Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[The Brain]

By monitoring traffic patterns, GPS, misc information etc you will likely be able to identify the persons who are lawyers. The rest is just disinfection.

[Valmy]

Yep, what the other side is missing is the application of the Rule of Law in all these cases.  They have to construct a world view which assumes the Rule of Law is broken.

I am making no such assumption, I am sure they have their ducks in a row.  The question is if everything is all good why make it secret?  I mean there is no national security interest at stake in letting the American People know about basic policies.  How are we supposed to vote without even the most basic of knowlege? 

I am saying the law is being interpreted in such a way that violates my rights as a human being, the ones this country exists entirely to protect, in my opinion.  If we are not going to do that then...what is so great about this place?  That we are big and have lots of money?

Besides what I consider my supposedly inviolable rights we sort of have that part in the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Now I know this has been interpreted in such a way that really it is no protection at all.  I mean if my activities I commit inside my house using my own property are being monitored then I am by definition not secure.  Monitored activities and monitored speech are not free, particularly if they are being recorded and stored, since the intention is eventually to do something with it yes?  I mean if somebody in authority wanted to take me down they would not need to jail me for sedition, they would just need to find something suitably embarrasing (or something that could be interpreted a certain way) and destroy me publicly.  Now granted nobody would want to mess with me, I am nobody, but the knowlege I am free so long as I keep my nose below the grass is no freedom.  I can get that freedom in most places.

I have sort of known about this for awhile thanks to the statements by various whistle blowers and various Members of Congress (primarily Ron Wyden God Bless him) but it is hopeful that now it is out there.  It looks like more of my fellow citizens are coming around to my view so hopefully soon we can get this thing turned around.  But of course Obama promised to address thse things when he was elected back in 2008 but perhaps this really is a job for the legislative branch and not the executive.

[The Brain]

Vietnam has elephant grass. Stand tall and proud.

[crazy canuck]

But a 100% approval rate suggests to me that what we really have is a rubber stamp - a system where the players are NOT operating in an adversarial manner, and in fact the players are really not separate entities at all, but all the same entity, so "approval" is largely meaningless.

So you are willing to assume that the Court no longer takes its constitutional responsibility seriously?

You might want to consider the alternative proposition that the reason why there is high rate of approval is that law enforcement takes these sorts of applications very seriously and so devote the time and resources necessary to make sure that only valid and bona fide applications are made and that when an application is made those applications are done correctly so that there is no reason a Court might have to reject the application.

[The Minsky Moment]

But a 100% approval rate suggests to me that what we really have is a rubber stamp - a system where the players are NOT operating in an adversarial manner, and in fact the players are really not separate entities at all, but all the same entity, so "approval" is largely meaningless.

It certainly does appear that the FISA court has not been a meaningful check on law enforcement, in the way the regular federal courts have been.
In fact, it appears that may have happened here.  Because whatever the reasonability of copying metadata wholesale for later use, it doesn't appear that FISA authorizes the practice.

Of course, the deficiencies of the FISA court have been an open and notorious fact for a long time.  One that was publicized heavily during the Bush administration.  It's not like we needed a whistleblower to leak a bunch of confidential documents in order to order to remember the publicly available statistics concerning FISA case reviews.

[crazy canuck]

The question is if everything is all good why make it secret?  I mean there is no national security interest at stake in letting the American People know about basic policies.

I am no expert on security issues but given the fact that people planning terrorist activities now know this information they will be able to take steps to avoid detection whereas before they may not have known to take those precautions.

If you believe the government must disclose all information regarding national security matters so that we can fully debate every matter then that is where we will agree to disagree.  There must necessarily be some secrecy and we must necessarily trust in our systems of checks and balances - ie the Rule of Law - in such cases.

Where there is some evidence that the Rule of Law has been abused then that is when, imo, there is room for disclosure.

[Berkut]

But a 100% approval rate suggests to me that what we really have is a rubber stamp - a system where the players are NOT operating in an adversarial manner, and in fact the players are really not separate entities at all, but all the same entity, so "approval" is largely meaningless.

So you are willing to assume that the Court no longer takes its constitutional responsibility seriously?

You might want to consider the alternative proposition that the reason why there is high rate of approval is that law enforcement takes these sorts of applications very seriously and so devote the time and resources necessary to make sure that only valid and bona fide applications are made and that when an application is made those applications are done correctly so that there is no reason a Court might have to reject the application.

I think you can assume I considered that, since I expressly stated exactly that. Actually, you don't even have to assume it, I guess - I state it plain as day.

Still, nearly 2000 applications and not a single one the court said "Yeah, you don't really have the cause necessary here" or *something*?

Like I said, if that is the case, then it seems like the NSA isn't trying very hard.

[crazy canuck]

I think you can assume I considered that, since I expressly stated exactly that. Actually, you don't even have to assume it, I guess - I state it plain as day.

I restated the argument because your conclusion of subversion of the Court system seemed a little over the top 

[Bluebook]

Ok, you tell me one specific incidence in which the information was not used for the purpose it was collected.   Just one instance where it was improperly analyzed contrary to the terms of the Court Order granting access.

You know.  Law 101 stuff.

Well, Im no lawyer, so I dont know that much about Law 101. I do know something about politics though.

Whether this information was used for the purpose it was collected or not is really beside the point. There are two points here. That the information is collected at all, and the transfer of the information from the company to the US government.

Clearly this Prism-system is a massive, systematic breach of integrity of those affected by it. Sure, this does not really affect me, since Im no US citizen, nor do I need to be personally afraid, since Im not a type of person they are looking for. Im being monitored, sure, but from my perspective it is an intelligence agency in a foreign country "spying" on me. I cant really do much about that.

However, this massive monitoring of their own citizens is beyond the pale. It does not matter if a law was broken or not, in fact it is probably worse if no law was broken, because what the hell sort of laws do they have in the US that allows this? Read every email, check every facebook message or status update, pull GPS information from the phones of anyone and everyone...with or without being a suspect of a crime?

To say that all this is irrelevant because all those monitored have signed EULAs giving consent to information being given to a third party is perhaps correct in a legal sense. But the political implications of this are enormous. 

[Syt]

Sure, this does not really affect me, since Im no US citizen

AFAIK it does, if any of your communications (say, Facebook GMail ...) run over American servers.

[The Brain]

Sure, this does not really affect me, since Im no US citizen

AFAIK it does, if any of your communications (say, Facebook GMail ...) run over American servers.

Yes but that's just foreign espionage. Might as well complain about gravity.

[crazy canuck]

However, this massive monitoring of their own citizens is beyond the pale. It does not matter if a law was broken or not, in fact it is probably worse if no law was broken, because what the hell sort of laws do they have in the US that allows this? Read every email, check every facebook message or status update, pull GPS information from the phones of anyone and everyone...with or without being a suspect of a crime?

That is what I thought your position was.  You simply disagree that a democratically elected government should be enacting these kinds of laws with oversight by the judiciary.   That is not the political decision made in the US.

[Valmy]

I am no expert on security issues but given the fact that people planning terrorist activities now know this information they will be able to take steps to avoid detection whereas before they may not have known to take those precautions.

What information exactly do they now know that they did not before?  Your "fact" depends on these terrorists being the most idiotic terrorists in the history of the world, and thus will probably be easily foiled without this program.

If you believe the government must disclose all information regarding national security matters so that we can fully debate every matter then that is where we will agree to disagree.  There must necessarily be some secrecy and we must necessarily trust in our systems of checks and balances - ie the Rule of Law - in such cases.

I do not trust our system of checks and balances, and indeed it is my responsibility to not do so.  But it already has broken down in many places for all sorts of reasons, sometimes simply because "our" (did you move to the US and become a citizen at some point?) system was designed in the 18th century.  I certainly do not believe the government must disclose all information regarding national security matters but it should make sure general policies are known.  I mean it was no secret when we passed the RICO act and what exactly that meant the government was going to do but it still seemed to work in causing problems for organized crime.

Where there is some evidence that the Rule of Law has been abused then that is when, imo, there is room for disclosure.

Color me unmoved by the principal that everything is great so long as some sort of legal rationalization can be found someplace.

[crazy canuck]

What information exactly do they now know that they did not before?

The same information you didnt know before.

I do not trust our system of checks and balances, and indeed it is my responsibility to not do so.

Yeah, you need guns to feed blood to the God of Liberty or some such nonsense.

[The Minsky Moment]

However, this massive monitoring of their own citizens is beyond the pale. It does not matter if a law was broken or not, in fact it is probably worse if no law was broken, because what the hell sort of laws do they have in the US that allows this? Read every email, check every facebook message or status update, pull GPS information from the phones of anyone and everyone

That would be concerning if it was happening.