Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Iormlund]

It's not like absence of proper judicial process has stopped the US govt before in any case. They could simply put him on a plane.

[Warspite]

It's not like absence of proper judicial process has stopped the US govt before in any case. They could simply put him on a plane.

It's a touch less politically sensitive to have the local police carry out the terms of an existing arrangement than to bundle someone Vanunu style into a van.

[Valmy]

I have only started browsing the articles at the Guardian, but FFS! All the paranoid shit people were accounting governments with in terms of surveillance (and I used to tell is BS), is not just actually possible, but also being done!

This stuff has been leaked out bit by bit for awhile, at least been hinted at.  This is J Edgar Hoover's wet dream.

[Sheilbh]

Anyone know anything about PRISM?

I think Marc Ambinder's always good on the nuts and bolts of this sort of thing. Here he is on the phone data:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-your-telephone-records
And here on PRISM:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism

As I say I've no problem with any of this. This looks to be exactly what an intelligence agency is there to do. It may be good to have it out in the public eye and have a debate about it, I don't necessarily think it needs that much secrecy, so maybe the leak was a good thing. But he should still be prosecuted.

Aside from the dreadful name I don't get the Guardian's outrage over Boundless Informant either:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

No, it would not be a bigger scandal if the US government actually upheld its constitution.

I don't think any of this seems unconstitutional and it's all following the law.

[DGuller]

I think the voters are to blame, ultimately.  We're the ones who place such premium on the number of terrorist attacks happening on some president's watch.  When we don't have the perspective, our politicians won't either, if they want to be re-elected.  I'm sure we would have less of this problem if voters placed more premium on not getting spied on or sexually assaulted in airports in the name of fighting terrorism.

[Brazen]

Intelligence analysis tools are widespread and information on them and how the work is pretty freely available. Generally speaking Good Stuff has been done with them, and when it comes to events they have prevented, no news is indeed good news.

Now, if a government recorded a celebrity phone call, would that fall foul of media law? 

[garbon]

I think the voters are to blame, ultimately.  We're the ones who place such premium on the number of terrorist attacks happening on some president's watch.  When we don't have the perspective, our politicians won't either, if they want to be re-elected.  I'm sure we would have less of this problem if voters placed more premium on not getting spied on or sexually assaulted in airports in the name of fighting terrorism.

Let's say this is true. What should voters do to combat the things you've listed? Write letters to their congress members? Vote out the current set of politicians?

[Valmy]

I think the voters are to blame, ultimately.  We're the ones who place such premium on the number of terrorist attacks happening on some president's watch.  When we don't have the perspective, our politicians won't either, if they want to be re-elected.  I'm sure we would have less of this problem if voters placed more premium on not getting spied on or sexually assaulted in airports in the name of fighting terrorism.

We do?  I forgot when we stormed Congress and forced them to impeach Bush after 9/11.

[DGuller]

Let's say this is true. What should voters do to combat the things you've listed? Write letters to their congress members? Vote out the current set of politicians?

They should not make the number of terrorist attacks occurring on president's watch, or "keeping us safe", an issue.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think any of this seems unconstitutional and it's all following the law.

I don't think any conclusion can be drawn w/r/t Prism, as there are a lot of missing details.

The phone metadata program seems to be following the law from the executive side, although one can question whether the judges approving these court orders are acting properly.  It does make a certain amount of sense logically to have a procedure to preserve all the metadata but IIRC how FISA works there isn't really a way to do that while keeping to the statute.

[garbon]

Let's say this is true. What should voters do to combat the things you've listed? Write letters to their congress members? Vote out the current set of politicians?

They should not make the number of terrorist attacks occurring on president's watch, or "keeping us safe", an issue.

When do voters do this?

[Valmy]

Ok but the entire point of this stuff being leaked is to do just that, shift the conversation and get peopel to realize the costs of demanding the government do those things.

Besides I think what you are saying is weakened a bit simply because if the people really wanted all these things why exactly is the government trying to keep it secret?  If this was sure to get them all re-elected they would be advertising this.  Want to circle that square for me?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I can talk about my opinions on the system later, but I wanted to say I'm not sure Hong Kong was a good choice for Snowden. In matters of foreign policy Beijing can take precedence over Hong Kong decision makers and the Hong Kong--American extradition treaty specifically says mainland China can do so in issues that affects its foreign policy or national security. There are indeed countries I think would decline to extradite him, I'm just not sure Hong Kong is one of them.

Wouldn't some Scandiweenie country like Sweden or Norway be willing to protect him? Even outside Scandinavia I'd think Iceland would be unlikely to extradite, they protected Bobby Fischer when he explicitly broke U.S. laws to engage in a high-dollar chess match in Eastern Europe and kept him there for years.

[DGuller]

Besides I think what you are saying is weakened a bit simply because if the people really wanted all these things why exactly is the government trying to keep it secret?  If this was sure to get them all re-elected they would be advertising this.  Want to circle that square for me?

Circle the square?  Seriously?   

I think the logic is very clear:  by having "protection from terrorists" as an election issue, there is a great incentive for politicians to prevent terrorist acts from happening on their watch at any cost, lest they be labeled ineffective protectors against terrorists in the next election.  Obviously voters don't really like the government spying on them, but they just don't realize that putting enough weight on terrorism prevention leads exactly to that.  By keeping the spying secret, the politicians in power are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Sheilbh]

Besides I think what you are saying is weakened a bit simply because if the people really wanted all these things why exactly is the government trying to keep it secret?  If this was sure to get them all re-elected they would be advertising this.  Want to circle that square for me?

Even democracies need state secrets.

Joan is right I'm sure there's more to come out. But from what I've read this program was set up under a law passed by Congress, during a Republican President's tenure. It's now operating under a Democrat, with judicial and Congressional oversight. From what I understand the Supreme Court has upheld (or not taken a case about) the laws on which this is all based. To me that seems like how intelligence should operate in a democracy.