guy anything? I smell bullshit.

Two different jobs, asswipe. If you smell bullshit, then it's time to take a shower.

[Dutch]

Two different jobs, asswipe. If you smell bullshit, then it's time to take a shower.

Relax, I'm just trying to piss you off.

[SirFozzie]

Getting back to the main subject, man, it's getting worse the amount of international weight the US is trying to throw around, forcing the Bolivian President's plane to land in Austria because of unfounded rumors that Snowden was on the plane.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think the US should back WAY the fuck off on both their snooping and their pursuit of a whistleblower.

You're telling us "Trust Us, it's all right"

Nope. I don't trust you on this subject, and the fact that you're pursuing this horse long since the barn door was left open signals to me that there's a reason not to trust you on it.

[cody8200]

I'm of the mind that regardless how much terrorism possibly may be stopped by trudging on US citizen's rights, it isn't worth it. Someone mentioned that this may have all been done to the letter of the law. That just means the law needs to change.

[kcchief19]

I can see your point, and I might even agree if I was confident the data was used exactly as you are saying. However, the behavior of the government throughout this whole mess doesn't give me that confidence, and I think the blanket collection of data on Americans is a bad precedent to set.
The ironic thing is that there are larger blanket collections of data on Americans out there outside the government, and no one seems concerned. Facebook, Google, Yahoo, cable companies, credit card companies, so on and so forth have likely just as much if not more data on Americans than the government does. Hence, why the NSA is going to some of these companies and requesting their data.

Yet as much as people grouse about the government invasion of privacy, I'm not sure I can recall a single incident where government data fell into the wrong hands and caused a violation of a citizen. Yet it happens all the time when retailers lose track of credit card data and Internet companies fail to protect password data. The government has these data, and they seem to do a pretty good job protecting it.

At just about any company you do business with, there is someone making minimum wage that if they wanted to use your credit cards to buy concert tickets, screw with your credit rating or a hundred other crappy things. Snowden claims he can look in your inbox. So can Google. And until Snowden proves it, I think he may be bluffing.

Happens all the time, yet we're worried about the NSA, where it rarely if ever seems to happen.

[bob]

Can't remember who, but someone on here's state (South Carolina if I recall correctly) managed to expose his address, SSN, and other data to hackers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think the US should back WAY the fuck off on both their snooping and their pursuit of a whistleblower.

I doubt you're in the minority here ... but you're about as dead wrong on something as a human being can be.

Any country that takes that vile piece of shit in ought to be facing the end of diplomatic ties for openers ... and there isn't anything that amounts to "going to far" to deal with them.

[SirFozzie]

Well Jon, we agree to disagree, but then again, we do a lot of that, don't we? :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well Jon, we agree to disagree, but then again, we do a lot of that, don't we? :)

Yep.

And I'm sure how well we cope with that reality disappoints the :popcorn: crowd :D

edit to add: My original comment (hrm, intended comment) on topic was lengthier & much stronger. Phone rang so I figured "aw fuck it" and posted the Reader's Digest version instead.

[SirFozzie]

Yep.

And I'm sure how well we cope with that reality disappoints the :popcorn: crowd :D

edit to add: My original comment (hrm, intended comment) on topic was lengthier & much stronger. Phone rang so I figured "aw fuck it" and posted the Reader's Digest version instead.

Please, if we ever let loose, one or both of us would be boxed and/or banned within the first five or six posts, I'm sure ;)

[Young Drachma]

New Rumor of Snowden Flight Raises Tensions - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/snowden.html)

[Dutch]

I doubt you're in the minority here ... but you're about as dead wrong on something as a human being can be.

Pretty much. Spying is, by nature, unethical, but it's a necessary evil. And that necessary evil comes at a price (citizen distrust). But it's that necessity part that makes counter-spying such a despicable trade that even our traditional rivals in Russia have no respect for such people. Because afterall, the Russians spy on others and they don't follow strict rules like we place on ourselves...they know what's up.

Any country that takes that vile piece of shit in ought to be facing the end of diplomatic ties for openers ... and there isn't anything that amounts to "going to far" to deal with them.

It's only fair. Ecuador already houses the wikileaks activist right? We are being fair by not going in and extracting him physically out of respect for their sovereignty...but there is no reason we should still give them money so long as that guy is there. Everything has a cost.

[panerd]

Seems like there are always two major talking points for why I shouldn't care about the spying...

1) If I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't care if they spy on me.
2) It stops countless terror attacks they just can't tell me about them because of national security. The government even testified it stopped dozens of attacks to support this point.

US senators rail against intelligence disclosures over NSA practices | World news | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/us-senate-intelligence-officials-nsa)

“The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”

I guess now it's "So what if they lied to our faces about point #2? Theres still point #1!" No real justification for doing it but for some strange reason the government still felt the need to lie to justify it, but I still don't need to worry because we are talking about terrorism and you shouldn't question anything that is done about terror.

[molson]

Seems like there are always two major talking points for why I shouldn't care about the spying...

1) If I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't care if they spy on me.
2) It stops countless terror attacks they just can't tell me about them because of national security. The government even testified it stopped dozens of attacks to support this point.



For me the big one is #3 - nobody has identified a single tangible harm from this that isn't based on speculation about things progressing about 100 steps down a slippery slope. Like, that this program will obviously lead to federal agents breaking into my house in the middle of the night based on a Google search I made about fertilizer. Except for the cost, which is pretty minuscule compared to other government expenses and almost completely negligable when it comes to the defense budget as a whole (and like I've said, I'd rather the war on terror look like that than consist of military invasions.) For that reasons, it's difficult for me to give any shits at all about this v. the many government actions and omissions which cause current or imminent harm to us, or economy, our environment, etc.

[panerd]

For me the big one is #3 - nobody has identified a single tangible harm from this that isn't based on speculation about things progressing about 100 steps down a slippery slope. Like, that this program will obviously lead to federal agents breaking into my house in the middle of the night based on a Google search I made about fertilizer. Except for the cost, which is pretty minuscule compared to other government stuff, and always completely non-existent when it comes to the defense budget (and like I've said, I'd rather the war on terror look like that than consist of military invasions.) For that reasons, it's difficult for me to give any shits at all about this v. the many government actions and omissions which cause current or imminent harm to us, or economy, our environment, etc.

So why not testify a few weeks ago with your point #3 instead of the untrue #2? Which at best was a huge error and quite possibly just a lie.

And to your point #3 would this not be exactly what you claim won't happen?

Be careful what you Google - Campaign for Liberty (http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/google-pressure-cooker-and-backpacks-you-might-be-a-terrorist/)

To be completely honest I feel like the people in the article probably knew the government scrutiny they would receive and wanted this to happen but it certainly does answer your question of whether an American citizen "just searching the net" could get a visit from the feds. But again I guess the response from you is still "Not me, who cares?" Right?

[molson]

So why not testify a few weeks ago with your point #3 instead of the untrue #2? Which at best was a huge error and quite possibly just a lie.

And to your point #3 would this not be exactly what you claim won't happen?



I don't know. You must have missed the part where I said, "to me".

I'm more upset about the fact that our government spends way more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and we get the absolute worst product in the Western world in exchange for all that money. That actually impacts the lives of millions. You can try to tell me my priorities are wrong and that I should only care about this NSA thing and nothing else, you're just not going to make me give two shits, sorry.

[molson]

To be completely honest I feel like the people in the article probably knew the government scrutiny they would receive and wanted this to happen but it certainly does answer your question of whether an American citizen "just searching the net" could get a visit from the feds. But again I guess the response from you is still "Not me, who cares?" Right?

This was actually exposed as hysterical bullshit. I can't believe they didn't do a retraction in the "Campaign for Liberty" newsite you get your info from.

Employer Tipped Off Police To Pressure Cooker And Backpack Searches, Not Google | TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/)

Clarification and update - open areas (http://openareas.tumblr.com/post/57110075747/clarification-and-update)

Google Search pressure-cooker saga shows surveillance-fueled paranoia, mistrust. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/02/google_search_pressure_cooker_saga_shows_surveillance_fueled_paranoia_mistrust.html)

[panerd]

I don't know. You must have missed the part where I said, "to me".

I'm more upset about the fact that our government spends way more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and we get the absolute worst product in the Western world in exchange for all that money. You can try to tell me my priorities are wrong and that I should only care about this NSA thing and nothing else, you're just not going to make me give two shits, sorry.

So I give you a counter example of your point #3 of why this is no big deal and the best you can come up with is "Well I really don't give two shits"?

I guess I don't expect you to give two shits but I think the reason more people aren't outraged is they actually believe the program stopped 54 attacks or like you don't think an internet search will bring agents to their house. Maybe it they knew all the defenses of the program were untrue they might care?

[panerd]

This was actually exposed as hysterical bullshit. I can't believe they didn't do a retraction in the "Campaign for Liberty" newsite you get your info from.

Employer Tipped Off Police To Pressure Cooker And Backpack Searches, Not Google | TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/)

Clarification and update - open areas (http://openareas.tumblr.com/post/57110075747/clarification-and-update)

Google Search pressure-cooker saga shows surveillance-fueled paranoia, mistrust. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/02/google_search_pressure_cooker_saga_shows_surveillance_fueled_paranoia_mistrust.html)

OK. So I will admit I believed the story (though I already said I had some questions about the author's intent) It is interesting how a minute ago you still didn't "give two shits" and now you feel the need to pull up like 3-4 google links saying the same thing to show how right you are. I will admit being wrong instead of "Well I just don't give a shit! So nah!"

[molson]

OK. So I will admit I believed the story (though I already said I had some questions about the author's intent) It is interesting how a minute ago you still didn't "give two shits" and now you feel the need to pull up like 3-4 google links saying the same thing to show how right you are. I will admit being wrong instead of "Well I just don't give a shit! So nah!"

So in one post you criticize me for not responding, and then in the very next post your criticize me for responding. That's the type of logic and rational thinking that's going on in this discussion, which is part of what annoys me about it to the point where I don't care.

[panerd]

So in one post you criticize me for not responding, and then in the very next post your criticize me for responding. That's the type of logic and rational thinking that's going on in this discussion, which is part of what annoys me about it to the point where I don't care.

No when you thought you might have been wrong you shrugged your shoulders and said you didn't give two shits. Then when you found out I was wrong you cared again. It's why that back and forth went like 15 pages in the Gronk thread. I will admit I was wrong, you obviously weren't going to. Anyways I care more about the fact that the government went from 54 terror attacks stopped when the NSA stuff was front page news to at most one now that it settled down. Obviously an error worthy of discussion.

[molson]

I will admit I was wrong, you obviously weren't.

Your "admitting your wrong" involves an emphasis that I was actually the one who was wrong all along, on everything, including what I'm supposed to be most angry about in government. What did I say in the "Gronk thread" that was controversial?

[panerd]

Your "admitting your wrong" involves an emphasis that I was actually the one who was wrong all along, on everything. What did I say in the "Gronk thread" that was controversial?


Sentence #1 is just untrue. Sentence #2... just cluttered up a bunch of pages with a back and forth because neither of you could admit you were wrong.

[molson]

Sentence #1 is just untrue. Sentence #2... just cluttered up a bunch of pages with a back and forth because neither of you could admit you were wrong.

Sentence 1 is true. Read the post again, more than 50% of it is you throwing a tantrum and bringing it back it how I'm the one who is ultimately wrong, because I posted too many links or something, and that how I only cared because your main point was exposed as a lie.

In Sentence 2, neither of us "admitted we were wrong", because we were stating opinions, which unlike your main factual point here, has not been proven to be a lie. You've brought this thread up several times as my main FOFC sin but there were many other people posting in it. I imagine it went on for a long time because it was a major story and we were bored at work, sorry about that.

[panerd]

Sentence 1 is true. Read the post again, more than 50% of it is you throwing a tantrum and bringing it back it how I'm the one who is ultimately wrong, because I posted too many links or something, and that how I only cared because your main point was exposed as a lie.

In Sentence 2, neither of us "admitted we were wrong", because we were stating opinions, which unlike your main factual point here, has not been proven to be a lie. You've brought this thread up several times as my main FOFC sin but there were many other people posting in it. I imagine it went on for a long time because it was a major story and we were bored at work, sorry about that.

Yawn. This is exactly what you did in the Gronk thread also and I saw how annoyed everyone was. (and I don't bring it up as a sin but why I don't want to engage in back and forth for 10 pages about some small point that you are still hurt about) I told you I was wrong and you can't just accept it but have to still keep talking about how you feel attacked.

[molson]

I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

[Kodos]

Edit: I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

I think the over-the-top hysterical stuff marginalizes the discussion and plays completely into the government's hands. If everything the government does is always bad no matter what, and ever crazy conspiracy is believed immediately without checking it out, there's a culture created where real abuses can be perpetrated without as much fanfare because they're not just as exciting as the stuff that's made up, or the slippery-slope speculation stuff.

Uh-oh. Repeat posts. Molson is being mind-controlled by the government!

[molson]

One thing that's kind of interesting to me is how little backlash the House's vote not to de-fund the NSA got. Maybe people are just at the point where they've completely given up on Congress, but I think it changes the dynamic when something moves from being a secret executive program to one the legislature gives its approval to (unless there's some voting strategy angle I missed). But if this really is one of the more important issues in our country, it's definitely a lot easier to rally against elected legislators than it is against secret executive branch programs.

I mean, we can't get the Republicans to vote for anything, except this, which the Dems then block.

[JPhillips]

I mean, we can't get the Republicans to vote for anything, except this, which the Dems then block.

Um... more Dems voted for it than Repubs.

[molson]

Um... more Dems voted for it than Repubs.

True, they blocked it just in the sense that unlike a lot of legislation, the Dems could have gotten it through if not for the dissent within their party. Will those 83 Dems get any political backlash? It's just strange where public opinion on this is almost unanimous, to have that much dissent. This isn't something which can just be blamed on the other party. It's not every day that 41% of Republicans to agree to vote for something (at least something high profile) that the majority of Dems want to also vote for.

[JPhillips]

Blaming the party that voted in a greater percentage for the legislation is odd.

There are plenty of national security type Dems that won't vote for this and if it got to the Senate I'd be surprised if it managed forty votes, but the story here isn't that Dems decided to block a bill the GOP liked.

[molson]

Blaming the party that voted in a greater percentage for the legislation is odd.

There are plenty of national security type Dems that won't vote for this and if it got to the Senate I'd be surprised if it managed forty votes, but the story here isn't that Dems decided to block a bill the GOP liked.

If 83 Dems voted against Obamacare that wouldn't have passed either. I guess it's semantics, as there had to be both significant Dem and Republican opposition for the funding thing to fail in the house.

It's just kind of amusing to me that Obama (who opposed the PATRIOT Act) has become the snoopiest pro-government surveillance president of all time, that almost half of elected dem representatives are right there with him, but there's no real political backlash to that because Republicans.

[JPhillips]

When Dems were in the majority that would make more sense. When Dems are in the minority and vote for legislation at a greater rate than the majority party, the fault doesn't fall on the Dems. There just weren't enough votes to pass what was a remarkably(for this congress) bipartisan amendment.

There's no political backlash because there is no alternative. Some of the Dems will get primaried, but most won't. At the end of the day you either sit things out or pick the best of what's available.

[molson]

There's no political backlash because there is no alternative. Some of the Dems will get primaried, but most won't. At the end of the day you either sit things out or pick the best of what's available.

There are alternatives in the other party who oppose NSA. Not a majority of them, but a significant number. Are there any Dems that would vote against their NSA-supporting Dem congressman and for a Republican that opposes it? Is this issue THAT important?

[JPhillips]

There are alternatives in the other party who oppose NSA. Not a majority of them, but a significant number. Are there any Dems that would vote against their NSA-supporting Dem congressman and for a Republican that opposes it? Is this issue THAT important?

I'm sure there are some, but not enough to matter. I've never been a single issue voter, so as much as I'd prefer a revamp of the NSA, that alone won't change my vote.

[Desnudo]

Tikkun Daily Blog » Blog Archive » Google Engineer Wins NSA Award, Then Says NSA Should Be “Abolished” (http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2013/07/25/google-engineer-wins-nsa-award-says-id-rather-have-it-abolished-than-persist-in-its-current-form/)

[Desnudo]

Snowden revelations force Obama's hand on surveillance program - First Read (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/09/19950803-snowden-revelations-force-obamas-hand-on-surveillance-program?lite)

[flounder]

NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds (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 National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

[Desnudo]

now we're getting somewhere. This is orginally what I figured the abuse would actually come from.

NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/)

[gstelmack]

now we're getting somewhere. This is orginally what I figured the abuse would actually come from.

NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/23/nsa-officers-sometimes-spy-on-love-interests/)

This Means War and True Lies were much more realistic than we expected then :D

[sterlingice]

This is our dumping ground for NSA revelations, right?

Report: NSA collecting millions of contact lists - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/report-nsa-collecting-millions-contact-lists-235726782--politics.html)

{sarcasm}Shockingly{/sarcasm}, they're grabbing citizens' contact lists while they are abroad.

On the one hand, it's fairly obvious what's going on with this particular set of data:
Using Metadata to find Paul Revere - Kieran Healy (http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/)
They're trying to use networking algorithms to find potential terrorists. On the other hand, they're spying on citizens to do it. (However, one of the takeaways of the Paul Revere story that escaped notice is how close his scores were to many other "conspirators" who were not nearly as famous and the only reason this got notice was because of a Longfellow poem meeting the happy coincidence of a networking algorithm. There are probably a lot of innocent people in that net, too)

SI

[sterlingice]

More fun:
U.S. justices reject call to review intelligence court action on phone records - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/u-justices-reject-call-review-intelligence-court-action-152617078--finance.html)

The Obama administration argued in papers presented to the court that under existing law, only the government or Verizon itself could challenge a ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
So, only the government doing the spying or the company coerced into doing the spying can challenge the ruling of the court.

SI

[molson]

So, only the government doing the spying or the company coerced into doing the spying can challenge the ruling of the court.

SI

Not necessarily, that's certainly the U.S. government's argument, but someone could theoretically establish standing in some other way, and the Court's decision not to entertain this particular case doesn't establish any precedent. They just decided not to hear it, as is the case with the huge majority of cases that get referred to it.