Edward Snowden Q&A

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mike D

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by molson

How do you have a "transparent" spy agency?

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

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

on the edit as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by Mike D

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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).

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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?

§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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by flounder

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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