Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Sheilbh]

Laws can be unconstitutional as well, so following the law alone doesn't say anything. I can't discuss the issue of constitutionality though as I have no clue about US constitutional law. 

Tough for a Brit to get that

I understand what you're saying though. And you and Tamas are right that the rule of law doesn't protect against dictatorship, but having said that it's impossible to think of a democracy without it.

I agree with Berk that there are necessary state secrets even in a democracy and that ultimately it requires a level of trust for intelligence services to exist in a democracy. There has to be trust in the executive implementing the policies and that the legislature and judiciary will exercise their oversight roles responsibly, because if everything is public then it renders covert snooping a bit useless. From what I've read about this, and from what Joan posted a bit earlier, that looks like what's happened.

That said, I feel that this program violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment. The US government should not wholesale collect this kind of data. Governments, including intelligence services, should only collect data selectively based on suspected threats or crimes. With judicial or parliamentarian oversight - the former on a case-by-case basis and not just wholesale for all communication. That's not what I consider due process as it makes everybody a suspect.

I disagree. I don't see the difference between this or post databases, or say CCTV, which is a general level of surveillance that enables the intelligence services to actually collect individual data and look into it on a case-by-case basis with a warrant. I think the data should be collected, and analysed in a broad, non-individual way, as a general policy and if there's a specific threat justifying a warrant that it can then be looked at individually.

This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.

By the way, I find the lack of a European response disheartening too. Our politicians should force Google et al. to actually adhere to our data privacy laws. And if they don't, fine them and prosecute their executives. And don't get me started on the EU data retention laws.

Yeah, European data privacy laws are one of the areas where I go all UKIP. I think they're generally excessive and should be trimmed.

On the other hand I agree that if Google and the rest have broken European law then there should be consequences. But I wouldn't expect it. I think Google and Amazon and the rest of the big tech companies are dangerously large and monopolistic, so they'll get out of this and paying taxes.

[Zanza]

No, the concern is that it is turning less liberal than it used to be.

How quickly we forget the Cold War.

Perhaps it never was in reality, but I (and I guess many others) at least perceived it as such. That very positive image of being a very liberal, rule-of-law country has certainly been tarnished by this (and other government acts during the WoT).

[Sheilbh]

No, the concern is that it is turning less liberal than it used to be. I don't think it will turn into a dictatorship.

EDIT: Actually I think it is no longer a concern, it has already happened. The US is no longer the liberal bastion it used to be.

I don't think it is turning less liberal though.

What's scary about the internet is how easy everything is and that goes for the bad and the good. It's incredibly easy to stay in touch with family in Australia, or to do my rent online. But it's also far easier than it used to be for people to share child porn, or to meet likeminded extremists. The other side of that isn't that government's are necessarily doing more surveillance, or that it's more intrusive it's just that it's quite easy for them and can very simply become far more intrusive without someone necessarily noticing. That's unsettling, but I think it's the nature of the internet, not that the state is somehow clamping down and becoming less liberal.

Edit: Although I've always disliked the fact that, say, credit card companies have a lot of information on me and can, no doubt, sell that on to other interested companies. I find that far more problematic than that the NSA have the same information.

[Zanza]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5yB3n9fu-rM#at=502

Because even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call. And then they can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made. Every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis, to derive suspicion from an innocent life, and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.

[derspiess]

I think I'll sit out this scandal.  Had too much going on when the story broke & am tired from the busy weekend.  Maybe I'll feel like jumping in later this week, who knows.

[Zanza]

Edit: Although I've always disliked the fact that, say, credit card companies have a lot of information on me and can, no doubt, sell that on to other interested companies. I find that far more problematic than that the NSA have the same information.

In the history of the world, governments have suppressed their people countless times. You rarely hear that about private corporations. So I rather trust Visa with my personal information than some government agency. From what I gather, that's actually a very American sentiment.

And it is far easier for a government agency like the NSA to join together various bits of information from different sources. Visa will never have access to my Facebook data or Gmail account as that's illegal under privacy laws and user agreements.
The NSA on the other hand most likely has not just that, but can access my finger prints (thanks to an US visa), my credit card information, etc. etc.

[Berkut]

I think a lot of this concern is misplaced - it is understandable, but it is really a function of changing technology, not changing care about liberal society.

[Zanza]

The fact that we now have technology that makes intelligence gathering on a previously unthinkable scope possible, cheap, fast and easy should definitely make us both concerned and caring more about liberal society. This new technology is much easier to abuse than secret services of old, which had much more limited capabilities and much less power in the hands of single individuals.

[Sheilbh]

The fact that we now have technology that makes intelligence gathering on a previously unthinkable scope possible, cheap, fast and easy should definitely make us both concerned and caring more about liberal society. This new technology is much easier to abuse than secret services of old, which had much more limited capabilities and much less power in the hands of single individuals.

Which is why you put in place the sort of institutional checks and balances discussed. Which is, I think, far better than the FBI under Hoover or the situation in British intelligence before they had a statutory basis, including Parliamentary oversight.

[Zanza]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

[crazy canuck]

I think a lot of this concern is misplaced - it is understandable, but it is really a function of changing technology, not changing care about liberal society.

If anything I think this story affirms the current administration's concern about due process as much of this information was accessed without court order in the previous administration.

What I dont really understand is the reason this person thought it was necessary to leak the story since everything seems to be following either congressional approvals or court orders.  I could understand it if some rogue element was acting outside the law but that does not appear to be the case.

Also I dont understand why he didnt do it early since it appears this was a bigger problem then due to the lack of Court orders.

[crazy canuck]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

In what way?

[Zanza]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

In what way?

That's the message I got from the video I linked above. This part for example: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

[Sheilbh]

Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.

No, nor does Greenwald, but you'd expect that. I mean surely he wouldn't be leaking this if he thought everything was fine.

But that's the problem with leaks for me. As I say democracies need secrets and there is a good reason why, if you're given a certain level of clearance, we expect you to keep those secrets and you're legally required to do so. One employee being outraged, angry, suspicious or worried shouldn't automatically be lauded for breaking the law.

As I say I don't think he's like Manning, he seems like the sort of person Manning supporters wished he was. My view is that a leak like this is only really justified if there's evidence of an agency going beyond the law, which so far, there isn't. The other view though is whether there were any remedies he had open to him and chances are there were very few - so he took his chance and seems prepared to take the consequences for leaking. I think it's personally admirable, but so far I also think he was wrong.

[Warspite]

I am a firm believer in the right to privacy and of the maximisation of individual liberties.

However, you cannot uninvent technologies: and the same technologies that permit us the unprecedented ease of communication can, very easily, be used for unprecedented levels of monitoring.

So it's not just a philosophical question. You can't merely wish away these technologies by waving a list of sacred principles in the air. So I think we have to get used to the fact that advanced states are going to have recourse to these sorts of monitoring technologies.

The preservation of civil liberties and rights, therefore, should be down to careful institutional controls and oversight. Organisations like the NSA and GCHQ should be able to do their work, but not without custodians watching them. The representatives of the people should have the final say over what is permitted with the information collected, and what may be collected.

I've only briefly dived into PRISM, but nothing I've seen so far strikes me as a particular affront to deeply held values of due process and primacy of the law.

Basically my point is that things like PRISM won't go away, but there are ways to manage their use, in the same way we have shackles on other potential abuses of power (and much worse ones at that -- I'd rather have my e-mails read than get batoned in the face by the police officer) that, for all their faults, generally work.