Smart man to leave the US before outing himself, but I have a hard time believing that there is anywhere he can really go where he won't be extradited.
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html)
QuoteA 29-year-old former undercover CIA employee said Sunday that he was the principal source of recent disclosures about top-secret National Security Agency programs, exposing himself to possible prosecution in an acknowledgment that had little if any precedent in a long history of U.S. intelligence leaks.
Edward Snowden, a tech specialist who has also contracted for the NSA and works for the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, unmasked himself as a source after a string of stories in The Washington Post and the Guardian that detailed previously unknown U.S. surveillance programs. He said he disclosed secret documents in response to what he described as the systematic surveillance of innocent citizens.
Graphic
NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program
Timeline of surveillance
A timeline of surveillance in the United States from 2001 to 2013: from the Patriot Act to the PRISM program.
Special Report
Ex-CIA worker says he's the source of the NSA leaks
Aaron Blake, Barton Gellman and Greg Miller 5:20 PM ET
Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old Booz Allen Hamilton employee, says he's "done nothing wrong" in leaks of the government's surveillance programs.
Government, companies argue that surveillance is lawful, limited
Robert O'Harrow Jr., Ellen Nakashima and Barton Gellman JUN 8
U.S. officials and Internet firms say there was no unlimited access or data mining of company servers.
Obama, welcome to Bush territory
Greg Miller JUN 8
Defending his counterterror tactics, the president finds himself in a situation similar to his predecessor's.
Surveillance programs renew debate about oversight
Robert Barnes, Timothy B. Lee and Ellen Nakashima JUN 8
Can the kind of transparent oversight Americans expect exist with efforts to keep them safe?
Feinstein: NSA programs thwarted plots in New York, Mumbai
Aaron Blake 9:43 AM ET
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feisntein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that the Obama Administration's recently revealed surveillance programs have thwarted two major terrorist plots.
In an interview Sunday, Snowden said he was willing to face the consequences of exposure.
"I'm not going to hide," Snowden told The Post from Hong Kong, where he has been staying. "Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest."
Asked whether he believed his disclosures would change anything, he said: "I think they already have. Everyone everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten — and they're talking about it. They have the power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state."
Snowden said nobody had been aware of his actions, including those closest to him. He said there wasn't a single event that spurred his decision to leak the information, but he said President Obama has failed to live up to his pledges of transparency.
"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them," he said in a note that accompanied the first document he leaked to The Post.
The Guardian was the first to publicly identify Snowden, at his request.
The White House said late Sunday that it wouldn't have any comment on the matter.
In a brief statement, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the intelligence community is "reviewing the damage" that the leaks have done. "Any person who has a security clearance knows that he or she has an obligation to protect classified information and abide by the law," said the spokesman, Shawn Turner.
Snowden said he is seeking "asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy," but the law appears to provide for his extradition from Hong Kong, a semiautonomous territory of China, to the United States.
Although any extradition proceeding could take months or even years, experts said Snowden has not put himself in a favorable position.
"The fact that he outed himself and basically said, from what I understand he has said, 'I feel very comfortable with what I have done' . . . that's not going to help him in his extradition contest," said Douglas McNabb, an extradition expert.
The Justice Department said it was in the "initial stages of an investigation" into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information but declined to comment further.
Maybe it needed to be leaked.
China is a good place to start.
I think he's pretty brave and it may be a justified leak, but from everything I've read I entirely support what the US government is doing. I assumed it's what they were doing anyway and I think it'd be a far greater scandal if they weren't.
Full interview here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
He might be alright, so long as he doesn't go around raping everything in sight like Asange.
Anyone know anything about PRISM?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2013, 08:30:22 PM
I think he's pretty brave and it may be a justified leak, but from everything I've read I entirely support what the US government is doing. I assumed it's what they were doing anyway and I think it'd be a far greater scandal if they weren't.
...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2013, 08:46:23 PM
Anyone know anything about PRISM?
Per the WSJ article here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495604578535552983978828.html):
QuoteWe've also learned through some very sketchy reporting about another NSA program code-named Prism. This appears to be an adaptation of the Bush-era program that intercepted foreign-to-foreign calls that happened to pass through U.S. switching networks. Mr. Obama says it is only aimed at foreigners. Prism appears to be designed to retrieve foreign communications like emails and digital files from major technology companies.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2013, 08:30:22 PM
I think he's pretty brave and it may be a justified leak, but from everything I've read I entirely support what the US government is doing. I assumed it's what they were doing anyway and I think it'd be a far greater scandal if they weren't.
No, it would not be a bigger scandal if the US government actually upheld its constitution.
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2013, 10:38:07 PM
No, it would not be a bigger scandal if the US government actually upheld its constitution.
No fucking shit.
And that's the problem with written constitutions. They're full of such ancient garbage that it becomes impossible to uphold them in a modern, civilized state.
Doesn't Hong Kong have an extradition treaty with the US?
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!
97 billion log entries on their computer surveillance thing from March of this year alone.
I know it was Bush's Patriot Act which let this happen, but either the current administration begins some cleansing and revoking these Patrio Actish privileges, or democracy indeed will be in serious danger.
I mean, by this, it doesn't seem far-fetched that for an average citizen who is not hiding behind anonym IP addresses and shit, their entire life can be mapped out by doing a search for their IP address in these massive logs these fuckers are keeping.
And the rest of it.
Shit.
Also the dude who leaked it told the Guardian how he worries that he would become the face of the whole thing, stealing focus from actual content, and that is already happening.
I mean, look at the US edition of cnn. com (on the international one, it is just a sideissue). Huge fucking pic and letters: GUY WHO LEAKED NSA STUFF IS IN HONG KONG
Then, tincy-wincy links on the NSA sub-page points you to pages where it is explained why this whole surveilance thing is business and usual and no cause for worry.
What. The. Fuck.
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2013, 04:08:43 AM
Doesn't Hong Kong have an extradition treaty with the US?
Yes, we do.
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 06:20:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 04:37:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2013, 08:46:23 PM
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
QuoteNo, 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.
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.
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? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
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.
:hmm:
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?
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2013, 09:23:01 AM
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 08:50:35 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 09:31:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2013, 09:23:01 AM
:hmm:
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?
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?
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2013, 09:38:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 09:51:50 AM
Even democracies need state secrets.
Sure...but not general policies impacting every single citizen in the country. That stuff needs to be known so the voters can appropriately inform their representatives.
QuoteJoan 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.
I disagree. Congress is not effectively overseeing these things and the representatives of the executive branch freely hide things and outright lie. The judicial oversight is a rubber stamp. The only way these things operate appropriately in a democracy is for the voters to know about it.
I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.
So what?
How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.
This falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2013, 10:07:00 AM
I disagree. Congress is not effectively overseeing these things and the representatives of the executive branch freely hide things and outright lie. The judicial oversight is a rubber stamp. The only way these things operate appropriately in a democracy is for the voters to know about it.
How do you know Congress isn't effectively overseeing it, that the executive just lies and that judges are just a rubber stamp? I mean what's the point of representative democracy with the rule of law if the default position is that the're all lying anyway?
The reason I'm not sure about this leak is that if there was any evidence here that this was beyond the law, that the NSA were doing more than they were allowed then that's justification for a leak. Similarly if there was evidence that that was happening and Congress didn't care, or the executive was routinely lying, or that the judiciary was just rubber-stamping things. But so far none of that seems to be the case.
It reminds me of Wikileaks in that after all of the emotional venting what those embassy cables suggested was that the US foreign service wasn't evil and was actually generally trying to do their job. Similarly here - I know Glenn Greenwald's promising lots more stories over the summer - but it just looks like once the hyperbole's gone, that it's an example of the system working. An intelligence agency is operating within its mandate, with bipartisan Congressional and judicial oversight.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 10:15:46 AM
I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.
So what?
How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.
So how can Congress be properly informed if the people supposedly informing them are lying and withholding information?
As for the second part I am only saying this because Congress people and insiders have been saying the Executive Branch is going far beyond their mandate and Congress is not properly overseeing it for years. So I see something like this and I just say 'hey look all those people in the know were in the know!'
QuoteThis falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.
Well I consider my job as a voter in this country is to not "trust the system" and be informed as to what is going on. That is, after all, the only way the system works at all as DGuller is insisting. I have do not have much confidence in either the Republicans and Democrats so the fact they both agree on something is not particularly compelling. Besides they generally agree on most things in this area. As far as the last point I am not really sure what to tell you, this stuff has been talked about for a long time we just now have a source that for whatever bizarre reason is important enough to be covered by the big media outlets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 10:23:57 AM
How do you know Congress isn't effectively overseeing it, that the executive just lies and that judges are just a rubber stamp? I mean what's the point of representative democracy with the rule of law if the default position is that the're all lying anyway?
Primarily because various Congressmen and other insiders have said so.
That is not my default position, only when evidence points to it being so.
I mean for Godsake I did not think this was some sort of secret knowledge Obama freaking campaigned on stopping these sorts of Executive abuses in 2008.
Thank you guys. For quite a while I was thinking that I was living under a regime which is creeping into a dictatorship, with all the centralising, private life invading laws an whatnot.
By reading the arguments here I now can safely conclude that everything is alright since all of these things are done
BECAUSE THERE IS A LAW WRITTEN TO DO THEM!
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2013, 10:25:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 10:15:46 AM
I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.
So what?
How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things? I would not argue that they *are* doing so, but it doesn't seem like there is really any definitive information either way.
So how can Congress be properly informed if the people supposedly informing them are lying and withholding information?
I wasn't aware that was the case - are you? What evidence do you have that people are lying and withholding information from Congress?
If that is the case, then yes, there is a problem, because then the system is NOT working.
Quote
As for the second part I am only saying this because Congress people and insiders have been saying the Executive Branch is going far beyond their mandate and Congress is not properly overseeing it for years. So I see something like this and I just say 'hey look all those people in the know were in the know!'
"Congres people and insiders". That is some compelling evidence. Which Congress people? Which insiders?
I must not be privy to the same information sources as you, because I have not seen any serious evidence previously that the executive was lying to teh Congressional oversight committees as a matter of routine. What do you know that I do not?
Quote
QuoteThis falls rather squarely into the realm of "At some point, you simply have to trust the system". Shelf is right - this is a program set up under a Republican, operating under a Democrat, and with the oversight in place that is typical for matters of NSA/CIA. Whether or not it is being properly vetted, I don't know, nor do I really think I *can* know. Some singular guy leaking information is =certainly a source for information, but the quality, accuracy, and completeness of that information is also totally unknown.
Well I consider my job as a voter in this country is to not "trust the system" and be informed as to what is going on.
So if this were 1944, would you be demanding that the Army Chief of Staff tell you why all those men are sitting in England, and where they are heading and why, because damnit this is a democracy and you can't make an informed decision in the upcoming election unless you are FULLY informed about what the military is doing, when they are doing it, and how?
Quote
That is, after all, the only way the system works at all as DGuller is insisting.
Not true at all. When it comes to matters of national security, the system is one where we check our normal demand for complete transparency and information in order to allow those we hire to protect us to do their jobs, since they categorically CANNOT do so without the need for secrecy.
So no - that is NOT the only way the system works, and in fact complete transparency clearly will NOT work.
Which is why we have a system of oversight, both legislative and judicial, and checks and balances on executive power.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 10:36:15 AMWhich Congress people? Which insiders?
Ron Paul? :lol:
IF the phone program is being run the way being claimed (a big if) it doesn't seem unreasonable.
FISA clearly allows a search of phone metadata records under a variety of circumstances. This is data that private companies -- the telecom companies already hold and collect; it is also the same kind of data that private litigants can secure by subpoena under certain circumstances. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy, but only some. So for me it doesn't induce hysterics that a government agency could obtain limited access under court order for a proper purpose ( or even absent court order with exigent circumstances).
The unusual wrinkle here is that the courts appear to have approved the systematic copying of ALL phone record metadata, but only on the proviso that the government can't actually access it without getting a much more narrower, targeted order, or satifying the more strict FISA requirements for searching without an order. That makes sense: it is more efficient to have all the records ready to search when necessary, and eliminates the risk of data being deleted or lost by the carriers. So common sense this doesn't seem to be a big problem. It does, however, seem to violate the literal requirements of the law.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 08:50:35 AM
QuoteNo, 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.
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.
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.
It's funny how people are up in arms (literally) when the government wants to ban assault rifles, but don't seem to care much about the same government collecting virtually every communication they have and not just the metadata, but also the content. The latter seems to be a much bigger violation of freedom to me.
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 10:32:38 AM
Thank you guys. For quite a while I was thinking that I was living under a regime which is creeping into a dictatorship, with all the centralising, private life invading laws an whatnot.
By reading the arguments here I now can safely conclude that everything is alright since all of these things are done
BECAUSE THERE IS A LAW WRITTEN TO DO THEM!
This. Not everything that is put into law is actually constitutional - or legitimate. I guess just about every dictatorship is somehow legalistic and puts their undemocratic, illiberal policies into law.
SO the concern here is that the US is turning into a dictatorship?
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.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
No, the concern is that it is turning less liberal than it used to be.
How quickly we forget the Cold War.
OK, I think that is a very reasonable concern.
I hate (again) the people immediately put these kinds of things into terms of constitutionality. That is such a high bar to violate - honestly, just because something doesn't violate the Constitution doesn't mean it is a good idea. And once you bring that up, then the other side just has to suddenly meet that standard, and whether or not the law is actually beneficial for our society gets lost.
A lot of the BS in the Patriot Act might be constitutional, but that doesn't mean it is ok.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
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 :P
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.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteBy 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.
Quote from: fahdiz on June 10, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
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).
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5yB3n9fu-rM#at=502
Quote from: Edward SnowdonBecause 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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 11:33:42 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 11:54:23 AM
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.
Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 11:48:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
Well, Snowdon sure makes it sound like this oversight doesn't actually work.
In what way?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
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."
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
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.
I'll agree with this. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 11:27:27 AM
This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.
CCTV only works in public areas.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:09:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
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."
But he is saying he had the authority to do it. He may not particularly undertand how he came to be authorized but that speaks more to his lack of knowlegde than the lack of process which ultimately gave him that authority.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 11:27:27 AM
This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.
CCTV only works in public areas.
I think the internet's a pretty public area.
And there's CCTV in all sorts of private places that, with a warrant, the police can access.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:10:22 PMMy 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.
I think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:10:22 PMMy 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.
I think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.
These were authorized by Court Order. Also, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future. Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
And there's CCTV in all sorts of private places that, with a warrant, the police can access.
Yes, but the NSA doesn't need a warrant for specific information. They apparently have a general wholesale warrant for everything.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
These were authorized by Court Order.
Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.
QuoteAlso, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future. Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.
Fair enough. He talks about abuse he saw on a regular basis. Let's see if he can substantiate it.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:17:26 PMI think the concern is not that the agency was going beyond the law. The concern is that the law is going beyond what is right and proper in a liberal democracy. Not every act of Congress is worth being loyal to it. Sometimes it needs civil disobedience to change the law.
Okay but that's a debate to be had at elections and by our representatives - as well as the judiciary ensuring that unconstitutional laws are struck down. Personally I don't want our spies to be engaged in too much civil disobedience, it sounds as worrying as the BBC crime drama about a maverick judge.
As I say I can personally admire him for breaking the law and being willing to take the consequences, it could even be a good thing that he provokes this debate and I'm not entirely sure how secret all of this needed to be, but I'm still uncomfortable with lauding an individual in the intelligence services breaking the law by revealing state secrets and being lauded for it. He may well be right and personally feel justified, but others may feel the same over other issues and release information that hurts our national interests.
QuoteYes, but the NSA doesn't need a warrant for specific information. They apparently have a general wholesale warrant for everything.
From what I've read they do need a warrant for specific information. They have a general warrant to collect the data and can analyse it in the general - so they could wiretap the President or whatever. But to actually look at specific information, to read that individual wiretap, they still need a warrant.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.
Surely that's what constitutions and things like the Convention of Human Rights are for?
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
These were authorized by Court Order.
Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.
QuoteAlso, as I heard his interview this morning, he is saying that he is concerned about what might happen in the future. Imo this was entirely premature as there is no evidence of any abuse.
Fair enough. He talks about abuse he saw on a regular basis. Let's see if he can substantiate it.
My point was that you were focusing on the legislative laws as not being worthy of following. But the constitutionality is largely in the realm of the Court and that branch of government has also been involved. This is not some adventurous government agency off on its own.
If he can substantiate some kind of abuse then my view might change. But for now I am a bit mystified as to why now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:24:23 PM
Your point being? Courts will only implement the laws. If the laws themselves are what is wrong, courts will rarely be much help.
Surely that's what constitutions and things like the Convention of Human Rights are for?
Yes.
QuoteThe 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.
As I said before, I feel the spirit of this is violated with unspecific court orders allowing unlimited data collection. What is the probable cause? What is particularly describing the place or the persons or the things to be seized?
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2013, 12:10:46 PM
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.
errr, I am sorry, but the technology exists to keep all citizens locked down behind barbed wire, guard towers, machine gun guard posts, armored car patrols, DNS sample database, visa requirements to leav home towns, etc.
We (as in democratic states) do not endure these, because we do not let our governments do them.
Why should it be otherwise for a complete database of people's lives for decades back. You are already living your life in a lot of ways online, that is only going to increase, for the betterment of humanity (unless people becomes afraid of surveilance). You obviously have not grasped the implications of this.
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:30:09 PM
As I said before, I feel the spirit of this is violated with unspecific court orders allowing unlimited data collection. What is the probable cause? What is particularly describing the place or the persons or the things to be seized?
No this isnt. In part this is the government obtaining Court Orders that they can view numbers called and length of call. If they wanted to listen to the substance of the calls they would have to obtain further orders in the same way as other wire tap authorizations.
What is unspecific and unlimited are the vague allegations being made by this guy for a reason which is difficult to discern.
I have nothing to hide so I don't have a problem with the government keeping us safe.
Quote from: The Brain on June 10, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
I have nothing to hide so I don't have a problem with the government keeping us safe.
I do not think I do....but sometimes I am nervous I am forgetting something.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
Well right it is endlessly abusable. That is why our system is supposed to forbid this sort of information being collected unless there is a warrant to do so. Or at least I was taught it did but it appears that it doesn't really and it is legal that it does not. I guess it is up for public debate right now whether this is a bug or a feature.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
People who've never been in government greatly overestimate how well it actually works. This pissed off NSA guy probably can't even simultaneously access all this information without filling in form after form and going through five different managers.
Famous Paperwork Nazis the Germans managed to kill millions of Jews. Funny that.
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
People who've never been in government greatly overestimate how well it actually works. This pissed off NSA guy probably can't even simultaneously access all this information without filling in form after form and going through five different managers.
Right. I mean, once he has access he would NEVER, EVER abuse it. He is, after all, a human being.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
People who've never been in government greatly overestimate how well it actually works. This pissed off NSA guy probably can't even simultaneously access all this information without filling in form after form and going through five different managers.
Right. I mean, once he has access he would NEVER, EVER abuse it. He is, after all, a human being.
Actually the chances of him abusing his access would be fairly remote since his trail of access and the use to which he puts such access are themselves easily traceable. Indeed the one abuse we do know of (his leak) was probably easily traceable to him and that is why he has gone public.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
Let's forget Grand Faceless Allgood Government. This means, that ANYBODY with sufficient level of NSA access OWNS you. If you cross an NSA agent because you piss on his lawn, or take his lover, or run a rival business, YOU ARE FUCKED. He knows your phone calls, he reads your e-mails, your Facebook PMs, he knows who your friends are, he can with a simple search get their details as well.
People who've never been in government greatly overestimate how well it actually works. This pissed off NSA guy probably can't even simultaneously access all this information without filling in form after form and going through five different managers.
Right. I mean, once he has access he would NEVER, EVER abuse it. He is, after all, a human being.
Okay, so you're right. Where are all the obvious abuses of this power that are coming to light as a result of this leak?
Quote from: Zanza on June 09, 2013, 10:38:07 PM
No, it would not be a bigger scandal if the US government actually upheld its constitution.
:lol: Duh! Of course it's not a scandal that the US government follows its constitution!
At any rate, it is nice to know you guys are fine with the government having every mundane detail of your everyday lives, and the lives of your children, logged and stored away for future use. Model citizens, you are.
I just now remembered some curious bit from an entirely different story. Those who follow online poker are probably aware of the UltimateBet scandal, where one of the site's founders cheated the players by being able to see their cards. He was found out not by "regulators", but by poker players banding together on the biggest poker forum.
The interesting bit was heard recently. After many years, the tape surfaced where the owner was discussing this issue with his lawyers, and in the process copped to everything. One of the things he said to his lawyers was that he had a buddy in Interpol, and that this buddy was able to look into private e-mails of several lead poker player investigators.
After that bit was heard on tape, some poker players dug around, and they did indeed find out that one of the scumbag's former business partners was a retired Interpol official. :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 01:37:44 PM
At any rate, it is nice to know you guys are fine with the government having every mundane detail of your everyday lives, and the lives of your children, logged and stored away for future use. Model citizens, you are.
At any rate, it is nice to see you engage in hysterical rhetoric. Model citizen, you are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 11:27:27 AM
This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.
CCTV only works in public areas.
I think the internet's a pretty public area.
No it's not. The Internet is a means of communication. Just like normal mail, the inviolability of which falls under the European Human Rights Convention. As for the US, this quote is from the era before everyone went hysterical with the WoT:
Quote from: USSCNo law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:32:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 12:13:51 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 11:27:27 AM
This doesn't make everyone a suspect anymore than CCTV or national ID cards do.
CCTV only works in public areas.
I think the internet's a pretty public area.
No it's not. The Internet is a means of communication. Just like normal mail, the inviolability of which falls under the European Human Rights Convention. As for the US, this quote is from the era before everyone went hysterical with the WoT:
Quote from: USSCNo law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Not really. You have no way of ascertaining who I am. You cannot use other activity to build a complete profile of me. The government does. It makes a huge difference.
Furthermore, not all the communications over the Net are 1-to-N. If my girlfriend sends me a picture or my doctor the results of my latest tests, the act is not meant as a broadcast to the public at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Most communication on the internet is not public, it is meant for specific addressees or at least groups with small membership. This forum has PMs and a backroom, neither of which are publicly accessible. Even most Facebook entries are only for a certain group of people.
From what I can gather, the NSA surveillance measures are not directed at publicly accessible information, but rather at communication between very few people. Telephone calls are typically not public, e-mails are typically not public, chats are typically not public.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Not really. You have no way of ascertaining who I am. You cannot use other activity to build a complete profile of me. The government does. It makes a huge difference.
Furthermore, not all the communications over the Net are 1-to-N. If my girlfriend sends me a picture or my doctor the results of my latests test, the act is not meant as a broadcast to the public at all.
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Most communication on the internet is not public, it is meant for specific addressees or at least groups with small membership. This forum has PMs and a backroom, neither of which are publicly accessible. Even most Facebook entries are only for a certain group of people.
From what I can gather, the NSA surveillance measures are not directed at publicly accessible information, but rather at communication between very few people. Telephone calls are typically not public, e-mails are typically not public, chats are typically not public.
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
You repeat yourself.
You repeat yourself.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 02:50:18 PM
You repeat yourself.
You repeat yourself.
If you had read the post above yours I would not have had to do so. :P
I can't really anticipate future edits or future posts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
Maybe Canada is different, but here you can mail stuff without writing your name in the return address. Or you can use a P.O. box.
As for court orders, that goes against the stated MO. They are performing datamining on their entire databases, not just those where they've acquired warrants.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:48:22 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:35:26 PM
No. Anyone who wishes to do so can view this post. The internet is very different from a sealed package sent in the mail. People post on the internet via face book and forums like this knowing that what they post are very public.
Not really. You have no way of ascertaining who I am. You cannot use other activity to build a complete profile of me. The government does. It makes a huge difference.
Furthermore, not all the communications over the Net are 1-to-N. If my girlfriend sends me a picture or my doctor the results of my latests test, the act is not meant as a broadcast to the public at all.
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
It sounds like the "court order" in this case is something like:
"To whom it may concern,
Go ahead, take a look."
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:32:31 PMNo it's not. The Internet is a means of communication. Just like normal mail, the inviolability of which falls under the European Human Rights Convention.
Except it's not just a means of communication. You choose to reveal details of yourself online to, say, Amazon or Facebook and if they then get a warrant the government can use that information. The US Post has, I believe, previously kept notice for the government of who is sending mail to each other and that's been allowed by the Supreme Court because what's on the outside of your message isn't private - same goes online.
Also I doubt mail would be inviolable under the ECHR. Some articles are absolute, there are no exceptions. The right to privacy, family life, home and correspondence isn't. The second part of Article 8 is 'There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'
So the question even under European human rights law would be whether the US government's actions are proportionate and lawful. Clearly they're lawful and I think they're proportionate too. Store the data, but to access it get a court order.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:56:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
Maybe Canada is different, but here you can mail stuff without writing your name in the return address. Or you can use a P.O. box.
As for court orders, that goes against the stated MO. They are performing datamining on their entire databases, not just those where they've acquired warrants.
From what I have read, the data mining does not involve personal information but is rather numbers called, time and duration of call. With that data evidence can then be provided to the Court in support of an order to actually view confidential information.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:56:02 PM
As for court orders, that goes against the stated MO. They are performing datamining on their entire databases, not just those where they've acquired warrants.
So they should need a separate warrant to analyse the general trends of the data they have, not just to access individual records?
QuoteIt sounds like the "court order" in this case is something like:
What's your basis for that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities
QuoteThe court order doesn't allow the NSA to collect any information whatsoever on the contents of phone calls, or even to obtain any names or addresses of customers.
What's covered instead is known as "metadata": the phone number of every caller and recipient; the unique serial number of the phones involved; the time and duration of each phone call; and potentially the location of each of the participants when the call happened.
All of this information is being collected on millions of calls every day – every conversation taking place within the US, or between the US and a foreign country is collected.
The government has long argued that this information isn't private or personal. It is, they say, the equivalent of looking at the envelope of a letter: what's written on the outside is simple, functional information that's essentially already public.
That forms the basis of collection: because it's not personal information, but rather "transactional" or "business" data, there's no need to show probable cause to collect it. Collection is also helped by the fact this information is already disclosed by callers to their carriers – because your phone number is shared with your provider, you're not treating it as private.
But that is not a view shared by privacy advocates. Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that by knowing who an individual speaks to, and when, and for how long, intelligence agencies can build up a detailed picture of that person, their social network, and more. Collecting information on where people are during the calls colours in that picture even further.
[...]
The view on whether such "transactional" data is personal, and how intrusive it can be, is also being tested in the appellate courts, and the supreme court is likely to see more cases on the issue in the near future.
Discussing the use of GPS data collected from mobile phones, an appellate court noted that even location information on its own could reveal a person's secrets: "A person who knows all of another's travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups," it read, "and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts."
The primary purpose of large-scale databases such as the NSA's call records is generally said to be data-mining: rather than examining individuals, algorithms are used to find patterns of unusual activity that may mark terrorism or criminal conspiracies.
However, collection and storage of this information gives government a power it's previously lacked: easy and retroactive surveillance.
If authorities become interested in an individual at a later stage, and obtain their number, officials can look back through the data and gather their movements, social network, and more – possibly for several years (although the secret court order only allows for three months of data collection).
In essence, you're being watched; the government just doesn't know your name while it's doing it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
So the question even under European human rights law would be whether the US government's actions are proportionate and lawful. Clearly they're lawful and I think they're proportionate too. Store the data, but to access it get a court order.
I think they are not proportionate at all. Why keep complete communication profiles of millions of innocents?
The same is true for the stupid European data retention laws.
Proportionate my ass. Terrorism has killed a few thousand people in a handful of places.
You have a much better chance of being killed by your partner. The government is clearly entitled to bug our homes then, surely.
And let's not mention drunk drivers. Surely everyone's liquid intake should be monitored at all times.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Not really. You have no way of ascertaining who I am. You cannot use other activity to build a complete profile of me. .
Sure I could. Not me personally, but I could hire an investigator. You'd be surprised how much information they can gather, and while an invetigator may not have access to all the material the government has, in some ways they are less constrained.
True I would have no motivation to spend resources to do that, but then again for 99.9% of the population that is true for the government as well.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:06:26 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities
Let's be clear - if you turn on your GPS function, you are advertising to your carrier and potentially to anyone who makes an application for your phone or tablet where you are. That is why (at least on iOS) the switch to turn that on and off can be found under privacy settings.
If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy re your movements, turn off your GPS/location functions.
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:14:57 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:45:06 PM
Not really. You have no way of ascertaining who I am. You cannot use other activity to build a complete profile of me. .
Sure I could. Not me personally, but I could hire an investigator. You'd be surprised how much information they can gather, and while an invetigator may not have access to all the material the government has, in some ways they are less constrained.
True I would have no motivation to spend resources to do that, but then again for 99.9% of the population that is true for the government as well.
Yet the only way to prove who I am would be to access ISP logs to find a matching name for my dynamic IP. Which are kept exactly for the same anti-terror bullshit excuse.
By the way, IIRC Apple still stores GPS data even if you turn that option off.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p206x206/971456_533115593410363_1391989416_n.png)
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
I have yet to be disappointed by a Languish poster. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:06:26 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities
Let's be clear - if you turn on your GPS function, you are advertising to your carrier and potentially to anyone who makes an application for your phone or tablet where you are. That is why (at least on iOS) the switch to turn that on and off can be found under privacy settings.
If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy re your movements, turn off your GPS/location functions.
You don't need to have GPS turned on to be tracked. Police apparently can retrospectively track your movement just from triangulation from cell towers.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
:huh: It's not to me.
The US has an excuse: it was founded on the principle of the slave state. Sweden OTOH has a tradition of freedom. It's a bit sad that that tradition is being killed off, but whatchagonnado. It had a... a run.
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
Perhaps they lack the recent reminder of totalitarianism. Like Zanza I find it really funny how a society can be so vocal about gun rights and totally disregard the government encroaching on their privacy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:21:23 PM
Let's be clear - if you turn on your GPS function, you are advertising to your carrier and potentially to anyone who makes an application for your phone or tablet where you are. That is why (at least on iOS) the switch to turn that on and off can be found under privacy settings.
If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy re your movements, turn off your GPS/location functions.
If I don't want my carrier to know where I am, turning off GPS won't help. I need to turn off the mobile phone functions too. My reasonable expectation of privacy is that my carrier doesn't store or track my movements beyond what is necessary to allow communication right now. There is zero reason to store the information where I was a minute ago.
As far as apps go, you are right of course.
However, I hold the government to higher standards than private app providers where I can easily opt in or opt out of using their service. I don't think I can do that with regards to whether or not the NSA tracks a profile of my communication. My reasonable expectation of privacy is that the government does not track ANY data on me unless it has a clear purpose for a particular function of government. Just tracking all communication data of everybody because technology makes it feasible does not pass this muster in my humble opinion.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 03:26:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
:huh: It's not to me.
Sheilbh's a government first kind of guy. His accent just lulls you into thinking he's on your side because no man who sounds so awesome could be evil. :D
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:24:01 PM
Yet the only way to prove who I am would be to access ISP logs to find a matching name for my dynamic IP.
Prove with 100% certainty, perhaps. But I a decent investigator could probably track you down just searching your profile and posts here.
QuoteBy the way, IIRC Apple still stores GPS data even if you turn that option off.
That only reinforces the point.
This is part of Apple's privacy policy that anyone who uses such a device agrees to:
QuoteWe also collect non-personal information − data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose
That means the user has exactly zero expectation to privacy in that data, which explicitly includes location data.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
My reasonable expectation of privacy is that the government does not track ANY data on me unless it has a clear purpose for a particular function of government.
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that the US government is doing otherwise.
GPS location data can definitely be used to establish a link to a specific individual. In fact, for most people a single datapoint will do, since we do tend to spend the night at home.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
My reasonable expectation of privacy is that the government does not track ANY data on me unless it has a clear purpose for a particular function of government.
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that the US government is doing otherwise.
They seem to be ignoring all the posts describing what is actually going on - the facts tend to get in the way of being concerned about big brother and all.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:27:57 PM
Perhaps they lack the recent reminder of totalitarianism. Like Zanza I find it really funny how a society can be so vocal about gun rights and totally disregard the government encroaching on their privacy.
:hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
My reasonable expectation of privacy is that the government does not track ANY data on me unless it has a clear purpose for a particular function of government.
I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that the US government is doing otherwise.
To answer you and CC: I consider what is going on - namely collecting communication profiles on millions of completely innocent people - as not having a clear purpose for a particular function of government.
Maybe you really need a court order to access this data and officially link it to a certain person. But I object to the collection itself.
If the government has nothing to hide surely it can do without this information.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
GPS location data can definitely be used to establish a link to a specific individual. In fact, for most people a single datapoint will do, since we do tend to spend the night at home.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/full/srep01376.html#auth-1
This is an article where scientists actually checked not GPS data, but rather mobile phone cell data. The movement profiles of mobile phones are almost unique and very easy to link to persons.
If the government has a complete database of these, they can track every single American owning a cellphone even months later.
They just need a court order.
Or do they in cases of "national security"? Apparently FISA orders are outnumbered 10:1 by "National Security Letters" which the FBI can issue by itself without a judge...
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 02:57:36 PM
It sounds like the "court order" in this case is something like:
"To whom it may concern,
Go ahead, take a look."
Yep do not get me wrong, it is better than nothing but...the judiciary is not exactly a super active partner here.
I have been thinking about it DG and I think you are exactly right. I can only hope these scandals get the attention of the electorate.
I have Google location tracking turned on for my profile. It's both cool and creepy to click on a calendar date and see where I was that day.
You know what's cool and creepy as well? The new Xbox has to be online for it to work. And it has an infrared (so it sees in the dark) camera with facial recognition software that can track your emotions and how you react to ads, shows, news, certain parties or politicians or your browsing history. Oh, and the mike is always on.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 04:15:46 PM
You know what's cool and creepy as well? The new Xbox has to be online for it to work. And it has an infrared (so it sees in the dark) camera with facial recognition software that can track your emotions and how you react to ads, shows, news, certain parties or politicians or your browsing history. Oh, and the mike is always on.
surely you can't be serious
Yep. Someone noticed the patents. Microsoft's response is:
QuoteMicrosoft has more than 10 years of experience making privacy a top priority
Unless you are the US government (or a contractor), obviously. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 04:17:09 PM
surely you can't be serious
He is serious. Apparently you can turn off the camera, but not the microphone - it allows you to start the Xbox with a voice command. :lol:
This is from the company that was supposedly the first to be signed up to PRISM.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 03:06:26 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/phone-call-metadata-information-authorities
Let's be clear - if you turn on your GPS function, you are advertising to your carrier and potentially to anyone who makes an application for your phone or tablet where you are. That is why (at least on iOS) the switch to turn that on and off can be found under privacy settings.
If you want a reasonable expectation of privacy re your movements, turn off your GPS/location functions.
This is good advice, but unfortunately a lot of broad location information can be garnered from where your phone is in relation to the nearest 2 or 3 cell towers and how move between subsequent cells and so forth.
29-year-old low-level IT administrator with no high school diploma earning $200k/yr. :whistle:
Quote from: Phillip V on June 10, 2013, 04:37:47 PM
29-year-old low-level IT administrator with no high school diploma earning $200k/yr. :whistle:
Yeah, that thought occurred to me. If they need people to analyze data for $200k/yr, and interesting private data at that :whistle:, I would definitely like that. I don't think CIA hires active FSB agents, though. :(
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
GPS location data can definitely be used to establish a link to a specific individual. In fact, for most people a single datapoint will do, since we do tend to spend the night at home.
And yet under Apple's policy, it is considered to be non-personal information, along with your occupation, language, zip code, area code, and unique device identifier. They can do whatever they want with it - sell it, trade it, whatever.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 04:15:46 PM
You know what's cool and creepy as well? The new Xbox has to be online for it to work. And it has an infrared (so it sees in the dark) camera with facial recognition software that can track your emotions and how you react to ads, shows, news, certain parties or politicians or your browsing history. Oh, and the mike is always on.
They've softened me up already on that. My Kinect has been sitting on top of my TV looking straight at me for two & a half years-- I barely notice it's there any more.
That said, I don't see myself pre-ordering one of these bad boys just yet.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
GPS location data can definitely be used to establish a link to a specific individual. In fact, for most people a single datapoint will do, since we do tend to spend the night at home.
And yet under Apple's policy, it is considered to be non-personal information, along with your occupation, language, zip code, area code, and unique device identifier. They can do whatever they want with it - sell it, trade it, whatever.
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
Spending the night at home? Ugh.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
GPS location data can definitely be used to establish a link to a specific individual. In fact, for most people a single datapoint will do, since we do tend to spend the night at home.
And yet under Apple's policy, it is considered to be non-personal information, along with your occupation, language, zip code, area code, and unique device identifier. They can do whatever they want with it - sell it, trade it, whatever.
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
:yes: Just because our government fucks up in one area of protecting our privacy shouldn't excuse them really fucking up in other areas of protecting our privacy.
Judging from the comments, and the posters taking sides, I have to conclude that Americans have been so successful at exporting democracy abroad that they didn't keep enough of it for internal consumption.
So I don't really believe in letting people get a pass on violating a security clearance just because it's a noble act of civil disobedience. If Snowden is captured, I'm fine with him suffering the full legal consequences. That being said, I'm also fine if he finds asylum in Iceland (apparently his ultimate goal) and don't really have any problem with what he did.
I basically think that the PRISM program appears to be entirely legal, was allowable under the terms of past legislation and is subject to periodic review by a FISA court. But I also think Snowden's act served a public good. We could argue that people should have read the legislation in question and "perceived" that such a system could be allowed, but to be honest if someone had suggested a PRISM-like system was up and running in 2011 they'd have been called nutty conspiracy theorists. I think even a lot of people that were familiar with the legislation frankly failed to predict how the government would interpret it.
That's where I think the problem lies for me, since FISA is in secret, and the administration programs are in secret, we basically were never able to have a public debate on this. Since this is just an "interpretation" of the law, and not something that I believe the average (or even sophisticated) observer could reliably deduce as a possibility from the text of the statute I do feel America was deprived the opportunity to discuss this. Now, in theory there are times when we need to be deprived of certain knowledge and information. As a check on despotism, we have standing committees in the House and Senate that are briefed on the classified stuff, and we have judicial (but secret) oversight of the programs that need to be so classified.
However, it feels like to me FISA is a rubber stamp court, and I can not even think of a single incident in which a Congressman or Senator on the Intelligence committees ever raised any sort of public outcry over particularly bad actions--so there does not appear to be appropriate legislative oversight of government clandestine acts nor has there ever been. Further, for me personally, I think the bar for keeping generalities secret can only apply when the classified action needs to be kept completely secret because of immediate concerns or because of grave strategic ones.
So, I'm fine with weapons systems being totally secret, both in their broad outlines and their specifics. I'm mostly fine with any type of foreign surveillance being conducted without or knowledge. But for general programs of surveillance in use in the United States, I think we need to have a public discourse. Further, I do not think doing so would damage the effectiveness of the system. For example as a society we generally know that in certain circumstances police can put GPS trackers on your car, or can tap into your phone lines. That doesn't reveal the specifics of any particular investigation, and nor does it remove the ability of law enforcement to use those tools. We should have had a similar discussion about PRISM. We did not need to name names of tech companies, but we could have debated specifically the idea of the persistent electronic monitoring of large tech systems with the ability of NSA analysts to run queries against the communications data.
I tend to think by and large Americans and the legislature would probably have still approved it if it had been debated openly, but since it was done in secret I think Americans will hate this program and never support it.
So basically, I'm fine with PRISM going on but think we should have had a public debate about it. I think the legislative/judicial oversights are weak-to-absent, and I think Snowden did something that was a net good but that doesn't absolve him of the consequences in my mind. My advice to him would be to get to Iceland, sign some book deals, start a foundation and give yourself a salary and be a non-perverted and more respectable version of Julian Assange.
Where PRISM needs to be significantly improved is in oversight. It's only acceptable legally because it is foreign surveillance of foreign communications that happen to be routed through American systems. But the bar for classifying communication as "foreign" or "domestic" appears to be low, and apparently significant discretion on that matter is given to low level NSA analysts. Further, it appears that the system in place to review and audit the system is essentially nothing. They collect data for whenever they "incidentally" scoop up American communications and it appears it gets piled into a quarterly report. It doesn't appear individual instances of "incidental" data collection are really looked into nor does it appear there is a trustworthy system in place to actually insure that the NSA is only monitoring "incidental" domestic communications.
My understanding is one way that American communications get scooped up, is there is an intelligence practice of going "two steps out" of a subject's circle. So if you know a terrorist is using a gmail account, you look into the communications of all of that terrorist's contacts or people he has emailed with. Then you look into all the people they've emailed with. I think that there needs to be a more regimented system in place. There needs to be a system where you can only open communications of a "primary" when it is known he is a non-American. Once that is known, you can compile a list of all first-level contacts and all second-level contacts, and then you need to categorize them by nationality. Any Americans, if you want to see their communication you either need to go through a warrant process through FISA, or if you can demonstrate some national security exigent circumstances situation you can just open their communication but you have to document your reasons for believing the exigent circumstances. After the fact, a judge has to review your decision, and if he disagrees there were genuine exigent circumstances then all the data collected for that American must be destroyed, and none of it can be used in any criminal prosecution. I think you can develop PRISM to have appropriate safeguards, but right now it is far too broad in scope with oversight two or three steps removed from where it should be. Since the FISA courts appear totally worthless from an oversight perspective I think some sort of independent inspector-general should get to audit all PRISM data collection, with a special focus on any data collected on Americans "incidentally" or any data collected on Americans under a warrant issued by FISA or under some doctrine of "exigent circumstances."
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:24:04 PM
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
Yep.
Excellent post, Otto.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
:yes:
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
Privacy policies are good deal shorter than a typically full EULA. Taking Apple's as an exemplar, it is concise and free of legalisms. Such policies are written with an attempt to balance likely customer reaction with the value to the company of being able to collect the data, which can be quite substantial. Geolocation in cell phones has been around for a long time now and I don't think it is exactly unknown to consumers. If we are going to have the government enact comprehensive protective legislation in every single area where staggering ignorance might compromise an interest, the government is going to be very busy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
Privacy policies are good deal shorter than a typically full EULA. Taking Apple's as an exemplar, it is concise and free of legalisms. Such policies are written with an attempt to balance likely customer reaction with the value to the company of being able to collect the data, which can be quite substantial. Geolocation in cell phones has been around for a long time now and I don't think it is exactly unknown to consumers. If we are going to have the government enact comprehensive protective legislation in every single area where staggering ignorance might compromise an interest, the government is going to be very busy.
You conveniently ignored the second part about the lack of power. Technically, I have the option of living in a shack in the middle of the forest, and thus cut myself entirely off the grid. Realistically, though, I'm going to have to submit myself to the spyware, whether I like it or not, unless the government steps in to protect me from what in practice amounts to coercion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
I don't have a problem with that. Just don't let them bundle said "services" with the phone/OS. If you want to sign a separate contract that clearly and unambiguously states that they are buying from you the right to collect info on every single thing that you do while you hold their phone (and what that actually means) and then sell the information and pass it on to the several governments and their contractors, I'm fine with it.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 06:00:20 PM
You conveniently ignored the second part about the lack of power. Technically, I have the option of living in a shack in the middle of the forest, and thus cut myself entirely off the grid. Realistically, though, I'm going to have to submit myself to the spyware, whether I like it or not, unless the government steps in to protect me from what in practice amounts to coercion.
That's ridiculous.
Collection of phone metadata has been an issue since Al Bell sent the first phone bill. So yes, if you want to eliminate any risk of any data being collected, you will have to go off grid. But if you are not a Mafioso or a certified nut job, this should not be a problem or concern.
Meanwhile - don't want your cell phone to track your location? Turn off the damn phone or use a prepaid.
There are lots of steps short of going full Kaczynski that one can take to reduce privacy exposure. One can live quite well without carrying around a switched on, fully apped up smartphone or tablet 24/7.
Assuming one really cares to begin with.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 06:01:12 PM
I don't have a problem with that. Just don't let them bundle said "services" with the phone/OS.
It's not a bundled service. it's a statement of the conditions under which the company is prepared to provide the service.
Look if I am wrong and you and Guller & Co are correct, there is a massive multi-billion opportunity for someone to steal huge market share in the hottest tech market that exists today, by simply offering a tablet with a very strict privacy policy. Your theory is that no one is picking up the $100 billion coin because of market failure. My theory is that the coin isn't there becaue given a choice, people would rather pay $50 less or get a snazzier user experience, at the cost of MicroApplooglazon collecting data on which Starbucks franchise they most frequent.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:12:43 PM
Judging from the comments, and the posters taking sides, I have to conclude that Americans have been so successful at exporting democracy abroad that they didn't keep enough of it for internal consumption.
:yes:
Quote from: The Brain on June 10, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
I have yet to be disappointed by a Languish poster. :)
:mad:
Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. are global companies that happen to be located in the US. They are going to end up in a competitive disadvantage if the US government has access to ordinary foreign use.
Quote from: The Brain on June 10, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM
I must say some of the posters here are a big letdown. Sheilbh especially. I have always looked up to him as a very knowledgeable fellow and greatly respected his opinion even if I disagreed. It is a total surprise for me that he would think this is a good idea.
I have yet to be disappointed by a Languish poster. :)
:) :blush:
Quote
Edward Snowden has blown the whistle on this presidency. You have to wonder: Will Obama see out his full term?
"They could pay off the Triads," says Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower interviewed by the Guardian in his Hong Kong hideout. Meaning: the CIA could use a proxy to kill him for revealing that Barack Obama has presided over an unimaginable – to the ordinary citizen – expansion of the Federal government's powers of surveillance over anyone.
Libertarians and conspiracy theorists of both Left and Right will never forget this moment. Already we have Glenn Beck hailing Snowden on Twitter:
Courage finally. Real. Steady. Thoughtful. Transparent. Willing to accept the consequences. Inspire w/Malice toward none.#edwardsnowden
Snowden will be a Right-wing hero as well as a Left-libertarian one. Why? First, he thought carefully about what he should release, avoiding (he says) material that would harm innocent individuals. Second, he's formidably articulate. Quotes like the following are pure gold for opponents of Obama who've been accusing the President of allowing the Bush-era "surveillance state" to extend its tentacles even further:
NSA is focussed on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible... Increasingly we see that it's happening domestically. The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone, it ingests them by default, it collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and its stores them for periods of time ... While they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so. Any analyst at any time can target anyone...
I do not see how Obama can talk his way out of this one. Snowden is not Bradley Manning: he's not a disturbed disco bunny but a highly articulate network security specialist who has left behind a $200,000 salary and girlfriend in Hawaii for a life on the run. He's not a sleazy opportunist like Julian Assange, either. As he says: "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
It will be very difficult for the Obama administration to portray Snowden as a traitor. For a start, I don't think US public opinion will allow it. Any explanations it offers will be drowned out by American citizens demanding to know: "So how much do you know about me and my family? How can I find out? How long have you been collecting this stuff? What are you going to do with it?"
Suddenly the worse-than-Watergate rhetoric doesn't seem overblown. And I do wonder: can a president who's presided over, and possibly encouraged, Chinese-style surveillance of The Land of the Free honestly expect to serve out his full term?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.bowsite.com%2FTF%2Fpics%2F00small41475707.JPG&hash=bb48bd36e7da1fb17c38690de1509bcdf47b8f5d)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100220938/edward-snowden-has-blown-the-whistle-on-this-presidency-you-have-to-wonder-will-obama-see-out-his-full-term/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100220938/edward-snowden-has-blown-the-whistle-on-this-presidency-you-have-to-wonder-will-obama-see-out-his-full-term/)
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
QuoteSnowden is not Bradley Manning: he's not a disturbed disco bunny ...
:D
I really want to get some drama out of this. The HK police, Chinese army, US CIA agents, secret good guys, Al Queda, all want to get hold of him one way or another. There are good looking females, gadgets, car chases etc in this script. What else can go wrong?
Today on the radio, I heard that 56% of Americans supported this program.
Quote from: Kleves on June 10, 2013, 11:03:58 PM
Today on the radio, I heard that 56% of Americans supported this program.
Only 56%? Maybe all is not lost.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 05:06:50 PM
That's the difference between you and me. You think it's fine for Apple to sell private data and hand it over to the government. I think the government should prevent Apple and from collecting and selling said data.
I think Apple, Microsoft, or Company X should be free to enter into whateve contractual arrangements that want to make with their customers with regard to data, so long as they aren't fraudulent or coercive. As a matter of observable fact, many people seem perfectly willing to accede to these arrangements (myself among them), which gives rise to obvious inferences about reasonable expectations of privacy in that data.
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
You can decide quite easily to not use iTunes or be sucked into the Apple ecosystem. Not having a Facebook account is not a disaster. It is not beyond the realms of feasibility to avoid using Gmail by purchasing one's own webspace and having one's own private mail server.
The fact is people tend to prefer convenience to the jealous guarding of all their details. Whether that is right or wrong is beside the point; people understand what information they are granting to private actors because it's right their on the sign-up form. And, at least here in the UK, firms have to clearly state what they may do with this data.
I suspect your real disagreement is with other consumers who don't place the same value on a particular subset of privacy that you do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
Privacy policies are good deal shorter than a typically full EULA. Taking Apple's as an exemplar, it is concise and free of legalisms. Such policies are written with an attempt to balance likely customer reaction with the value to the company of being able to collect the data, which can be quite substantial. Geolocation in cell phones has been around for a long time now and I don't think it is exactly unknown to consumers. If we are going to have the government enact comprehensive protective legislation in every single area where staggering ignorance might compromise an interest, the government is going to be very busy.
Not really, we have such laws in Sweden. DG has a point that you fail to adress in your reply; the entering into contract is not between two equal partners, and the only option is to refuse the service altogether. Considering how important an internet access and a phone is in everyday life, refusing service is not a realistic alternative. Which leaves consumer protection legislation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 06:01:12 PM
I don't have a problem with that. Just don't let them bundle said "services" with the phone/OS.
Look if I am wrong and you and Guller & Co are correct, there is a massive multi-billion opportunity for someone to steal huge market share in the hottest tech market that exists today, by simply offering a tablet with a very strict privacy policy. Your theory is that no one is picking up the $100 billion coin because of market failure. My theory is that the coin isn't there becaue given a choice, people would rather pay $50 less or get a snazzier user experience, at the cost of MicroApplooglazon collecting data on which Starbucks franchise they most frequent.
No, you are actually twice wrong. DG is right but there is no such market because no one can realistically expect to build a new Google or Facebook right now. And even if they did the "no spying" promise is worthless since the consumer can never know if it is true or not, regardless what the new company promises in its EULA or whatever.
Well, at the end of the day, Facebook and iAmawesome is not REQUIRED to be had. You have an option to decline.
I would not want government stepping into contracts deciding what's fair and what not, not on this level for sure.
And this is completely beside the original issue, which is the 1984ish level of detailed oversight they are building over every mundane details of our lives.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 06:22:35 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2013, 05:39:49 PM
IMO, this kind of thinking makes no sense. Individuals have no negotiating power, and no realistic option to refuse to use all services that can potentially spy on them. They also have a pretty limited ability to comprehend the 40-page legalistic snowjob that Apple calls EUA. The main reason for government regulations protecting consumers is the fact that consumers have neither the power nor the expertise to make truly informed decisions in many areas.
Privacy policies are good deal shorter than a typically full EULA. Taking Apple's as an exemplar, it is concise and free of legalisms. Such policies are written with an attempt to balance likely customer reaction with the value to the company of being able to collect the data, which can be quite substantial. Geolocation in cell phones has been around for a long time now and I don't think it is exactly unknown to consumers. If we are going to have the government enact comprehensive protective legislation in every single area where staggering ignorance might compromise an interest, the government is going to be very busy.
Not really, we have such laws in Sweden. DG has a point that you fail to adress in your reply; the entering into contract is not between two equal partners, and the only option is to refuse the service altogether. Considering how important an internet access and a phone is in everyday life, refusing service is not a realistic alternative. Which leaves consumer protection legislation.
Neither Facebook nor Google are important to everyday life: they are useful, but not important. There are plenty of alternatives to the Google ecosystem, and Facebook is just an elaborate time-wasting scheme. It's emphatically not equivalent to the importance of a phone line, no matter what the Silicon Valley technologists spout on about.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2013, 06:42:19 AM
Well, at the end of the day, Facebook and iAmawesome is not REQUIRED to be had. You have an option to decline.
Maybe you do have the option to decline. You also have the option to not drive, so traffic laws are an unnecessary imposition on your freedom as well. However, realistically speaking, the cost of refusing such services is too high, and thus consumers are forced to accept some shit in the bundle.
Quote
I would not want government stepping into contracts deciding what's fair and what not, not on this level for sure.
That's the difference between liberals like me and libertarians like you. I support the tyranny of the government when it used to actually increase or supplement the power of regular citizens. I only oppose the tyranny of the government when it used against the regular citizens. Libertarians oppose it in all cases, which often just imposes a different and less accountable level of tyranny upon regular citizens.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 07:18:04 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2013, 06:42:19 AM
Well, at the end of the day, Facebook and iAmawesome is not REQUIRED to be had. You have an option to decline.
Maybe you do have the option to decline. You also have the option to not drive, so traffic laws are an unnecessary imposition on your freedom as well. However, realistically speaking, the cost of refusing such services is too high, and thus consumers are forced to accept some shit in the bundle.
You are equating Facebook with driving a car?
QuoteThat's the difference between liberals like me and libertarians like you. I support the tyranny of the government when it used to actually increase or supplement the power of regular citizens. make sure people act in the manner that I've decided they really ought to act if they were as smart as me.
FYP.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 07:18:04 AM
I only oppose the tyranny of the government when it used against the regular citizens.
Telling regular citizens they are not allowed to enter into mutually beneficial and agreeable contracts with other regular citizens is not using the tyranny of the government against them?
Sure seems that way to me.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 07:25:52 AM
QuoteThat's the difference between liberals like me and libertarians like you. I support the tyranny of the government when it used to actually increase or supplement the power of regular citizens. make sure people act in the manner that I've decided they really ought to act if they were as smart as me.
FYP.
:face:
too true
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 07:25:52 AM
You are equating Facebook with driving a car?
No, I'm equating having a cell phone with driving a car.
Quote
QuoteThat's the difference between liberals like me and libertarians like you. I support the tyranny of the government when it used to actually increase or supplement the power of regular citizens. make sure people act in the manner that I've decided they really ought to act if they were as smart as me.
FYP.
Don't be a cunt.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 07:39:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 07:25:52 AM
You are equating Facebook with driving a car?
No, I'm equating having a cell phone with driving a car.
Quote
QuoteThat's the difference between liberals like me and libertarians like you. I support the tyranny of the government when it used to actually increase or supplement the power of regular citizens. make sure people act in the manner that I've decided they really ought to act if they were as smart as me.
FYP.
Don't be a cunt.
well that might not be very true for you personally, but it is VERY true for how these moral state interventions actually work and why they are desired.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Telling regular citizens they are not allowed to enter into mutually beneficial and agreeable contracts with other regular citizens is not using the tyranny of the government against them?
But it is not the same since a company is not a regular citizen. Two regular citizens would indeed be a contract between two equal parties, while a contract between a regular citizen and a multi billion dollar-company armed to the teeth with lawyers is not.
Quote
Sure seems that way to me.
Ok, but as we have seen, you are basing your opinion on a faulty assumption.
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
:yes:
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 07:58:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 07:27:05 AM
Telling regular citizens they are not allowed to enter into mutually beneficial and agreeable contracts with other regular citizens is not using the tyranny of the government against them?
But it is not the same since a company is not a regular citizen.
Who gets to define when a regular citizen, or group thereof, becomes a company, and hence I am no longer allowed by Big Brother to enter into contracts with them?
Quote
Two regular citizens would indeed be a contract between two equal parties, while a contract between a regular citizen and a multi billion dollar-company armed to the teeth with lawyers is not.
I see - so what if it is a small company, with just a few lawyers?
What if I am a "regular citizen" worth a couple billion myself - can I enter into contracts with a small company, or should the state decide that it isn't allowed without their oversight as well?
Why should we assume that some politicians will be better able to decide for every single individual what would be a better way of them entering into contracts?
Why would anyone assume that involving the state in the contract would somehow create a more fair deal for the "regular citizen" - certianly the state has interests as well, and they are even MORE powerful in many ways than the "regular citizen" and also have a history of using that power to fuck Mr. Regular Citizen. Why should I assume that the DGuller is going to negotiate a better deal for me than I can negotiate for myself?
More importantly, why should I assume that DGuller and his like are so much smarter than me, that not only can they make a better deal for me, they can do so in *ALL* cases, such that I should not even be allowed to make such deals?
Quote
Quote
Sure seems that way to me.
Ok, but as we have seen, you are basing your opinion on a faulty assumption.
No, I am basing it in exactly what is being proposed. You can hide the reality in the cloak of DoubleSpeak if you like, but at the end of the day what you are demanding is that individuals right to make contracts that they wnat to make ought to be restricted, and in fact the State should be the one to make those contracts for them.
And somehow this is going to be better for the "regular citizens".
Now, I don't think the reality is as stark as either of us are making it out to be - it is hardly an all or nothing proposition.
But the State coming in and restricting the rights of "regular citizens" to enter into contracts that they fully understand and agree to is a rather immense imposition on personal liberty, and should bear with a very serious weight of proving compelling interest, and a clear and obvious screwing over of said regular citizens. And if that was happening, then it should be no difficulty at all in making that clear and we would see swift action taken.
ok so somebody have a service that you want, but you are not ready to accept the terms they are offering those services with, because you find them unfair.
Is that really an acceptable excuse for legislative intervention on a contract between private actors?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.bowsite.com%2FTF%2Fpics%2F00small41475707.JPG&hash=bb48bd36e7da1fb17c38690de1509bcdf47b8f5d)
Neil just threw up a little.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!
How is expecting or asking the government to
regulate big business in anyway 'people giving up power' to the government?
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2013, 08:11:46 AM
ok so somebody have a service that you want, but you are not ready to accept the terms they are offering those services with, because you find them unfair.
Is that really an acceptable excuse for legislative intervention on a contract between private actors?
Absolutely. They should pass a law demanding that Apple provide services on the terms that DGuller and other extremely smart people who know better than the peasants what they need define as beneficial to them.
You know what is another issue with these kinds of "deals" with Apple and the like? The cost. It is WAY too high.
And it's not like a regular citizen has any power to negotiate the cost with these giant companies and the way they dominate the market so they can charge these ridiculous rates. While the benevolent hand of the government takes a break from spying on us to enact legislation restricting our right to enter into contracts with the Evil Corporations, they should also go ahead and decide amongst themselves what the "right" cost for those services ought to be, and make sure we don't have to pay more than that for our iPhones and such. Personally, I think $15/month is plenty to pay for an iPhone and data service. The state should mandate prices as well as contracts.
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2013, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!
How is expecting or asking the government to regulate big business in anyway 'people giving up power' to the government?
The proposition is that the government ought to pass a law mandating that regular citizens NOT be allowed to enter into a contract with some segment of businesses. If you don't understand how that is giving up power to the government, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:18:07 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2013, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!
How is expecting or asking the government to regulate big business in anyway 'people giving up power' to the government?
The proposition is that the government ought to pass a law mandating that regular citizens NOT be allowed to enter into a contract with some segment of businesses. If you don't understand how that is giving up power to the government, I don't think there is anything I can do to explain it to you.
That's not the sole topic in this thread, that was DG points about entering into a privacy contract; myself and Iormlund are addressing the boarder issue.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
The alternatives to Google in the phone OS market are Apple and Microsoft. All three are in PRISM.
The alternatives in the search market are once again Microsoft and Yahoo. Again all in the program.
It's really funny seeing blind faith in both the government and Teh Market in the same thread, by the same people.
What is ironic is that the same people arguing that the government is screwing the people by spying on them, then instantly turn around and argue that the people should give up MORE power to that very same government so it can protect them from big business spying on them!
And if you read other people's posts instead of "fixing" them, you would find out a perfectly consistent ideology driving such views. The government should empower people, and empowering them includes giving them a real option when it comes to contracts of adhesion for vital services.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:11:32 AM
Who gets to define when a regular citizen, or group thereof, becomes a company, and hence I am no longer allowed by Big Brother to enter into contracts with them?
Why, Im glad you asked Berkut, that would be the legislature. Which in turn is selected through democratic elections.
And you, as a corporation, are not prohibited from entering into contracts with regular citizens, you are just prohibited to enter into unfair contracts who take advantage of them. Basically you are prohibited from using your standing/situation to take unfair advantage of consumers who have little or no possibility to protect their own interests in a contract negotiation with you. This is especially true if your opinion of a contract negotiation consists of you posting a 50-page document on your webpage with two options for the consumer, along the lines of "accept" or "log out".
Consumer protection laws exist to protect consumers. A consumer is easily identified as such by being a physical person buying goods or services from a business, large or small. So, a lawyer can be a consumer, while a group of lawyers cannot. But really, all that part of your post is just blah really. And instead of you posting alot of cunning examples trying to undermine the principle I just outlined, just skip that part and rest assured there are fully functioning laws with working definitions of consumers and businessess etc. Focus on the principle.
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2013, 08:21:26 AM
That's not the sole topic in this thread, that was DG points about entering into a privacy contract; myself and Iormlund are addressing the boarder issue.
Virtually all government regulation restricts choice. Let's say that some consumers are perfectly happy depositing their money at a bank that charges outrageous overdraft fees, because they watch their balance carefully and are either indifferent to the fees or believe other attributes of the bank compensate for them. A regulation that caps overdraft fees takes away a choice that people were previously making.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:30:10 AM
Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.
Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:30:10 AM
Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.
That is true. However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have. What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement. In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion; at least I get to vote occasionally.
I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.
But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.
Like I said, why don't we legislate the price while we are at it? I am just as unfairly restrained from negotiating the price of my contract for my cell phone as I am the services - it is pretty much the same offer. Take it or leave it. If I leave it, I can go to some other provider, where the prices will also be take it or leave it.
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair? You are defining "unfair" as any deal where the one party is not interested in actually negotiating with every single individual, and then using that as your justification to get the state involved in deciding what is "fair" for that deal. Of course, that won't give the consumer any more choice either - they will still have to hit "Accept or log out", the only difference being the state gets to decide what they are accepting or not instead of the business. The state cannot force companies to do something that is categorically impossible to do - negotiate individually with consumers, which seems to be the crux of the issue here.
So the solution in this case is no better, on the merits of justifying intervention, than the problem to begin with, and almost certainly worse, because the state is almost certainly incapable of actually rationally and reasonable deciding what WOULD be a "fair" fair use policy for every company across multiple technologies that are constantly changing.
You will still be left with a consumer who has no ability to negotiate, but now the state is involved as well.
Which isn't to say that it should never be done, just that it should be done pretty damn conservatively. Which, by the way, is exactly how it works right now. There are in fact laws in place that deal with fair use rules, and what companies can and cannot ask consumers to do, and what they can and cannot actually do in response regardless of what consumers actually sign.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.
The tradeoff is accepting laws that limit destructive behavior, like murder and theft.
We're talking about contracts that harm no one else, and which both parties are happy to enter in to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:40:07 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
Indeed. And that restriction of choices, or restriction of freedom if you will, is the tradeoff we all accept when we chose to live in a nation state instead of in a place like Somalia.
The tradeoff is accepting laws that limit destructive behavior, like murder and theft.
No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.
Quote
We're talking about contracts that harm no one else, and which both parties are happy to enter in to.
In that case, we are not talking about consumer protection laws...
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:30:10 AM
Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.
That is true. However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have. What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement. In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion; at least I get to vote occasionally.
I think everyone understands that people can be coerced without the government.
The issue here is not lack of understanding, it is the different weight different people apply to the value of individual liberty, and the different respect people have for the rights of individuals to make choices - even bad choices. We are all social animals, and hence make collective decisions at some level. The issue is at what level, and where the bar for deciding when collective action is necessary even if it does in fact impinge on individual freedom.
Or rather, choices that some people think are bad, because they honestly and fervently believe that they are smarter than everyone else so much so that they ought to be able to make choices for others.
That is the fundamental struggle here. The struggle between those who think an enlightened elite will make better choices for everyone versus those who think that individuals will make better choices for themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 08:39:03 AM
ndividuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.
But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.
No, it is not an imagined unfairness. It is an unfairness. Period. Otherwise the consumer protection law does not apply. Perhaps that is where you go wrong in your argument.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:46:18 AM
No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.
Then you are talking about a choice, and not an inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state.
Quote
In that case, we are not talking about consumer protection laws...
I don't follow.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:46:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 11, 2013, 08:39:03 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:30:10 AM
Virtually all government regulation restricts choice.
That is true. However, sometimes it merely restricts it in a different way than free market does, rather than reduce the number of real options you have. What radical free marketeers and libertarians don't understand is that individuals can be effectively coerced without a government involvement. In such cases, I would certainly prefer for the government to take over the coercion; at least I get to vote occasionally.
I think everyone understands that people can be coerced without the government.
The issue here is not lack of understanding, it is the different weight different people apply to the value of individual liberty, and the different respect people have for the rights of individuals to make choices - even bad choices. We are all social animals, and hence make collective decisions at some level. The issue is at what level, and where the bar for deciding when collective action is necessary even if it does in fact impinge on individual freedom.
Or rather, choices that some people think are bad, because they honestly and fervently believe that they are smarter than everyone else so much so that they ought to be able to make choices for others.
That is the fundamental struggle here. The struggle between those who think an enlightened elite will make better choices for everyone versus those who think that individuals will make better choices for themselves.
Jesus, you're fucking impossible sometimes. I'm not in the mood to do the whole "build a strawman, expose a strawman" dance that every attempt to honestly discuss issues with you degenerates into. I'm done here.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:49:09 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.
But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.
No, it is not an imagined unfairness. It is an unfairness. Period. Otherwise the consumer protection law does not apply. Perhaps that is where you go wrong in your argument.
Even if I grant that it is unfair, it would be based on the terms you've defined as "unfair". Which are not a consequence of any decision made by the big, mean company, but simply as the reality of the relationship. It is just as unfair that when I drive up to Wendy's, they pretty much tell me take it or leave it as far as the price and conditions under which they will sell me a cheeseburger. Of course, there are massive consumer protection laws around that as well - but not a one of them forces Wendy's to negotiate anything with me.
That means that it is actually not even possible for the company to make a "fair" deal. Even if the government steps in and mandates the deal, it is still nor fair, since by your definition of what makes it unfair (lack of the consumer ability to negotiate the deal) they still cannot do so, absent a law that forces Apple to individually negotiate with consumers, which of course isn't even possible law or not.
Your solution doesn't even solve the problem you claim exists. As I pointed out, and you so conveniently simply edited out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:46:18 AM
No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.
Then you are talking about a choice, and not an inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state.
The inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state is to have your freedom restricted. The extent of those restrictions is determined by the legislature and (in a democracy) accepted or modified through elections. You do not have a choise in this equation, other than the "accept it or move", but you do have a vote.
Quote
I don't follow.
Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:54:07 AM
The inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state is to have your freedom restricted. The extent of those restrictions is determined by the legislature and (in a democracy) accepted or modified through elections. You do not have a choise in this equation, other than the "accept it or move", but you do have a vote.
Sure. And in a democratic society we can choose which freedoms to limit.
Quote
Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.
Either your definition of "unfair" is highly negotiable or this statement is patently false.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 06:22:35 AM
Not really, we have such laws in Sweden. DG has a point that you fail to adress in your reply; the entering into contract is not between two equal partners, and the only option is to refuse the service altogether. Considering how important an internet access and a phone is in everyday life, refusing service is not a realistic alternative. Which leaves consumer protection legislation.
If the logic behind this view were honestly extended to other areas, then my statement that government would be overwhelmed would be true. Because any contract between a business entity and an ordinary individual is "not between two equal partners." There are always risks of coercion and manipulation. If one is going to take this logic seriously, then the government needs to step in and set the terms of every consumer contract, at least in any industry dominated by big players, which is many industries indeed. The fact that the EU and its constituent nations have chosen to focus so heavily on data privacy issues (at the same time as the horsemeat scandal revealed weaknesses in the food regulation regime, to take just one example) is as much a reflection of the lack of a strong domestic tech lobby as the objective importance of matters being regulated.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:53:59 AM
Even if I grant that it is unfair, it would be based on the terms you've defined as "unfair". Which are not a consequence of any decision made by the big, mean company, but simply as the reality of the relationship. It is just as unfair that when I drive up to Wendy's, they pretty much tell me take it or leave it as far as the price and conditions under which they will sell me a cheeseburger. Of course, there are massive consumer protection laws around that as well - but not a one of them forces Wendy's to negotiate anything with me.
You are confusing several different types of consumer protection laws here. Lets take your Wendys example. You are protected by laws that make sure that the food served is eatable, cooked under a reasonable standard of hygiene. But in your Wendys example, you would not be protected by consumer protection laws if, for example, Wendys decided to take $100 for a burger. As long as they informed you of that price on the menu. Price is rarely ever covered in a consumer protection law, but what is covered is if the company slaps you with an extra service fee.
For example, you go to Wendys and order a burger for $10. On the back side on the bottom of the menu there is a block of small-print writing that you didnt read. You get your burger, eat it, but when the bill arrives, you are charged with $110. What is this? You ask, it said $10 on the menu. Yes, is the reply, but the service fee is $100 on a wednesday after 5pm, it says so right there on the back of the menu in the small-print. But I didnt see that and I did not accept that, you say. Oh, but it is not our fault that you do not read the entire offer we made you through our menu, is it?
I edited out lots of stuff in your post because it was irrelevant to what a consumer protection law is or what I am trying to say. Price is not an issue unless the consumer was misled or otherwise could not reasonably be expected to understand what the company was charging in extra fees etc. You missunderstand when you think this is about the ability to negotiate or that it would prevent the company to make a profit etc.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?
Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?
Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:54:07 AM
Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.
The Berkut-Yi objection is sound: "unfair advantage" is very vague and elastic; how does it not default to simply being whatever you subjectively think is wrong?
The touchstone for consumer protection should be an analysis of the market and evidence of market failure. For example, the government is heavily involved in food safety regulation because the monitoring costs of the huge, complex food supply chain are so heavy no individual consumer could hope to undertake them, and due to those complexities as well as the incentives of individual producers to mispresent their activities, it is more effective and effiecient for a centralized authority with strong investigative and enforcement powers to assume that function.
The sale of ordinary consumer electronics like a television or a radio is less in need of heavy government regulation - these are products consumers can try out in a store and are within their ken; independent consumer reviews are easily available for those interest, and strong competition between producers keeps prices down and improves quality, reliability and feature sets.
So my question would be - what is the evidence for market failure in the apparent weakness of privacy policies for phones and tablets? One of two things could be going on here: either the (1) evil tech companies are conspiring to undermine privacy and duping gullible consumers, or (2) each of these companies is making a separate decision in calibrating their policies that their ability to use data to lower cost and improve the reliability and feature set of their products is more attractive to consumers than a stronger privacy regime. And if (2) is true, than having the government step in and force the companies to change their policies leaves both producer and consumers worse off. So the case for intervention depends on showing that (1) is more likely than (2). I don't see the evidence for that. Indeed, it seems to me the evidence is the contrary - because barriers to entry are relatively low, if (1) were true, and a strong demand for more robust privacy policies existed, a new entrant would exploit that demand with a product-service offering that fulfills it, complete with a big advertising campaign lambasting the competion. And yet we do not see that.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?
Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Yes, it's that easy. Which explains why all over the civilized world there are no laws pertaining the matter ... oh wait!!
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
What if all doctors and lawyers sell your data?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:20:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?
Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Yes, it's that easy. Which explains why all over the civilized world there are no laws pertaining the matter ... oh wait!!
Nobody is arguing that there aren't laws. Who are you arguing with?
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 09:05:10 AM
For example, you go to Wendys and order a burger for $10. On the back side on the bottom of the menu there is a block of small-print writing that you didnt read. You get your burger, eat it, but when the bill arrives, you are charged with $110. What is this? You ask, it said $10 on the menu. Yes, is the reply, but the service fee is $100 on a wednesday after 5pm, it says so right there on the back of the menu in the small-print. But I didnt see that and I did not accept that, you say. Oh, but it is not our fault that you do not read the entire offer we made you through our menu, is it?
Good example.
What the example suggests is the need of a contract regime where parties are required to be explicit and clear about the terms and conditions.
In the data privacy context that would mean requiring the seller to state their privacy policy in reasonably clear terms.
But of course that already exists. That is the very thing that you and DGuller find insufficient.
What you are proposing instead is that the government set the substantive terms for the contract of the sale of the burger, not just the disclosure. So to take your example, let's say Wendys does charge a premium price at particular times of the day to reflect peak demand. The appropriate analogy here would be a government rule forbidding the premium pricing as unfairly exploitative to consumers who have only a limited choice of fast food burgers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 09:19:14 AMbecause barriers to entry are relatively low ...
Wait what? Barriers are low to become an ISP or develop a phone OS? If it's that easy to dethrone Google as a search engine how do you explain its de facto monopoly status? Or Microsofts in the PC OS market?
If monopoly status is what defines your indicator for a issue, then surely the cellular phone market is in good shape - I have MANY choices when it comes to what cellular phone I want to purchase.
On a slightly related topic: just saw pics of Snowden's dancer girlfriend. Holy crap!
Going from banging that girl on a regular basis to (at best) a life on the run. Now that's commitment to freedom.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:32:19 AM
If monopoly status is what defines your indicator for a issue, then surely the cellular phone market is in good shape - I have MANY choices when it comes to what cellular phone I want to purchase.
:huh: At least here you have 3 choices in the OS market: Google, Apple and Microsoft. Guess how many of those will protect your privacy ...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 09:19:14 AM
The Berkut-Yi objection is sound: "unfair advantage" is very vague and elastic; how does it not default to simply being whatever you subjectively think is wrong?
Through the wordings of the legislation and the practice by the courts.
Quote
The touchstone for consumer protection should be an analysis of the market and evidence of market failure.
But then you would not adress the Wendy example-type situations, right?
Quote
So my question would be - what is the evidence for market failure in the apparent weakness of privacy policies for phones and tablets?
There are two answers to this question. One, I do not agree that only market faliure can justify consumer protection laws. Two, if I would have to argue for a market faliure I would argue that the consumer cannot make an informed choise regarding the privacy policies for phones and tablets. This because the user agreement is written in such a language and presented in such a fashion (massive block of legal text that invites the reader to skip reading it by providing an easily accessible box to click without even needing to scroll through the entire text before the box becomes active) that it is not reasonable to expect that an average consumer can fully understand the contract and its implications.
Quote
One of two things could be going on here: either the (1) evil tech companies are conspiring to undermine privacy and duping gullible consumers, or (2) each of these companies is making a separate decision in calibrating their policies that their ability to use data to lower cost and improve the reliability and feature set of their products is more attractive to consumers than a stronger privacy regime. And if (2) is true, than having the government step in and force the companies to change their policies leaves both producer and consumers worse off. So the case for intervention depends on showing that (1) is more likely than (2). I don't see the evidence for that. Indeed, it seems to me the evidence is the contrary - because barriers to entry are relatively low, if (1) were true, and a strong demand for more robust privacy policies existed, a new entrant would exploit that demand with a product-service offering that fulfills it, complete with a big advertising campaign lambasting the competion. And yet we do not see that.
We dont see that because up until recently, most end-users of smartphones were not aware of the extent of the monitoring going on. Also, most end-users, of for example Google, believed that the company was telling the truth when it was saying they only logged search-patterns that were not tied to individuals.
This part of your post is a false dichtonomy (I think that is the correct term in english) because it rests on flawed premises.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 09:05:10 AM
For example, you go to Wendys and order a burger for $10. On the back side on the bottom of the menu there is a block of small-print writing that you didnt read. You get your burger, eat it, but when the bill arrives, you are charged with $110. What is this? You ask, it said $10 on the menu. Yes, is the reply, but the service fee is $100 on a wednesday after 5pm, it says so right there on the back of the menu in the small-print. But I didnt see that and I did not accept that, you say. Oh, but it is not our fault that you do not read the entire offer we made you through our menu, is it?
Good example.
What the example suggests is the need of a contract regime where parties are required to be explicit and clear about the terms and conditions.
In the data privacy context that would mean requiring the seller to state their privacy policy in reasonably clear terms.
But of course that already exists. That is the very thing that you and DGuller find insufficient.
What you are proposing instead is that the government set the substantive terms for the contract of the sale of the burger, not just the disclosure. So to take your example, let's say Wendys does charge a premium price at particular times of the day to reflect peak demand. The appropriate analogy here would be a government rule forbidding the premium pricing as unfairly exploitative to consumers who have only a limited choice of fast food burgers.
But that is not how the consumer protection laws work over here.
To use this example, by our law, Wendys would not be allowed to charge the consumer $110 because they had given the impression that the price was $10, and the hidden fees would just be ignored by the court. So, Wendys would be perfectly allowed to serve burgers at $110, but they would have to put the entire cost of the product/service together in one place where it is not easy to miss it or missunderstand it.
I am not arguing for some socialistic nightmare where the government dictates what price a product can be sold for. What our consumer protection law means is that you protect the consumer from being exploited in an unfair way, like the Wendys example.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:28:40 AM
Wait what? Barriers are low to become an ISP or develop a phone OS? If it's that easy to dethrone Google as a search engine how do you explain its de facto monopoly status? Or Microsofts in the PC OS market?
Seriously?
ISPs - there are still hundreds of these in the US, despite consolidation
Phone OS - I don't see the relevance of this category. As it happens, there is a very popular open source OS for mobile devices, which therefore makes it very easy for new entrants. If for some reason a company wanted to develop its own phone OS, it would be well within the capability of a decent sized tech company. Although it would be easier just to buy one - for example LG just bought the Palm OS from Hewlett-Packard.
Search engines - your comment actually acknowledges the ease of entry and widespread competition. The source of Google's market strength I think is pretty clear and has nothing to do with barriers to entry which are virtually non-existent.
PC OS - comments above apply here as well.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:36:48 AM
:huh: At least here you have 3 choices in the OS market: Google, Apple and Microsoft. Guess how many of those will protect your privacy ...
There is no Google OS. There is Android, which is available by open source licensing and whose license permits modifications. Including providing whatever strength privacy and security regime the developer wishes to offer.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
Through the wordings of the legislation and the practice by the courts.
So what's the wording of the legislation?
And if were are talking about the EU - the practice of the courts is not that helpful because the court rulings are not precedential.
QuoteBut then you would not adress the Wendy example-type situations, right?
Your Wendy's hypo is dealt with by contract law - there is no contract because buyer was never informed of the terms and thus there was no meeting of the mind.
of course I don't have any problem with a disclosure regime that requires clear notification of material terms of the contract.
Those protections already exist and yet they are not sufficient for you.
More later, gonna tell NSA that I need a haircut.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 10:01:18 AM
More later, gonna tell NSA that I need a haircut.
They already know :contract:
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
We dont see that because up until recently, most end-users of smartphones were not aware of the extent of the monitoring going on. Also, most end-users, of for example Google, believed that the company was telling the truth when it was saying they only logged search-patterns that were not tied to individuals.
If the problem is consumer ignorance, then a competitor could have made a mint with an advertising campaign revealing the perfidy of Big Tech and promoting their own alternative, privacy-protecting service. It's not like competitive advertising is unknown in this space. Samsung has attacked iPhone for its speed, battery life, and screen size. They have even mocked the "Apple culture". If there was money to be made offering a superior data privacy option, I doubt highly competitors would be shy about making sure customers found out the relevant facts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 09:57:11 AM
So what's the wording of the legislation?
Well, its a law, so I cant really go into all the specifics. But basically there is one consumer protection law dealing with the purchase of goods, and one dealing with the purchase of services, and another dealing with acquiring loans etc. They state roughly the same that the "normal" purchase of goods-law and purchase of services-law, with some changes to the benefit of the buyer. For example what constitutes a defect in the goods. Say you buy a car. If you are a company buying a car, and the car turns out to be defect in some way, caveat emptor applies. But if you are a consumer buying a car, and the car turns out to be defect in some way, you can either cancel the purchase or demand that the seller fixes the problem without cost to you. Etc, its lots of things really, but basically, the consumer protection laws tilts the balance between the contracting parties in the favor of the consumer.
Quote
And if were are talking about the EU - the practice of the courts is not that helpful because the court rulings are not precedential.
God no. This is national law.
Quote
Your Wendy's hypo is dealt with by contract law - there is no contract because buyer was never informed of the terms and thus there was no meeting of the mind.
Ok, there you have your argument that invalidates the privacy agreements with tablets and smartphones then.
Quote
of course I don't have any problem with a disclosure regime that requires clear notification of material terms of the contract.
Those protections already exist and yet they are not sufficient for you.
That they are not sufficient in their current form and regarding this situation should not be in dispute. No?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 10:06:42 AM
If the problem is consumer ignorance, then a competitor could have made a mint with an advertising campaign revealing the perfidy of Big Tech and promoting their own alternative, privacy-protecting service. It's not like competitive advertising is unknown in this space. Samsung has attacked iPhone for its speed, battery life, and screen size. They have even mocked the "Apple culture". If there was money to be made offering a superior data privacy option, I doubt highly competitors would be shy about making sure customers found out the relevant facts.
That data is incredibly valuable to phone providers for marketing purposes. I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in publicizing it any more than they have to.
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
That data is incredibly valuable to phone providers for marketing purposes. I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in publicizing it any more than they have to.
Joan's obvious point is that if demand existed, a competitor should be very interested in publicizing it.
I am not sure where I stand on the regulation issue. There do not seem to be any good options.
Same goes for my job. :(
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:34:33 AM
On a slightly related topic: just saw pics of Snowden's dancer girlfriend. Holy crap!
Going from banging that girl on a regular basis to (at best) a life on the run. Now that's commitment to freedom.
In general I agree with the point of view that this program is bullshit. I also think it is counterproductive to US interests, regardless of the freedom angle.
However, I tend to take a suspicious view toward whistleblowers even if they are working for a good cause. This guy is now an international celebrity with a large number of people considering him a hero. He probably can capitalize on that notoriety. His life on the run may consist of living in some really nice places (or he may expect that at least).
He could have made the calculation that this is better than punching a timeclock in anonymity until he turns 65.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that? What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge? Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2013, 10:41:08 AM
agree with the point of view that this program is bullshit. I also think it is counterproductive to US interests, regardless of the freedom angle.
How is having all this information easily available possibly be bad except for the whole freedom and privacy thing? This only hurts my interests as a private citizen, it seems to greatly increase the power and effectiveness of the US.
QuoteHowever, I tend to take a suspicious view toward whistleblowers even if they are working for a good cause. This guy is now an international celebrity with a large number of people considering him a hero. He probably can capitalize on that notoriety. His life on the run may consist of living in some really nice places (or he may expect that at least).
He could have made the calculation that this is better than punching a timeclock in anonymity until he turns 65.
Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent? Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 10:29:01 AM
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
That data is incredibly valuable to phone providers for marketing purposes. I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in publicizing it any more than they have to.
Joan's obvious point is that if demand existed, a competitor should be very interested in publicizing it.
Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2013, 11:14:24 AM
Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?
Apparently not.
Quote from: frunk on June 11, 2013, 11:14:24 AM
Are enough people willing to pay a sufficient amount to the providers that it would be worth more to them than the revenue opportunities of the data?
And then wouldn't the providers only be protecting those who have enough to pay for the privilege?
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 09:39:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 09:19:14 AM
The Berkut-Yi objection is sound: "unfair advantage" is very vague and elastic; how does it not default to simply being whatever you subjectively think is wrong?
Through the wordings of the legislation and the practice by the courts.
You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?
Tell me, why is it that the democratic process is healthy when it supports a notion you support but is vile and broken when it doesn't? :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent? Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?
This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred. Given a complete lack of such information and a the fact he can only point to theoretical possibilities of abuse makes the motivation for his disclosure a lot more dubious.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:07:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that? What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge? Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?
In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:26:07 AM
You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?
No, I mean the Swedish legislation and courts. Read back in the thread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:29:14 AM
This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred.
wow...just... :huh:
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:07:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that? What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge? Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?
In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?
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.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:29:14 AM
This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred.
wow...just... :huh:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:07:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
Basically I agree except...well if he is doing that secretly how exactly would you know to do that? What if he had been doing that for years without your knowledge? Get in your time machine and go make a different choice?
In that case he is breaking the law and I can sue him for breach of contract, right?
If that is the case I look forward to coming lawsuits against Verizon.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 11:29:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:26:07 AM
You mean the very same legistature and courts which have given sanction to what is occuring?
No, I mean the Swedish legislation and courts. Read back in the thread.
Forgive me. I thought you were arguing that US legislators and Courts should adopt the same measures. If all you are saying is that you have some variant of law the US does not have then I am not sure what relevance your point has to the application of US law.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:33:37 AM
If that is the case I look forward to coming lawsuits against Verizon.
You may have missed the point that Verizon and others were not selling the data but were giving the data pursuant to a Court Order.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
Unless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent? Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?
This particularly whistleblower would be a lot more credible if he could point to an actual abuse which has occurred. Given a complete lack of such information and a the fact he can only point to theoretical possibilities of abuse makes the motivation for his disclosure a lot more dubious.
For the moment, I am not going to question his motives. He seems like he is someone operating from the perspective of what we would hope someone in his position would be operating from - a genuine desire to do what he sees as right.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but I did see something last night that concerned me a lot about the level of oversight being used. The Feds asked the court for somewhere around 2000 requests to peruse this data last year. And the FISA court approved every single request, without exception.
Now, that could be because the Feds are so perfectly well dialed into what is acceptable and not that they don't even make requests that are pushing the bounds of what is ok. I find that hard to believe though. In fact, I almost would say that if they were doing so, they were not really doing their job. To some extent, I almost want to executive to be pushing the bounds of the grey area, in order to make sure the courts understand where exactly the line is at - it should be a little bit of an adversarial relationship.
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.
In the last 72 hours, my position on this has shifted a bit.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:30:43 AM
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:
QuoteThe 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.
Vietnam has elephant grass. Stand tall and proud. :)
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 11:35:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 11:35:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:47:03 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 11:35:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 12:02:36 PM
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 :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 11:32:25 AM
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.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 12:06:26 PMSure, 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.
Quote from: Syt on June 11, 2013, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 12:06:26 PMSure, 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.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 12:06:26 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 12:01:44 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteWhere 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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 12:21:57 PM
What information exactly do they now know that they did not before?
The same information you didnt know before. :huh:
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 12:06:26 PM
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.
Yeah, Bluebook, based on what I'm reading that's not how it operates.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 12:21:57 PM
What information exactly do they now know that they did not before?
The same information you didnt know before. :huh:
That the government was watching them? Pretty sure both me and the terrorists were aware of that, unless they are the biggest idiots in the history of the universe. That is why they tend to not use the internet and so forth.
QuoteQuoteI 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.
I am not even sure what you are recomending here. I think this policy is going way beyond what I think the government should be able to do and is unconstitutional. The very fact the judiciary allows such a huge violation is evidence the checks and balances are not working and I hope political action, and yes judicial action, will now follow to correct the abuses. Besides it is not like the US government has a spotless track record here.
Ultimately the real check on the US government is the people, we are supposed to be sovereign. Not sure what that has to do with guns and I thought this was the position we are supposed to take to what we consider abuses.
The information on Prism is vague so I suppose some paranoia is explicable.
However, as best as understand it, it appears to be some kind of platform such that if law enforcement obtains a particular authorization to search, it can run a single query or set of queries on multiple data sources simultaneously, rather than running a bunch of separate ones and trying to piece them together.
it doesn't mean there is some Yank Stasi reading everyone's email.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 01:06:43 PM
That the government was watching them? Pretty sure both me and the terrorists were aware of that, unless they are the biggest idiots in the history of the universe. That is why they tend to not use the internet and so forth.
But they have to use some communications network and that explains why these kinds of programs might be useful.
The example I say today in an FT op-ed involved a piece of intelligence where law enforcement knows that Bad Guy A in the US is going to call Bad Guy B in Yemen at a particular time, but both Bad Guys - being savvy - are using prepaid phones. Using standard tapping techniques, law enforcement is out of luck because they don't know what phones are going to be used. But with the call metadata, they can get a list of every call made from the US to Yemen at that exact time and date, and then use computerized algorithms to narrow down the likely candidates and pinpoint a likely location for Bad Guy A.
I think argument of the form that this doesn't work anyway are, well, stupid.
The NSA isn't spending billions on these systems because they don't think they work.
And more to the point, whether it works or not is only part of the question.
Randomly searching peoples homes without warrants would almost certainly result in more crimes being solved. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Just because the technology makes it possible doesn't mean that it is allowable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
But they have to use some communications network and that explains why these kinds of programs might be useful.
Well obviously it has nothing to do with usefullness. I mean I presume the NSA has a system that is very useful.
I hope the other 35 or so slides he provided to the Guardian and WP will be published eventually. They are supposed to be more explosive than the initial five or six slides they published.
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
How is having all this information easily available possibly be bad except for the whole freedom and privacy thing? This only hurts my interests as a private citizen, it seems to greatly increase the power and effectiveness of the US.
I agree that it is bad from a freedom and privacy thing.
But what increases the "power and effectiveness of the US" is almost a philosophical argument...I would argue that ultimately the US is most effective when it provides quality employment for its citizens and positively impacts world culture and technology. I have doubts that obtaining access to massive amounts of private data in order to deter terrorism has much positive impact. But I suspect that over the long term it will be an impediment to US companies that are right now dominant in the IT sector.
QuoteUnless you are suggesting he is lying I am not sure how this is relevent? Are we not supposed to take these things seriously until some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblows?
For all I know he is some sort of platonic angelic figure whistleblower.
Fox is reporting the ACLU has filed suit.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2013, 02:49:45 PM
Fox is reporting the ACLU has filed suit.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2013, 02:49:45 PM
Fox is reporting the ACLU has filed suit.
So they didn't. :(
Does the ACLU have standing?
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 02:56:59 PM
Does the ACLU have standing?
Dont know
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?_r=0
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 02:56:59 PM
Does the ACLU have standing?
Surely someone at the ACLU has a phone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 11, 2013, 03:02:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 02:56:59 PM
Does the ACLU have standing?
Surely someone at the ACLU has a phone.
According to the article they use the Verizon service and they are going to use this argument
Quote
is likely to have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers and others who would otherwise contact the A.C.L.U. for legal assistance
.
QuoteA.C.L.U. Sues to Bar 'Dragnet' Collection of Phone Records
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 11, 2013
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its "dragnet" collection of logs of domestic phone calls, contending that the once-secret program — whose existence was exposed by a former National Security Agency contractor last week — is illegal and asking a judge to both stop it and order the records purged.
The lawsuit, filed in New York, could set up an eventual Supreme Court test. It could also focus attention on this disclosure amid the larger heap of top secret surveillance matters that were disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who came forward on Sunday to say he was the source of a series of disclosures by The Guardian and The Washington Post.
The program "gives the government a comprehensive record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of detail about our familial, political, professional, religious and intimate associations," the complaint says, adding that it "is likely to have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers and others who would otherwise contact" the A.C.L.U. for legal assistance.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
The A.C.L.U. has frequently assisted other plaintiffs in challenges against national security policies, but the government has generally persuaded courts to dismiss such lawsuits without any ruling on the legal merits after arguing that litigation over any classified program would reveal state secrets or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected and so lacked standing to sue.
This case may be different. The government has now declassified the existence of the program on domestic call record "metadata." And the A.C.L.U. itself is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services — the subsidiary of Verizon Communications that was the recipient of a secret court order for all its domestic calling records — which it says gives it direct standing to bring the lawsuit.
The call logging program is keeping a record of "metadata" from domestic phone calls, including which numbers were dialed and received, from which location, and the time and duration of the communication, officials have said.
The program began as part of the Bush administration's post-9/11 programs of surveillance without warrants, and, it is now known, it has continued since 2006 with the blessing of a national security court, which has ruled in still-secret legal opinions that such bulk surveillance was authorized by a section of the Patriot Act that allows the F.B.I. to obtain "business records" if they are relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.
Congress never openly voted to authorize the N.S.A. to collect logs of hundreds of millions of domestic phone calls, but the administration notes that some lawmakers were briefed on the program. Some members of Congress have backed it as a useful counterterrorism tool, while others have denounced it.
"The administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can," Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Sunday. "I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law."
Over the weekend, in hope of preventing a backlash, James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, also disclosed details about privacy protections built into the program. Among them, officials may access the database only if they can meet a legal justification — "reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization." To deter abuse, queries are audited under the oversight of judges on a national security court.
Timothy Edgar, who recently left the government after serving as a privacy and civil liberties official on intelligence matters in both the Bush and Obama administrations and who worked on building safeguards into the phone log program, said the notion underlying the limits was that people's privacy is not invaded by having their records collected and stored in government computers, but only when a human extracts and examines them.
"When you have important reasons why that collection needs to take place on a scale that is much larger than case-by-case or individual obtaining of records, then one of the ways you try to deal with the privacy issue is you think carefully about having a set of safeguards that basically say 'O.K., yes, this has major privacy implications, but what can we do on the back end to address those?'" he said.
Still, even with such restrictions, privacy advocates say the mere existence of the database will inevitably erode the sense of living in a free society: from now on, whenever Americans pick up a phone, before dialing they now face the consideration of whether they want the record of that call to go into the government's permanent files.
Moreover, while use of the database may currently be limited to terrorism, history has shown that new powers granted to the government for one purpose often end up being applied to others. An expanded search warrant authority that Congress granted in the Patriot Act justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, for example, was used far more often in routine investigations like suspected drug, fraud, tax, weapons and extortion offenses.
Executive branch officials and lawmakers who support the program have hinted in public that some terrorist plots have been foiled and intelligence leads have been identified by using the database. In private conversations, they have also explained how it is used: investigators start with a specific phone number that is already believed to be linked to terrorism, and scrutinize the ring of people who have called that number — and other people who in turn called those in the first ring, and so on — in an effort to identify any co-conspirators.
Still, that kind of analysis may generally be performed without keeping a wholesale library of call records, since investigators can instead use retail-scale subpoenas to obtain relevant calling logs from telephone companies. Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who issued cryptic warnings about the program before its existence was revealed and who have examined it in classified hearings, have claimed that the evidence is thin that the program provided uniquely available intelligence.
But supporters of the program privately say the database's existence is about more than convenience and speed. They say it can also help in searching for networks of terrorists who may be taking steps to shield their communications with one another, for instance by using different phone lines; if calls are going to and from a different number at the same address or cellphone towers as the number that is known to be suspicious, for example, having the comprehensive database may be helpful in a way that subpoenas for specific numbers cannot match.
It remains unclear, however, whether there have been any real-world instances in which a terrorist network that tried to evade detection was identified in that way, and so the existence of the database prevented an attack that otherwise would have occurred, or whether that advantage is to date only theoretical.
A 1979 ruling over a small-scale collection of calling "metadata," Smith v. Maryland, held that such records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment since people have revealed such information to phone companies and so have no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, in a 2012 case involving GPS trackers placed by the police on cars, the Supreme Court suggested that the automated collection of people's public movements may raise Fourth Amendment privacy issues in a way that nonbulk surveillance does not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 11, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 01:06:43 PM
That the government was watching them? Pretty sure both me and the terrorists were aware of that, unless they are the biggest idiots in the history of the universe. That is why they tend to not use the internet and so forth.
But they have to use some communications network and that explains why these kinds of programs might be useful.
The example I say today in an FT op-ed involved a piece of intelligence where law enforcement knows that Bad Guy A in the US is going to call Bad Guy B in Yemen at a particular time, but both Bad Guys - being savvy - are using prepaid phones. Using standard tapping techniques, law enforcement is out of luck because they don't know what phones are going to be used. But with the call metadata, they can get a list of every call made from the US to Yemen at that exact time and date, and then use computerized algorithms to narrow down the likely candidates and pinpoint a likely location for Bad Guy A.
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
You are kidding yourself if you think they didn't do that before. The art of evading electronic surveillance was not suddenly invented with Snowden's disclosure.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
You are kidding yourself if you think they didn't do that before. The art of evading electronic surveillance was not suddenly invented with Snowden's disclosure.
Indeed, and from what I can tell that is what Valmy said too.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
You are kidding yourself if you think they didn't do that before. The art of evading electronic surveillance was not suddenly invented with Snowden's disclosure.
Maybe in Canada. :D
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
You are kidding yourself if you think they didn't do that before. The art of evading electronic surveillance was not suddenly invented with Snowden's disclosure.
You are kidding yourself if you think everyone the security people were surveilling were taking these precautions all along. In fact all the evidence is to the contrary given the number of Court Orders that were issued. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on June 11, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
But what increases the "power and effectiveness of the US" is almost a philosophical argument...I would argue that ultimately the US is most effective when it provides quality employment for its citizens and positively impacts world culture and technology. I have doubts that obtaining access to massive amounts of private data in order to deter terrorism has much positive impact. But I suspect that over the long term it will be an impediment to US companies that are right now dominant in the IT sector.
Indeed, for example if I were CIO of a company with sensitive info Amazon would be blacklisted as cloud services provider.
Quote from: garbon on June 11, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2013, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 03:30:21 PM
Except the badguy can use encryption, steganography, proxies, zombies or public networks to name but a few things. You know who's not likely to use those things? Lawful citizens.
Valmy had asked what is the harm in the bad guys know the US goverment was doing this. I think you have just provided one answer.
You are kidding yourself if you think they didn't do that before. The art of evading electronic surveillance was not suddenly invented with Snowden's disclosure.
Maybe in Canada. :D
Really, Garbon and his trusty sidekick Max. I can hardly wait for Meri to arrive. Perhaps you will all come up with an argument why all this is wrong on an emotional level.
I was going to manufacture an unsubstantiated claim and keep repeating it ad nauseum with no supporting evidence but that shtick was taken :(
Quote from: Maximus on June 11, 2013, 03:52:51 PM
I was going to manufacture an unsubstantiated claim and keep repeating it ad nauseum with no supporting evidence
Dont ever change
Wrong thread, guys. Wrong forum, actually.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi529.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd333%2FLodovicoAriosto%2Fobama-yes-we-scan_zpsd58d4c45.png&hash=2697011cc68d3a68c4ea653f81a8b5633b42d012)
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 04:06:42 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi529.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd333%2FLodovicoAriosto%2Fobama-yes-we-scan_zpsd58d4c45.png&hash=2697011cc68d3a68c4ea653f81a8b5633b42d012)
:lol:
Anyway, given that what I am currently doing is DARPA and IARPA- funded research on natural language processing this hits a little close.
Quote(Newser) – All the furor about real-life Big Brother-esque surveillance has a lot of people reaching for the fictional version. As of this morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's 1984 had jumped 6,021% in 24 hours, NPR reports. The dystopian classic is now No. 164 on the online bookseller's charts. Current events have a way of rippling on sales charts like that. During the 2008 financial crisis, Atlas Shrugged was tearing up the charts. And call us crazy (or maybe thought criminals?), but it reminds us a bit of this musical sales spike.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/cnews-us-usa-security-germany-idCABRE95A0T820130611 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/cnews-us-usa-security-germany-idCABRE95A0T820130611)
Quote
Germans accuse U.S. of Stasi tactics before Obama visit
By Noah Barkin
BERLIN (Reuters) - German outrage over a U.S. Internet spying program has broken out ahead of a visit by Barack Obama, with ministers demanding the president provide a full explanation when he lands in Berlin next week and one official likening the tactics to those of the East German Stasi.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman has said she will raise the issue with Obama in talks next Wednesday, potentially casting a cloud over a visit that was designed to celebrate U.S.-German ties on the 50th anniversary John F. Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
Government surveillance is an extremely sensitive topic in Germany, where memories of the dreaded Stasi secret police and its extensive network of informants are still fresh in the minds of many citizens.
In a guest editorial for Spiegel Online on Tuesday, Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said reports that the United States could access and track virtually all forms of Internet communication were "deeply disconcerting" and potentially dangerous.
"The more a society monitors, controls and observes its citizens, the less free it is," she said.
"The suspicion of excessive surveillance of communication is so alarming that it cannot be ignored. For that reason, openness and clarification by the U.S. administration itself is paramount at this point. All facts must be put on the table."
Markus Ferber, a member of Merkel's Bavarian sister party who sits in the European Parliament, went further, accusing Washington of using "American-style Stasi methods".
"I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell," he said, using the German initials for the failed German Democratic Republic.
Opposition parties have jumped on the issue, keen to put a dampener on the Merkel-Obama talks and prevent them from boosting the chancellor as she gears up for a September parliamentary election in which she is seeking a third term.
"This looks to me like it could become one of the biggest data privacy scandals ever," Greens leader Renate Kuenast told Reuters.
TEMPERED ENTHUSIASM
Obama is due to land in Berlin on Tuesday night, hold talks and a news conference with Merkel on Wednesday and then give a speech in front of thousands at the Brandenburg Gate.
It is his first trip to the German capital since he passed through in 2008 during his first campaign for the presidency, giving a speech at the Victory Column in the Tiergarten park that attracted 200,000 adoring fans.
Five years on, Germans are still enamored of Obama: a poll last week showed 82 percent view him favorably.
But his failure to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, extensive use of drones to kill suspected al Qaeda militants and the latest revelations about the secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, have tempered enthusiasm.
According to documents leaked to the Washington Post and Guardian newspapers, the program gave U.S. officials access to emails, web chats and other communications from companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Skype.
Obama has defended it as a "modest encroachment" on privacy and reassured Americans that no one is listening to their phone calls.
But U.S. law puts virtually no eavesdropping restrictions on the communications of foreigners, meaning in theory that Washington could be delving into the private Internet communications of Germans and other Europeans.
Peter Schaar, the German official with responsibility for data privacy, said this was grounds for "massive concern" in Europe.
"The problem is that we Europeans are not protected from what appears to be a very comprehensive surveillance program," he told the Handelsblatt newspaper. "Neither European nor German rules apply here, and American laws only protect Americans."
:lol: Stasi
Quote from: Bluebook on June 11, 2013, 08:49:09 AM
No, it is not an imagined unfairness. It is an unfairness. Period. Otherwise the consumer protection law does not apply. Perhaps that is where you go wrong in your argument.
There are laws that apply to fair use agreements, and they have been enacted by elected legislatures. Your objection has been noted, and deemed moot, because what you are arguing does not exist does, in fact, exist.
Where you go wrong in your assumptions is that contracts are only valid between "equal" partners. Most contracts are valid when this is not true.
I was taking a look at how US companies operate in europe, and this is what US-EU Safe Harbor Privacy Pronciples say:
Notice - Individuals must be informed that their data is being collected and about how it will be used.
Choice - Individuals must have the ability to opt out of the collection and forward transfer of the data to third parties.
Onward Transfer - Transfers of data to third parties may only occur to other organizations that follow adequate data protection principles.
Security - Reasonable efforts must be made to prevent loss of collected information.
Data Integrity - Data must be relevant and reliable for the purpose it was collected for.
Access - Individuals must be able to access information held about them, and correct or delete it if it is inaccurate.
Enforcement - There must be effective means of enforcing these rules.
I don't know how many of those are violated here, but at least Notice, Choice and especially Access seem to fit the bill.
Nothing is going to happen, of course. But seeing how we can't make Apple and their ilk pay taxes on their profits, I'd love to see them bled dry for this.
Edward Snowden's girlfriend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQc-_zUq1JI
NSFW
Quote10/10 would wiretap
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:32:19 AM
If monopoly status is what defines your indicator for a issue, then surely the cellular phone market is in good shape - I have MANY choices when it comes to what cellular phone I want to purchase.
I find it really interesting that this thread has highlighted what seems to be two real philosophical divisions between Anglophone and continental. I agree entirely with the points made by the Yanks about government intervention and contracts as well as about surveillance.
However this point does interest me because I think there is market abuse in some sectors. In the UK I'm suspicious of the often private monopolies in utilities and would like the government to bust them. And I'm very worried about monopolies in the tech sector - especially companies like Google and Amazon. But I agree that actually the mobile market's in good shape. I'd add that often I think monopolies arise because of over-regulation from government, which benefits large operators who can afford the costs at the detriment of potential competitors.
QuoteTwo, if I would have to argue for a market faliure I would argue that the consumer cannot make an informed choise regarding the privacy policies for phones and tablets.
Why is it the market's fault if people choose not to inform themselves? I mean if a company is refusing to show them the contract, or they're somehow unable to compare different providers then that's an abuse. But if someone simply doesn't do the research the government shouldn't be intervening to protect people from themselves. They've signed up to an honestly presented contract and that should be enforced not meddled with.
QuoteOk, there you have your argument that invalidates the privacy agreements with tablets and smartphones then.
Not really. The Apple privacy agreement was significantly less convoluted and legalistic than the mobile phone contract with my provider.
QuoteI don't necessarily agree with him, but I did see something last night that concerned me a lot about the level of oversight being used. The Feds asked the court for somewhere around 2000 requests to peruse this data last year. And the FISA court approved every single request, without exception.
I think there are legitimate concerns about surveillance here, from a UK legal blogger:
QuoteThe only part of the Surveillance State which I have first hand experience of is the RIPA regime in the United Kingdom. Under RIPA, various organs of the UK State can obtain from telecoms company data about users. This can range from a registered user's name to every piece of information on a customer held by the telecoms company.
You may wonder how may of these requests are made.
They surely would be exceptional.
In fact, in 2010-11 (the latest year where figures are available) there were 494,078 requests.
None of this is hidden from the UK citizen; the figures are published by a "Interception of Communications Commissioner" in plain view. The figure of 494,078 is at section 7.3 in this report. But as it is buried in a public report, few really care. (Wise civil servants know the advantage of dull public disclosure over needless glamorous secrecy.)
This is State appropriation of user data on an industrial scale. As it is only data (and not interceptions) then no warrant is required, just a signed certificate. The information is usually provided on the nod. And the provision of such information can be crucial: the police obtaining data about a caller on a suddenly aborted 999 call can mean the difference between life and death. However, such purposes do not account for all the requests, and there is little in place to prevent abuse.
QuoteClearly this Prism-system is a massive, systematic breach of integrity of those affected by it.
Doesn't seem at all clear to me. As I say I think Prism seems proportionate and justifiable, based on what we know so far.
QuoteThe information on Prism is vague so I suppose some paranoia is explicable.
Yeah, as I say, from what's come out so far I'm not entirely sure this all needed to be secret.
QuoteFox is reporting the ACLU has filed suit.
God bless the ACLU :wub:
I don't trust the government with this info on all citizens. Especially after IRS-gate, Justice Dept targeting of journalists and more.
When Bush was President Obama and Biden, and many on the left railed against this. Now after Obama has doubled down on it and strengthened it, those same people are for it. At first I was guardedly for it, waiting to find out more. During and after Bush years I became wary of it and wanted some reforms done. Parts of the Patriot Act are needed but it may go too far.
I don't want any President or his administration's leaders to have access to this info. There were laws against what the IRS did, targeting groups and especially giving info to groups on their opposition.
Who's to say that this info won't be done the same sometime? Get the phone number of a political opponent, credit cards, web info and see where he/she has gone, and turn something up to give to opposition groups to use as coercion. Same as the IRS did.
Intelligence Chief James Clapper is now under fire for possible untruthful answers to Congress. This goes on and on, untruths, half lies, the "I know nothing", "we only just learned about it". It's nuts, and this is our government.
So no, I no longer trust the government with so much info. Just collecting info of all kinds. I heard on the news that the courts received twenty thousand requests on the info and only a few were denied.
Just waiting for more on this to come out but we won't get the truth from anyone involved. They all lie, obfuscate.
This isn't about Obama. The next President could be Republican and I'd be just as wary of them having so much power.
A serious problem with people's ability to sign away their privacy rights is that it is almost there is now an electronic fingerprint to almost everything someone does. My cell phone tracks where I am, who I call, and my internet search history. My ATM card and credit cards track my purchase histories. Add in amazon, facebook, twitter, bill pay services, my banking history, ebay, investment companies, etc. and it won't take much to figure out what I am doing almost every day of my life.
I'm a boring and unimportant person, so if anyone that wants to go through all that data can knock themselves out (so long as they aren't interested in identity theft). But it would be very important to many people, and despite being probably more sophisticated than most people have no idea how to keep from generating so many fingerprints. I imagine it would be disruptive to one's life to try to do so.
Quote from: KRonn on June 11, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Who's to say that this info won't be done the same sometime? Get the phone number of a political opponent, credit cards, web info and see where he/she has gone, and turn something up to give to opposition groups to use as coercion. Same as the IRS did.
I must have missed this part of the IRS story, could you elaborate?
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 11, 2013, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2013, 08:39:15 AM
Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?
Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?
If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.
Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!
And when all doctors decide to sell your data, because after all it is free money, then you can always choose to forgo healthcare, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2013, 06:41:36 PM
God bless the ACLU :wub:
You are a complicated guy Sheilbh :lol:
Quote from: KRonn on June 11, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Intelligence Chief James Clapper is now under fire for possible untruthful answers to Congress. This goes on and on, untruths, half lies, the "I know nothing", "we only just learned about it". It's nuts, and this is our government.
First great post KRonn. Second that Clapper thing was almost comical, he was lying to questions posed by members of the Intelligence Committee who already knew the correct answers. That is pretty ballsy.
Quote from: sbr on June 11, 2013, 10:18:41 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 11, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Who's to say that this info won't be done the same sometime? Get the phone number of a political opponent, credit cards, web info and see where he/she has gone, and turn something up to give to opposition groups to use as coercion. Same as the IRS did.
I must have missed this part of the IRS story, could you elaborate?
That's part of the allegations that I've heard discussed in the news on the IRS scandal. I wasn't saying that it's been alleged that the NSA data was used like this but wary if it could happen.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 07:57:08 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 11, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Intelligence Chief James Clapper is now under fire for possible untruthful answers to Congress. This goes on and on, untruths, half lies, the "I know nothing", "we only just learned about it". It's nuts, and this is our government.
First great post KRonn. Second that Clapper thing was almost comical, he was lying to questions posed by members of the Intelligence Committee who already knew the correct answers. That is pretty ballsy.
He should have just pulled an "I know nothing!" like so many others did. I'm sure he tried to phrase and parse his words so he, or his supporters, can claim he meant something else. This is part of the problem with all this stuff going on, all this obfuscating.
The guy in charge of intelligence, obfuscating and evading questions in a public forum? Say it isn't to!
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
The guy in charge of intelligence, obfuscating and evading questions in a public forum? Say it isn't to!
Eh read about it and see what you think. The problem is he lied to Congress which is, you know, illegal. Evading questions is not, but answering 'No' when the answer is 'yes' is not evading.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
The guy in charge of intelligence, obfuscating and evading questions in a public forum? Say it isn't to!
Yep. It's his job to be economical with the truth, especially in a public forum.
Today there seems to be a lot more doubt about this story as presented and Snowden. It looks like the Guardian may have fucked up a good story with bad reporting, which given Glenn Greenwald's record of overstating his case, noone could've predicted. We'll see.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
Yep. It's his job to be economical with the truth, especially in a public forum.
I have to say that is a pretty bonechilling interpretation of being 'economical with the truth'. If his job is to lie then why was he to testify in front of Congress anyway? The Congress was intentionally trying to get him to commit a crime? The whole thing is a charade designed to intentionally mislead the voting public? What a bizarro world.
QuoteToday there seems to be a lot more doubt about this story as presented and Snowden. It looks like the Guardian may have fucked up a good story with bad reporting, which given Glenn Greenwald's record of overstating his case, noone could've predicted. We'll see.
Yes we will.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 08:53:33 AM
I have to say that is a pretty bonechilling interpretation of being 'economical with the truth'. If his job is to lie then why was he to testify in front of Congress anyway? The Congress was intentionally trying to get him to commit a crime? What a bizarro world.
I have no idea. I don't really think intelligence chiefs should be giving much public testimony or statements anyway. In private with legislators who have clearance is the way it should generally work.
Quote from: KRonn on June 12, 2013, 08:20:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 07:57:08 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 11, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Intelligence Chief James Clapper is now under fire for possible untruthful answers to Congress. This goes on and on, untruths, half lies, the "I know nothing", "we only just learned about it". It's nuts, and this is our government.
First great post KRonn. Second that Clapper thing was almost comical, he was lying to questions posed by members of the Intelligence Committee who already knew the correct answers. That is pretty ballsy.
He should have just pulled an "I know nothing!" like so many others did. I'm sure he tried to phrase and parse his words so he, or his supporters, can claim he meant something else. This is part of the problem with all this stuff going on, all this obfuscating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.
Peter King: jail the journalists.
:wub:
America's worst Congressman :bleeding:
Quote from: Iormlund on June 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.
Everything he says seems right. As I say, maybe economical with the truth, but he's not lying.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 11, 2013, 10:05:57 PM
A serious problem with people's ability to sign away their privacy rights is that it is almost there is now an electronic fingerprint to almost everything someone does. My cell phone tracks where I am, who I call, and my internet search history. My ATM card and credit cards track my purchase histories. Add in amazon, facebook, twitter, bill pay services, my banking history, ebay, investment companies, etc. and it won't take much to figure out what I am doing almost every day of my life.
All of which - BTW - can be accessed by parties to an ordinary civil case via subpoena if relevant to some legal dispute.
Which means that to argue that government should keep its hands off is to say that a law enforcement agency investigating criminal activity cannot get access to the same kind of information as a storefront contigency lawyer bringing a civil claim.
And yes I know the Euros will object their legal systems are more restrictive on civil discovery. This is a US point.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM
His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.
:huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 09:12:20 AM
America's worst Congressman :bleeding:
Oh, I can think of much worse.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 07:53:11 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2013, 06:41:36 PM
God bless the ACLU :wub:
You are a complicated guy Sheilbh :lol:
It's not that complicated. One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption. It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.
One can trust, and yet still want to verify.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
It's not that complicated. One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption. It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.
One can trust, and yet still want to verify.
Well then there is no material difference between those who trust and those who do not. All I want is a debate and discussion on these policies and lawsuits are key to that. So there is no debate, these leaks are good because they spawned the lawsuits everybody wants.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
It's not that complicated. One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption. It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.
One can trust, and yet still want to verify.
Exactly. I often disagree with the ACLU (and their UK version) but I'm really glad they're there to do this sort of thing. And I admire their consistency and their principles. Same for all sorts of pressure groups that I may not agree with but I think their presence and perspective in a debate is always worth having.
I saw it.
I think Wyden is doing a great job. I like that guy.
I think the intelligence guys are doing their job as well though. They are there in a public forum, and what they say has real practical security impacts.
He was asked if they collect data about Americans, he said they did not. Is that entirely true? Well, no. Is it sepcifcally false? Not exactly.
They don't collect data about Americans, they collect data about activities that Americans engage in. Is that a oh so clever evasion? Yes.
But it is not an unimportant distinction. Collecting aggregate meta data is in fact very different from collecting specific information. There is a difference between tracking that a call is made, and listening in on the call.
Now, I don't think that gets us out of the ethical problem however - the reality is that modern technology means that we can do things with the collection of otherwise clearly public meta-data that were not possible before. And I think that needs to be addressed. I think what the US intelligence community is doing is wrong - not that collection per se, but rather trying to insist that the technology change that allows the collection of data that was always possible, but not useful, in a fashion that makes it actually very useful (for good or bad) does not represent any kind of change at all, and can be governed under existing rules, which effectively just means they can do whatever they want with that aggregation of meta data.
This is exactly the same issue as those police cameras that can be mounted on police cars and capture thousands of license plates an hour, and then store that data. This isn't "new" information, the police could always note down that your car drove by them before. But before, that information was nearly useless, because they could never collect and store enough of it to be meaningful. Now, you could mount these cameras on several police cars, collect all the data, sort and organize it, and suddenly this is extremely useful (even dangerous) information. Nothing fundamental has changed, but in fact the *practical* effect has created a new problem.
These are problems we must look at and come to decisions about how they should be handled. And that should not happen behind closed doors by FISA courts and the intelligence community. Because I think in that case, their is inadequate representation of the people and their rights at that table.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 09:41:56 AM
I think Wyden is doing a great job. I like that guy.
Yeah he is the man. Pity Texas would never elect a guy like that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 08:29:15 AM
Eh read about it and see what you think. The problem is he lied to Congress which is, you know, illegal. Evading questions is not, but answering 'No' when the answer is 'yes' is not evading.
But his statement doesn't become a lie just because you claim that it is a lie.
The NSA data collection effort is not aimed at Americans. It "unwittingly" does collect data on Americans, but they are not the target of the collection.
The question was a stupid one, unclear and repetitive. Clapper (his name rings a bell) gave, as he said, a not-untruthful answer to the stupid question. He should have (given that he knew the question ahead of time), re-worded it so that he could honestly answer it, but he is also a political animal and so played the same weasel game as Wyden did when he asked it.
Incidentally on the whole medical privacy thing, it reminded me that Eric Schmidt was recently speaking at the Hay Literary Festival. He asked the audience how they'd feel about a pill that sends information about our bodies over wi-fi to computers. The audience grumbled a bit and he said 'too late, it's already being licensed'.
That's part of the problem with technology moving as it is - I believe a lot of laws on intercepting communications date from the radio era, which is another. It's the point Benedict Brogan made in the Telegraph, that actually the worry isn't that the future's 1984, but that it's Brazil. Everyone, especially governments, swimming in far too much information to actually make any sense of it. I think there's lots of opportunities for people, businesses and government's to make good use of all of this ever-increasing data that's around, but I don't think that's inevitable.
I mean even if I were a terrorist and the NSA pulled up my internet records and my dental files and my credit card purchases - my thousands of posts here, the tweets and the Facebook interactions, the hours spent on Steam - I'm not sure how quickly or effectively they could really make sense of all of that. We're just everywhere now :mellow:
Yeah Shelf, but here is the thing.
They know that - and they aren't sitting back saying "Golly, there is just so much data we can't make heads or tails of it!"
Instead they are collecting the data, storing it, and saying "Damn, that is a lot of data. However, we have some ridiculously smart people working for us. I bet we can come up with all kinds of really great ways we can use that data...." and they are doing exactly that. They are spending billions creating the infrastructre, experience, and expertise to figure out how to use all that data.
That is not a bad thing - hell, it is their job, and I am damn glad we have an NSA to do stuff like that. However...they are a government agency, and while I appreciate that they have a mission and are working towards fulfilling that mission, that doesn't mean that they get a free pass to do whatever they like, because all this technology is new and the ramifications of its use are still pretty hard to really understand.
I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.
The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2013, 09:57:08 AM
But his statement doesn't become a lie just because you claim that it is a lie.
I claim it is a lie because if I said what he said knowing what he knew I would consider I had just said a lie. Now I concede by some twisty tortured lawyer-y logic it may not technically be one in some bizarro-world way.
QuoteThe NSA data collection effort is not aimed at Americans. It "unwittingly" does collect data on Americans, but they are not the target of the collection.
Huh? Um of course it is aimed at Americans. Specifically Americans who might be commiting crimes the NSA is concerned with.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 10:07:04 AM
I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.
The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.
The fact that to get this important information to the public requires people to break security clearance sort of suggests the system needs to be reformed. Which you address in the second paragraph. In any case only a few nutjobs are demanding we storm the Bastille here, the information is now known and off we go.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 10:00:02 AM
It's the point Benedict Brogan made in the Telegraph, that actually the worry isn't that the future's 1984, but that it's Brazil. Everyone, especially governments, swimming in far too much information to actually make any sense of it. I think there's lots of opportunities for people, businesses and government's to make good use of all of this ever-increasing data that's around, but I don't think that's inevitable.
"Big Data" -- the development and deployment of tools to analyze and make sense of vast compiliations of data is The Big Thing in the tech sector right now. There is enormous attention and investment being made by the most powerful and sophisticated governments and companies, and significant progress has already been made.
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 10:07:04 AM
Yeah Shelf, but here is the thing.
They know that - and they aren't sitting back saying "Golly, there is just so much data we can't make heads or tails of it!"
Instead they are collecting the data, storing it, and saying "Damn, that is a lot of data. However, we have some ridiculously smart people working for us. I bet we can come up with all kinds of really great ways we can use that data...." and they are doing exactly that. They are spending billions creating the infrastructre, experience, and expertise to figure out how to use all that data.
That is not a bad thing - hell, it is their job, and I am damn glad we have an NSA to do stuff like that. However...they are a government agency, and while I appreciate that they have a mission and are working towards fulfilling that mission, that doesn't mean that they get a free pass to do whatever they like, because all this technology is new and the ramifications of its use are still pretty hard to really understand.
I still don't see any clear indication that the overall system is broken. NSA and NSA-like people should be doing everything they can to protect our interests. And Congress should be doing everything THEY can to enable that, while at the same time representing OUR interests, and that includes interests that go beyond just security.
The trick here is how to reconcile those two in a world where even what we are capable of doing is a matter of classification and security. It is hard enough to balance the needs of security and liberty when the competing intersts are well known and understood. Here the competing interests are often classified, and the capabilities and threats as well.
Absolutely.
What I've read is that a lot of companies are actually struggling to use the information they're developing about customers because there's so much of it and I imagine it's the same for the government now. I think worrying overly about the amount of data that's out there is really closing the stable door when the horse has already bolted. We're at the stage where, as Joan says, a half-decent private investigatory could find out a great deal about each of us and that's because we've let that happen because the internet is far more convenient.
I always used to think it odd when I was abroad (though I believe it's the same in the UK) that you had to give our details to the hotel you were staying in. But now most of us do that, or use a product that already has them, on a daily basis. As I say the challenge for everyone now is to make sense of it all and to be able to use it to make money or to do government things. Brogan mentions that, for example, the government used Google information on searches for flu to pattern the course of the disease and any epidemics in specific areas.
My own view is that in the UK we've actually probably got better legislative and judicial oversight now than at any point in our recent history. The intelligence services are now on a statutory basis and are overseen by Parliament and the judiciary have the ECHR which can be of some use, but those are both recent developments. I think the best solution is what seems to be happening in the US - with some queries over these FISA courts - that you have legislative and judicial oversight.
One of the problems with that is that, certainly in the UK, I can' think of a time when institutions have been so mistrusted and so that sort of institutional oversight may not be acceptable to the public.
The Guardian published an article by a former head of GCHQ and I, more or less, entirely agree with what he's suggested especially that it would be useful to have some ethical guidelines for intelligence in this area:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/make-surveillance-ethical-and-effective
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 10:10:41 AM
The fact that to get this important information to the public requires people to break security clearance sort of suggests the system needs to be reformed. Which you address in the second paragraph. In any case only a few nutjobs are demanding we storm the Bastille here, the information is now known and off we go.
Yeah. As I say I still don't really know why this had to be secret and I agree with the British legal blogger I quoted here, from a government perspective I think dull bureaucratic releases of information is often better than secrecy and codenames like 'PRISM' and 'Boundless Informant' :lol:
On the other hand I think the fact that Snowden had clearance and apparently nearly a million people do is, in itself, scandalous.
Quote"Big Data" -- the development and deployment of tools to analyze and make sense of vast compiliations of data is The Big Thing in the tech sector right now. There is enormous attention and investment being made by the most powerful and sophisticated governments and companies, and significant progress has already been made.
Yeah, I've read a couple of articles about it and the impression I got was that they still didn't really know where to start. The easy bits have been done but there's a lot of money to be made if you can make it more useful and accurate.
And I hate the phrase 'big data' :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 09:15:49 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.
Everything he says seems right. As I say, maybe economical with the truth, but he's not lying.
Quote from: Ron Wydendoes the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
Quote from: ClapperNo, Sir.
Oh yeah, he's being economical with the truth, that's for sure.
:lmfao:
Yeah it is a strange world when that is not a lie. But granted Washington DC is a pretty strange world.
I haven't been following this closely, and maybe this has already been addressed, but is the government collecting data (allegedly) or have they just given themselves unlimited access to the data collected by others?
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 10:15:46 AM
I think there are times when members of the Executive should in fact hide things, and even outright lie.
So what?
How can you argeu that Congress is not effectively overseeing these things?
...
Quote from: Iormlund on June 12, 2013, 10:35:45 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 09:15:49 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 12, 2013, 09:09:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
His very first answer is a lie. And it goes from there.
Everything he says seems right. As I say, maybe economical with the truth, but he's not lying.
Quote from: Ron Wydendoes the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
Quote from: ClapperNo, Sir.
Oh yeah, he's being economical with the truth, that's for sure.
:lmfao:
That is not even close to what the first question and answer was.
The first question was related to how much evidence is required before the movements of American citizens are tracked within the US.
The answer was there are strictures regarding such things.
In fact that answer is entirely correct.
Quote from: sbr on June 12, 2013, 10:42:43 AM
I haven't been following this closely, and maybe this has already been addressed, but is the government collecting data (allegedly) or have they just given themselves unlimited access to the data collected by others?
Neither exactly.
The phone companies collect and record the data.
The NSA then orders the phone companies to transmit the data which is stored on a government controlled server. But there is no access at that time. It's just a straight copy job.
Access to the data is governed by the FISA process and requires particularized requests. But there may be hundreds or even thousands of those requests each year.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 12, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 12, 2013, 08:26:25 AM
The guy in charge of intelligence, obfuscating and evading questions in a public forum? Say it isn't to!
Yep. It's his job to be economical with the truth, especially in a public forum.
Today there seems to be a lot more doubt about this story as presented and Snowden. It looks like the Guardian may have fucked up a good story with bad reporting, which given Glenn Greenwald's record of overstating his case, noone could've predicted. We'll see.
You guys are being too easy on him. Congress is checking into what he said, not taking it too lightly. He wasn't being asked to give the store away, just being asked questions that apparently Congress already knew the answers to but he had to weasel his answers. If it was that important he could have said it was a National Security issue and that he'd answer in closed session.
I don't always favor the ACLU but I'm glad they're filing a lawsuit. Get this checked and vetted by the courts and by public opinion. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, is denouncing what is being done now as a dangerous overreach never intended. We'll see if he's right or being hyperbolic. Also, during the last few years there has reportedly been an increase in Fiser requests a thousand fold. I'm not entirely against the Patriot Act and new laws were needed to address newer technology, but I'm wary of what is being done so as I said, I'm glad that this is being debated more seriously.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 09:31:31 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 12, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
It's not that complicated. One can think that the government may be acting reasonably and yet still welcome a lawsuit that will rigorously test that assumption. It also can only be a good thing to have a properly constitued and independent Article III court review procedures and actions that to date have only been passed on by a limited, Article I tribunal whose track record raises questions.
One can trust, and yet still want to verify.
Well then there is no material difference between those who trust and those who do not. All I want is a debate and discussion on these policies and lawsuits are key to that. So there is no debate, these leaks are good because they spawned the lawsuits everybody wants.
Wasn't trust but verify what Reagan liked to say?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Wasn't trust but verify what Reagan liked to say?
That is a Russian proverb he would quote when talking to the Soviets.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Wasn't trust but verify what Reagan liked to say?
That is a Russian proverb he would quote when talking to the Soviets.
Yes, so then not a strange position to take.
Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2013, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Wasn't trust but verify what Reagan liked to say?
That is a Russian proverb he would quote when talking to the Soviets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZt-S9nwp8c
what he meant was, he didn't trust the soviets.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-fears-edward-snowden-may-173428026.html
QuoteU.S. Fears Edward Snowden May Defect to China: Sources
U.S. intelligence officials on the trail of rogue contractor Edward Snowden are now treating the National Security Agency leak case as a possible foreign espionage matter, raising fears that the 29-year-old computer whiz may be attempting to defect to China with a trove of America's most sensitive secrets, according to three U.S. officials.
"I think there is a real concern about that," a senior official familiar with the case told ABC News on Thursday. Another law enforcement official said it was a "very legitimate" worry.
In an interview Wednesday with Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, Snowden said his country "had been hacking into computers in Hong Kong and [in China] for years."
Those remarks alarmed intelligence officials, who considered those statements as much of a betrayal as his alleged leaking of highly classified files on the NSA's vast surveillance program to two newspapers last week, the senior official said.
Investigators are scrambling to piece together what may have been swiped by Snowden, who said he was in contact with two reporters to whom he eventually leaked Top Secret files before he took a $122,000 a year job as an NSA contractor with technology consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii last March.
Of course they've been hacking Hong Kong. What the fuck are the NSA for if they're not listening into China?
He was outraged when he was working for the CIA, because they wanted access to some banking details. They got friendly with a banker, got him drunk and then encouraged him to drive home. The CIA offered him some help, if he'd help them.
I don't understand how a spy can be so fundamentally upset to discover that the agency he's working for spies :blink:
On the other hand whether he defects or not the Chinese should be getting everything they can out of him right now. Just as I'd hope the US would if a Chinese spy turned up in the Bahamas.
Apparently, Snowden thinks that everyone's affairs are sacrosanct, except those of his employer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 03:40:09 PM
Apparently, Snowden thinks that everyone's affairs are sacrosanct, except those of his employer.
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
The arguments are weak? You're weak!
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
It certainly isn't as weak as the argument that reason people disagree with you on this issue because the US exported so much democracy there isn't enough left for the US! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on June 13, 2013, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
It certainly isn't as weak as the argument that reason people disagree with you on this issue because the US exported so much democracy there isn't enough left for the US! :lol:
:hmm: No, that one's weaker. Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
:hmm: No, that one's weaker. Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.
Please elaborate. I don't get what your point is.
Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.
If this thread is representative of US opinion it will become about him , simply because hardly anyone cares about the program itself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2013, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 04:13:14 PM
:hmm: No, that one's weaker. Mine was a joke, whereas Minsky's comment, while very comical, wasn't.
Please elaborate. I don't get what your point is.
Minksy is accusing Snowden of hypocrisy, because he was in effect spying on the company that was spying on people.
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:15:53 PM
Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.
That was his worry as he announced his name to overexcitable activist Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian.
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!
By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite. So, yeah. :yes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:15:53 PM
Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.
Should be about that twat.
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 05:49:20 PM
By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite. So, yeah. :yes:
Given the amount it looks like the Guardian will have to walk this story back, what's the rampage?
Nation Mostly Alarmed That Government's Top Programs Handled By 29-Year-Olds
:whistle:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-mostly-alarmed-that-governments-top-program,32792/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-mostly-alarmed-that-governments-top-program,32792/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fo.onionstatic.com%2Fimages%2F22%2F22396%2Foriginal%2F700.jpg&hash=d6028db281c3d0d814d0b15e0882596847c5ce5d)
Quote from: 11B4V on June 13, 2013, 05:50:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 13, 2013, 04:15:53 PM
Meh I hope this does not become about Snowden.
Should be about that twat.
Why? Who cares about him?
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 05:49:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!
By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite. So, yeah. :yes:
No that is not my logic. Some other logic is being employed there.
A cop who shoots a mass murderer is going his job of protecting the public. Mass murderers OTOH do not protect the public.
Snowden's beef is that the government has arrogated to itself the unchecked discretion of deciding which private details will be kept private and which will be snooped upon. He views this as an abuse of power.
But Snowden is doing the same thing. He was entrusted with secrets he swore to keep. And he has arrogating to himself the unchecked discretion of deciding which secrets he will actually keep and which to reveal to the world.
Between the two, at least the government has a patina of legitimacy, since their decisions are directed and supervised by elected officials and take place within a framework of laws and theoretical checks and balances. Snowden OTOH is just a rogue free agent with his own subjective moral sense as his only guide and check.
The fact that he is now revealing details about intelligence operations that do not affect the privacy rights of Americans (indeed perhaps the privacy rights of any individual at all) illustrates the potential danger of abuse of power that exists once one endorses the concept of each person with a security clearance being justified in deciding what secrets are worthy of staying secrets and which ones must be revealed for the sake of the common good.
The fact is that is Snowden was really what he says he is, and truly motivated by the desire to stop abuse and nothing else, he would have brought his evidence first to a sympathetic ear on one of the Intel committees before taking the extraordinary step of fleeing to the territory of his nation's most powerful strategic competitor and issuing press releases.
There is the question someone asked on my Twitter tonight of how Daniel Ellsberg would be viewed had he leaked the Vietnam papers from a hotel in, say, East Berlin.
So should i be outraged yet?
"Edward Snowden is a high school dropout. How did he land a $122,000-a-year job in a sensitive government program?"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/12/hackers-cyber-nsa-intelligence/2413183/
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2013, 08:08:09 PM
"Edward Snowden is a high school dropout. How did he land a $122,000-a-year job in a sensitive government program?"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/12/hackers-cyber-nsa-intelligence/2413183/
Right, and how many more like him have access to this sensitive info? Info on all American's activities of all kinds, web, phone calls, more.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2013, 08:08:09 PM
"Edward Snowden is a high school dropout. How did he land a $122,000-a-year job in a sensitive government program?"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/12/hackers-cyber-nsa-intelligence/2413183/
What was his other education. Did he just drop out and that's it? Or get a GED and move on to college?
GED. Army, Special Forces training, injury, discharged, diplomatic security (cybersecurity?) in Switzerland, then Spookland.
GED --> Army enlistment --> booted out after 4 months due to bad medical --> hired by NSA as a security guard --> hired by CIA as entry-level IT technician --> left after 1 year with super security clearance and spent a few years making big bucks as government contractor (Dell, Booz, etc.) --> traitor scum
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2013, 08:18:00 PM
GED --> Army enlistment --> booted out after 4 months due to bad medical --> hired by NSA as a security guard --> hired by CIA as entry-level IT technician --> left after 1 year with super security clearance and spent a few years making big bucks as government contractor (Dell, Booz, etc.) --> traitor scum
Wow. :lol: and yes to the bolded
Quote from: Phillip V on June 13, 2013, 08:08:09 PM
"Edward Snowden is a high school dropout. How did he land a $122,000-a-year job in a sensitive government program?"
Because it has been determined that is now considered acceptable in certain skill set circles.
Quote(Newser) – Edward Snowden didn't need any high-tech gadgetry to make off with the NSA's surveillance secrets—all it took was a humble thumb drive, reports the Los Angeles Times. Authorities have determined that the former contractor used the portable device to smuggle out his classified data, and they "know how many documents he downloaded and what server he took them from," a source tells the newspaper.
What they still don't know is why Snowden had access to such high-level documents, including an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and another from President Obama on setting up cybertargets. Why would the NSA allow employees to have thumb drives around classified stuff? Well, the LAT explains that the devices are supposed to be banned, but enforcement sounds a little loosey-goosey. "There are people who need to use a thumb drive and they have special permission," says one former NSA official. "But when you use one, people always look at you funny."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-snowden-nsa-secrets-thumb-drive-20130613,0,791040.story
Great. So they can bury the case under personal attacks against the guy.
Quote from: Tamas on June 14, 2013, 01:49:34 AM
Great. So they can bury the case under personal attacks against the guy.
It's not personal attacks, it merely highlights him as an example and indicative of the practices of the post-9/11 security-industrial complex, which has managed to pass out clearances like speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Much like the metadata farming itself and the concept of determining what is "secret" and what isn't, it's a completely counter-intuitive approach.
QuoteEdward Snowden didn't need any high-tech gadgetry to make off with the NSA's surveillance secrets—all it took was a humble thumb drive
At my previous employer, you could be fired for bringing those in to work. They were
verboten, and the fire wall would shut your ass down the moment you plugged it in anyway. You needed special permission to use one, and the thumb drive needed to be scrubbed by DOIT before you could use it, since they're packed with malware.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2013, 06:36:58 AM
It's not personal attacks, it merely highlights him as an example and indicative of the practices of the post-9/11 security-industrial complex, which has managed to pass out clearances like speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Much like the metadata farming itself and the concept of determining what is "secret" and what isn't, it's a completely counter-intuitive approach.
Well so long as he is being used as a source of reform of the system that is fine. But having this be some sort of referendum on Snowden is ridiculous, it is not about him personally. He could be a perfect angel or Satan it doesn't matter, what matters is how these programs are run, who they are accountable to, and whether or not programs like this are even constitutional.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 14, 2013, 01:20:19 AM
Quote(Newser) – Edward Snowden didn't need any high-tech gadgetry to make off with the NSA's surveillance secrets—all it took was a humble thumb drive, reports the Los Angeles Times. Authorities have determined that the former contractor used the portable device to smuggle out his classified data, and they "know how many documents he downloaded and what server he took them from," a source tells the newspaper.
What they still don't know is why Snowden had access to such high-level documents, including an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and another from President Obama on setting up cybertargets. Why would the NSA allow employees to have thumb drives around classified stuff? Well, the LAT explains that the devices are supposed to be banned, but enforcement sounds a little loosey-goosey. "There are people who need to use a thumb drive and they have special permission," says one former NSA official. "But when you use one, people always look at you funny."
That was actually one of the things Snowden was whistleblowing about, that the secrets were basically just there for anybody to use and abuse with easy access.
Didn't Bradley Manning use music CD's labelled "Lady Gaga"? That's enough to get through most security.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 13, 2013, 06:33:06 PM
There is the question someone asked on my Twitter tonight of how Daniel Ellsberg would be viewed had he leaked the Vietnam papers from a hotel in, say, East Berlin.
If an example like Bradley Manning had been around in the Vietnam War he might have.
Quote from: Tamas on June 14, 2013, 01:49:34 AM
Great. So they can bury the case under personal attacks against the guy.
The case won't get buried; the ACLU is going to keep pushing at it. Whatever other problems America has, lack of a strong civil society isn't one of them.
As for Snowden, his conduct speaks for itself. Whether he is just an arrogant prick with delusions of grandeur or an outright traitor will be determined later should the Feds seek extradition.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 06:25:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 05:49:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2013, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 13, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
That has to be some seriously weak argument. It's probably safely in the Top 10 of the weakest arguments ever uttered on Languish.
I guess it must be since apparantly it falls of its own accord, without any need of a counter!
By your logic, a cop who shoots a mass murderer during the rampage is a hypocrite. So, yeah. :yes:
No that is not my logic. Some other logic is being employed there.
A cop who shoots a mass murderer is going his job of protecting the public. Mass murderers OTOH do not protect the public.
Snowden's beef is that the government has arrogated to itself the unchecked discretion of deciding which private details will be kept private and which will be snooped upon. He views this as an abuse of power.
But Snowden is doing the same thing. He was entrusted with secrets he swore to keep. And he has arrogating to himself the unchecked discretion of deciding which secrets he will actually keep and which to reveal to the world.
Between the two, at least the government has a patina of legitimacy, since their decisions are directed and supervised by elected officials and take place within a framework of laws and theoretical checks and balances. Snowden OTOH is just a rogue free agent with his own subjective moral sense as his only guide and check.
The fact that he is now revealing details about intelligence operations that do not affect the privacy rights of Americans (indeed perhaps the privacy rights of any individual at all) illustrates the potential danger of abuse of power that exists once one endorses the concept of each person with a security clearance being justified in deciding what secrets are worthy of staying secrets and which ones must be revealed for the sake of the common good.
The fact is that is Snowden was really what he says he is, and truly motivated by the desire to stop abuse and nothing else, he would have brought his evidence first to a sympathetic ear on one of the Intel committees before taking the extraordinary step of fleeing to the territory of his nation's most powerful strategic competitor and issuing press releases.
I wanted to say that I thought this was a very good post. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 14, 2013, 09:26:52 AM
The case won't get buried; the ACLU is going to keep pushing at it. Whatever other problems America has, lack of a strong civil society isn't one of them.
And others. But my concern is that their cause will get savaged by whatever people think of Snowden.
QuoteAs for Snowden, his conduct speaks for itself. Whether he is just an arrogant prick with delusions of grandeur or an outright traitor will be determined later should the Feds seek extradition.
So then it will the ACLU allying itself with delusional traitorous pricks. So yes it could be a political tool to intimidate the opposition by focusing on Snowden's flaws. So color me suspicious.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 14, 2013, 06:36:58 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 14, 2013, 01:49:34 AM
Great. So they can bury the case under personal attacks against the guy.
It's not personal attacks, it merely highlights him as an example and indicative of the practices of the post-9/11 security-industrial complex, which has managed to pass out clearances like speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Much like the metadata farming itself and the concept of determining what is "secret" and what isn't, it's a completely counter-intuitive approach.
QuoteEdward Snowden didn't need any high-tech gadgetry to make off with the NSA's surveillance secrets—all it took was a humble thumb drive
At my previous employer, you could be fired for bringing those in to work. They were verboten, and the fire wall would shut your ass down the moment you plugged it in anyway. You needed special permission to use one, and the thumb drive needed to be scrubbed by DOIT before you could use it, since they're packed with malware.
They still are at least where I work.
We build shit that has so many ITAR loops everyone seems to get lost in them.
In my hand right now, I hold a thumb drive.
What do you want to know?
We're not supposed to use them any more unless they're "officially authorized" ones, but I think we're pretty much on the honor system.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
I wanted to say that I thought this was a very good post. :)
I find it incredibly depressing. I guess Minsky already has determined the Government is entirely within its rights to do this and the ACLU has no case.
That is kind of a gut punch to me. But I sort of figured they had their legal ducks in a row and a political solution to protect our seemingly non-rights is probably needed.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 09:41:35 AM
So then it will the ACLU allying itself with delusional traitorous pricks. So yes it could be a political tool to intimidate the opposition by focusing on Snowden's flaws. So color me suspicious.
The ACLU can take the heat; they've been accused of far worse.
QuoteI find it incredibly depressing. I guess Minsky already has determined the Government is entirely within its rights to do this and the ACLU has no case.
??
I've stated a couple time that I think the metadata sweep probably exceeds the government's authority under FISA.
Quote from: Valmy on June 14, 2013, 09:46:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
I wanted to say that I thought this was a very good post. :)
I find it incredibly depressing. I guess Minsky already has determined the Government is entirely within its rights to do this and the ACLU has no case.
That is kind of a gut punch to me. But I sort of figured they had their legal ducks in a row and a political solution to protect our seemingly non-rights is probably needed.
I don't see what the posted I quoted has to do with that. The post I quoted just speaks to the hypocrisy of that drama queen Snowden and how he "doesn't want the story to be about him." Doesn't say anything as far as I can see about how the government was right to store all this data.
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2013, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
And there's CCTV in all sorts of private places that, with a warrant, the police can access.
Yes, but the NSA doesn't need a warrant for specific information. They apparently have a general wholesale warrant for everything.
Incorrect.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2013, 02:56:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 10, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Your first point does not equate public messages to a postal service activity.
Your second point is why court orders are required for this activity.
Maybe Canada is different, but here you can mail stuff without writing your name in the return address. Or you can use a P.O. box.
As for court orders, that goes against the stated MO. They are performing datamining on their entire databases, not just those where they've acquired warrants.
From what I have read, the data mining does not involve personal information but is rather numbers called, time and duration of call. With that data evidence can then be provided to the Court in support of an order to actually view confidential information.
Correct.
Quote from: Phillip V on June 10, 2013, 04:37:47 PM
29-year-old low-level IT administrator with no high school diploma earning $200k/yr. :whistle:
Yeah, funny that - AN IT ADMIN. *Not* an intelligence analyst. :showoff:
Despite being incorrect in his assertions (factually incorrect, as well as drawing incorrect conclusions), Snowden is a criminal. He signed an oath, and breaking this oath will likely be 10 years per count... have fun in Terre Haute, buddy boy. :lmfao:
Seriously, he's a clueless loser who has no idea of what he is 'whistleblowing' (I refuse to accord him this honor, as he is neither well-informed nor well-intentioned) - he's a putz who wants to feel important, and is using this as a vehicle to make himself a hero.
Even if what he claims was completely accurate and truthful (it's not) - he claims knowledge of things that he couldn't actually have done or had access to. Unfortunately, the government will have to demonstrate this, not that this will quell the hysterics.
That's all I'm going to say. The takeaway: he's an idiot, who freaked out about things he doesn't really understand, proceeded to run to China and freak out everybody else, and broke the law to boot. There is no honor in peddling falsehoods, even if he really thinks what he is saying is true.
I take it that Ank isn't going to go rogue anytime soon then.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 14, 2013, 03:05:14 PM
I take it that Ank isn't going to go rogue anytime soon then.
I've daydreamed about getting put into the pen when they catch him, just so I can kill him myself.
After that? Well, plenty of time to read, and I can take over the cigarette smuggling operation in whatever Club Fed we wind up in. :boff:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on June 14, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
I've daydreamed about getting put into the pen when they catch him, just so I can kill him myself.
That's a bit extreme.
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on June 14, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
I've daydreamed about getting put into the pen when they catch him, just so I can kill him myself.
That's a bit extreme.
Probably.
Incidentally the prism logo photo was 'stolen'/used with permission from our very own Adam Hart-Davis (technology/history of science tv presenter) . :bowler:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on June 14, 2013, 03:12:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 14, 2013, 03:10:14 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on June 14, 2013, 03:09:37 PM
I've daydreamed about getting put into the pen when they catch him, just so I can kill him myself.
That's a bit extreme.
Probably.
:lol:
I am glad you gave us your view Ank :)
Snowden dropped out his second year of high school: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/us/for-snowden-a-life-of-ambition-despite-the-drifting.html
QuoteHis disclosures have renewed a longstanding concern: that young Internet aficionados whose skills the agencies need for counterterrorism and cyberdefense sometimes bring an anti-authority spirit that does not fit the security bureaucracy.
When the security-industrial complex insists on relying on for-profit contractors like BAA--whose appetite for government money makes them snap up little shits that wouldn't meet the background criteria for the very agencies they contract for--it gets the Snowdens it deserves.
This fucker floating upside down in a river yet? No?
:(
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/
QuoteNSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants
National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."
There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET. A representative said Nadler was not immediately available. (This is unrelated to last week's disclosure that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)
Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls -- in case an analyst needed to access the recordings in the future. A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established "listening posts" that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, "whether they originate within the country or overseas." That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.
William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency's worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more. "They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that's what they record," Binney said.
Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved.
NSA's annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion.
Documents that came to light in an EFF lawsuit provide some insight into how the spy agency vacuums up data from telecommunications companies. Mark Klein, who worked as an AT&T technician for over 22 years, disclosed in 2006 (PDF) that he witnessed domestic voice and Internet traffic being surreptitiously "diverted" through a "splitter cabinet" to secure room 641A in one of the company's San Francisco facilities. The room was accessible only to NSA-cleared technicians.
AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It's a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.
That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.
A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States." A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically -- on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to "target" a specific American citizen.
Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.
Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."
Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.
"I don't think so," Mueller replied.
"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA's surveillance process involves "billions" of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.
They can be accessed by an analyst who's part of the NSA's "workforce of thousands of people" who are "trained" annually in minimization procedures, he said. (McConnell, who had previously worked as the director of the NSA, is now vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden's former employer.)
If it were "a U.S. person inside the United States, now that would stimulate the system to get a warrant," McConnell told the committee. "And that is how the process would work. Now, if you have foreign intelligence data, you publish it [inside the federal government]. Because it has foreign intelligence value."
McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.
Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not," he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the "intelligence community" -- an apparent reference to the NSA -- "there's a way to look at digital communications in the past."
NSA Director Keith Alexander said this week that his agency's analysts abide by the law: "They do this lawfully. They take compliance oversight, protecting civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."
But that's not always the case. A New York Times article in 2009 revealed the NSA engaged in significant and systemic "overcollection" of Americans' domestic communications that alarmed intelligence officials. The Justice Department said in a statement at the time that it "took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance" with the law.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, says he was surprised to see the 2008 FISA Amendments Act be used to vacuum up information on American citizens. "Everyone who voted for the statute thought it was about international communications," he said.
But, but ... Crazy Canuck and Ank told me they can't do that! :(
Really nothing new.
When the Church Commission forced the FBI to stop their wiretaps in the 1970s, they simply handed them over to state and local law enforcement on the caveat that they'd be able to stop by and visit them from time to time if they got anything interesting.
Government has danced around wiretap laws since Alexander Graham Bell called Watson on a tapped line.
Quote from: Zanza on June 16, 2013, 02:16:38 AM
But, but ... Crazy Canuck and Ank told me they can't do that! :(
Minsky Said so too.. How can this be?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20130615_WBC793.png&hash=47ffa1cae35156bf0430750f8696c7945b80567b)
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21579465-new-cyber-industrial-complex-rising-should-you-worry-hiring-digital-007s
Is CrowdStrike a terrorist organization?
I dunno, but I am going to apply there in January. :osama:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits
QuoteGCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits
Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009
Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.
The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.
The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.
There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.
This included:
• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;
• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;
• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;
• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;
• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.
The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting delegates, was passed to British ministers.
A briefing paper dated 20 January 2009 records advice given by GCHQ officials to their director, Sir Iain Lobban, who was planning to meet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband. The officials summarised Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it." Two documents explicitly refer to the intelligence product being passed to "ministers".
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F6%2F16%2F1371408003314%2FGCHQ-ragout-1-002.jpg&hash=77d0ff111d5e181ece694df24ed85621254d28fb)
One of the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian
According to the material seen by the Guardian, GCHQ generated this product by attacking both the computers and the telephones of delegates.
One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK conference, eg G20". The tactic, which is identified by an internal codeword which the Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an internal glossary as "active collection against an email account that acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server". A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's email before/as they do".
The same document also refers to GCHQ, MI6 and others setting up internet cafes which "were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after conference has finished". This appears to be a reference to acquiring delegates' online login details.
Another document summarises a sustained campaign to penetrate South African computers, recording that they gained access to the network of their foreign ministry, "investigated phone lines used by High Commission in London" and "retrieved documents including briefings for South African delegates to G20 and G8 meetings". (South Africa is a member of the G20 group and has observer status at G8 meetings.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F6%2F16%2F1371408108043%2FGCHQ-Ragout-2-002.jpg&hash=7485df73ba0a119b0d0b3fb9a1ce10732fcb6db5)
Another excerpt from the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian
A detailed report records the efforts of the NSA's intercept specialists at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire to target and decode encrypted phone calls from London to Moscow which were made by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian delegates.
Other documents record apparently successful efforts to penetrate the security of BlackBerry smartphones: "New converged events capabilities against BlackBerry provided advance copies of G20 briefings to ministers ... Diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO of using smartphones. Exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year."
The operation appears to have run for at least six months. One document records that in March 2009 – the month before the heads of state meeting – GCHQ was working on an official requirement to "deliver a live dynamically updating graph of telephony call records for target G20 delegates ... and continuing until G20 (2 April)."
Another document records that when G20 finance ministers met in London in September, GCHQ again took advantage of the occasion to spy on delegates, identifying the Turkish finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, as a target and listing 15 other junior ministers and officials in his delegation as "possible targets". As with the other G20 spying, there is no suggestion that Simsek and his party were involved in any kind of criminal offence. The document explicitly records a political objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations".
The September meeting of finance ministers was also the subject of a new technique to provide a live report on any telephone call made by delegates and to display all of the activity on a graphic which was projected on to the 15-sq-metre video wall of GCHQ's operations centre as well as on to the screens of 45 specialist analysts who were monitoring the delegates.
"For the first time, analysts had a live picture of who was talking to who that updated constantly and automatically," according to an internal review.
A second review implies that the analysts' findings were being relayed rapidly to British representatives in the G20 meetings, a negotiating advantage of which their allies and opposite numbers may not have been aware: "In a live situation such as this, intelligence received may be used to influence events on the ground taking place just minutes or hours later. This means that it is not sufficient to mine call records afterwards – real-time tip-off is essential."
In the week after the September meeting, a group of analysts sent an internal message to the GCHQ section which had organised this live monitoring: "Thank you very much for getting the application ready for the G20 finance meeting last weekend ... The call records activity pilot was very successful and was well received as a current indicator of delegate activity ...
"It proved useful to note which nation delegation was active during the moments before, during and after the summit. All in all, a very successful weekend with the delegation telephony plot."
So I've spoken to several members of my extended family on this NSA business and for the most part they don't care. They think it is concerning in principle but then say that a) they don't really have anything to hide and b) if it prevents some terrorist attacks then it's an okay evil. :(
I think there is a lot of either very careful or very not careful use of terms with ambiguous meanings going on here.
An analyst "can" listen to a phone call. Does that mean he can, as in he has the technical capability, or does that mean he can, as in he is allowed to do so?
There also seems to be some, again, either very careful or very sloppy use of qualifiers.
"It was thought that an analyst would need a court order to lsiten to a phone call made by an American, but recent reports show that an anlayst can in fact listen to a phone conversation based on their own evaluation".
That seems very alarming, until you parse it and realize what it is saying is that an analyst needs a court order to listen to a US citiznes conversation, but can listen to one from outside the US without such authorization...which is exactly how I think it has always worked. I don't expect some analyst in Dubai to need to run to a US court to eaves drop on someone in Dubai. I am pretty sure the CIA doesn't need permission from any courts to spy on non-Americans.
I wonder how much of this is intentionally misleading.
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
So I've spoken to several members of my extended family on this NSA business and for the most part they don't care. They think it is concerning in principle but then say that a) they don't really have anything to hide and b) if it prevents some terrorist attacks then it's an okay evil. :(
So shortsighted.
Do they even realize how this thing works?
All data is stored, and 15 years from now, when one of your relatives happen to say anything stupid, all his data and contacts will be investigated.
This thing does not help STOP terrorists.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:28:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2013, 03:53:07 PM
So I've spoken to several members of my extended family on this NSA business and for the most part they don't care. They think it is concerning in principle but then say that a) they don't really have anything to hide and b) if it prevents some terrorist attacks then it's an okay evil. :(
So shortsighted.
Do they even realize how this thing works?
All data is stored, and 15 years from now, when one of your relatives happen to say anything stupid, all his data and contacts will be investigated.
This thing does not help STOP terrorists.
I'm not sure that they are particularly worried abut that happening when they are in their 70s.
The NSA can conduct surveillance without a warrant? Jerold Nadler is shocked, SHOCKED.
I guess he never read the operative law, the very first section of FISA is about warrantless surveillance.
It is truly shocking to learn that a spy agency engages in spying.
The next revelation is going to be that the army has killed people.
So I read today the guy is a liberterian, loves computer games and RPGs.
:hmm: We should invite him on here.
Well, he does look a wee bit like Tamas' long lost brother.
Quote from: Josephus on June 17, 2013, 07:48:05 AM
So I read today the guy is a liberterian, loves computer games and RPGs.
:hmm: We should invite him on here.
Why do you want to kill Languish?
He'd leak all the back room secrets then run away to the paradox forums.
All you need to know about NSA surveillance: an infographic.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn541%2FBerenice67%2FNSA_zps98cee932.jpg&hash=26ff775fa08a83a9a5823ebce539fb9afcc505c4)
Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2013, 07:52:29 AM
He'd leak all the back room secrets then run away to the paradox forums.
I just thought we'd see most of our members hauled off after the NSA reads through everything. :P
Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2013, 04:12:41 PM
"It was thought that an analyst would need a court order to listen to a phone call made by an American, but recent reports show that an analyst can in fact listen to a phone conversation based on their own evaluation".
This derived from a misrepresented comment from Democrat representative Jerrold Nadler, full story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/jerrold-nadler-does-not-think-nsa-listen-u-163036644.html (http://news.yahoo.com/jerrold-nadler-does-not-think-nsa-listen-u-163036644.html)
Domestic phone calls can be tapped without court order if the conversation is between two "foreign powers" (as defined) and no "US person" (as defined) is a party to the call. Various other requirements are involved but this has been the case since FISA was enacted in the 1970s.
The AG, on finding of "an emergency situation," can authorize immediate acquisition of foreign intelligence information even if a US person is involved, and then has 7 days to get an ex post authorization fron the FISA court. That is from the FISA amendments passed in 2008 in the wake of the revelations about the use of FISA to conduct surveillance by the prior administration, which gave rise to virtually the exact same debate being played out. Short memories . . .
Nadler's confusion is a little bit suprising - the FISA amendments which added the latter provision went through the House Judiciary Committee - of which he is a member - in 2008.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2013, 09:12:01 AM
Nadler's confusion is a little bit suprising - the FISA amendments which added the latter provision went through the House Judiciary Committee - of which he is a member - in 2008.
He probably didn't have an aide available to explain it to him.
Quote from: Brazen on June 17, 2013, 07:58:32 AM
All you need to know about NSA surveillance: an infographic.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn541%2FBerenice67%2FNSA_zps98cee932.jpg&hash=26ff775fa08a83a9a5823ebce539fb9afcc505c4)
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2013, 07:49:28 AM
Well, he does look a wee bit like Tamas' long lost brother.
Tamas has lost his Libertarian credentials.
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
Depends who you talk to.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
Not Good, but better then communist.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
I would say they were opposites but, the opposite of "libertarian" is either "communist" or, more commonly "sane person" - which is, conveniently the opposite of "communist" as well.
The opposite of Libertarianism is Statism.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
Not Good, but better then communist.
They're about equal. Thankfully for libertarians, they haven't had a chance to put their brand of insanity into practice, so their ideology is still seen as mostly harmless intellectual masturbation.
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
Not Good, but better then communist.
They're about equal. Thankfully for libertarians, they haven't had a chance to put their brand of insanity into practice, so their ideology is still seen as mostly harmless intellectual masturbation.
Tell that to the millions of people who were slaves. Libertarian dystopia is the ante-bellum US south.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:26:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 17, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 05:56:00 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
Isn't libertarian something bad?
Like communism or something?
Not Good, but better then communist.
They're about equal. Thankfully for libertarians, they haven't had a chance to put their brand of insanity into practice, so their ideology is still seen as mostly harmless intellectual masturbation.
Tell that to the millions of people who were slaves. Libertarian dystopia is the ante-bellum US south.
:huh:
Slaves suffered both coercion and violence, with no liberty at all.
Libertarians are only really concerned from coercion and violence from the state.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM
Libertarians are only really concerned from coercion and violence from the state.
Well, who's a libertarian to say whether a slave suffers from coercion and violence? Isn't that the slave's business?
I've read several Libertarian tracts on the evils of Abraham Lincoln. I've even read theories supporting "voluntary slavery".
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
I've even read theories supporting "voluntary slavery".
Yeah but that'd still be another thing. That's at least positing some sort of indentured servitude that one can theoretically enter into out of one's free will. Still kinda bonkers but not the same as saying that the ante-bellum south is a libertarian's paradise. After all, there was coercion by the gov't that kept slaves as slaves.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
I've read several Libertarian tracts on the evils of Abraham Lincoln. I've even read theories supporting "voluntary slavery".
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51524/Lincoln_slavery.png)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM
Libertarians are only really concerned from coercion and violence from the state.
Three words: Fugitive Slave Law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2013, 09:50:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM
Libertarians are only really concerned from coercion and violence from the state.
Three words: Fugitive Slave Law.
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on June 17, 2013, 09:41:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:38:50 PM
I've even read theories supporting "voluntary slavery".
Yeah but that'd still be another thing. That's at least positing some sort of indentured servitude that one can theoretically enter into out of one's free will. Still kinda bonkers but not the same as saying that the ante-bellum south is a libertarian's paradise. After all, there was coercion by the gov't that kept slaves as slaves.
Did I say paradise? No. I said the opposite, it was the Libertarian dystopia. Just like the Stalinist Soviet Union was the communist's dystopia. The coercion to keep people slaves was typically local, and often private. When there were major slave rebellions they were often stopped by local militia, private citizens carrying personal firearms. Very second amendment. When John Brown tried to seize the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry it was the local militia that contained him. The evil federal leviathan didn't arrive till the situation had pretty much settled.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2013, 09:50:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM
Libertarians are only really concerned from coercion and violence from the state.
Three words: Fugitive Slave Law.
Laws protecting property, that were enacted long after slavery had been established.
Two more words and I could add the gag rule.
When it came to the defense of slavery, the antebellum South was willing to consider the most draconian of state coercion.
Yeah, but it ain't the evil Feds. State's Right and all. And most the coercion came in the form of lynch mobs not peace officers or soldiers.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 10:00:30 PM
Yeah, but it ain't the evil Feds. State's Right and all. And most the coercion came in the form of lynch mobs not peace officers or soldiers.
The gag rule was a federal rule, enforced by federal post officers.
The Fugitive Slave Act was the most anti-federalist law ever conceived: it empowered federal marshals and deputies to seize persons lawfully abiding in a state in violation of that's state's laws and carry them off.
And they didn't found slavery and only existed for a fairly short period.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:26:53 PM
Libertarian dystopia is the ante-bellum US south.
Which I believe streches from 1781-1861. That's a long time.
OK guys, enough of this. Get back to NSA leakage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 17, 2013, 10:11:42 PM
OK guys, enough of this. Get back to NSA leakage.
Not much to tell.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 10:11:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 17, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 09:26:53 PM
Libertarian dystopia is the ante-bellum US south.
Which I believe streches from 1781-1861. That's a long time.
First federal fugitive slave act was passed 1793. Excluding the articles of confederation period that's pretty much the whole thing.
The gag rule dates from the 1830s so only 30 years.
Why would the gag rule bother libertarians? It's restricts the powers of the federal government?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/463671_10151717053268128_1273170847_o.jpg)
I would label myself a "liberal" but in Europe that means "socialist who want to pose as liberal", so it is not really an option.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 11:48:39 PM
Why would the gag rule bother libertarians? It's restricts the powers of the federal government?
It restricts speech.
It also extended to the effective prohibition of sending of abolitionist material through the mails, at least in the South. Federal postmasters were required to refuse to deliver pamphlets are mail containing abolitionist views.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 11:48:39 PM
Why would the gag rule bother libertarians? It's restricts the powers of the federal government?
It restricts speech.
It also extended to the effective prohibition of sending of abolitionist material through the mails, at least in the South. Federal postmasters were required to refuse to deliver pamphlets are mail containing abolitionist views.
Of of government employees and statists.
Instead of arguing with me about it, go send some letters to the Von Mises institute.
You're funny, Uncle Hat.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2013, 11:10:20 AM
Instead of arguing with me about it, go send some letters to the Von Mises institute.
They are even more impervious to reason.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2013, 11:10:20 AM
Instead of arguing with me about it, go send some letters to the Von Mises institute.
They are even more impervious to reason.
:pinch:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
QuoteBritain's spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world's phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency (NSA).
The sheer scale of the agency's ambition is reflected in the titles of its two principal components: Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation, aimed at scooping up as much online and telephone traffic as possible. This is all being carried out without any form of public acknowledgement or debate.
One key innovation has been GCHQ's ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months.
GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects.
This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user's access to websites – all of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to limit interception to a specified range of targets.
The existence of the programme has been disclosed in documents shown to the Guardian by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as part of his attempt to expose what he has called "the largest programme of suspicionless surveillance in human history".
"It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight," Snowden told the Guardian. "They [GCHQ] are worse than the US."
However, on Friday a source with knowledge of intelligence argued that the data was collected legally under a system of safeguards, and had provided material that had led to significant breakthroughs in detecting and preventing serious crime.
Britain's technical capacity to tap into the cables that carry the world's communications – referred to in the documents as special source exploitation – has made GCHQ an intelligence superpower.
By 2010, two years after the project was first trialled, it was able to boast it had the "biggest internet access" of any member of the Five Eyes electronic eavesdropping alliance, comprising the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
UK officials could also claim GCHQ "produces larger amounts of metadata than NSA". (Metadata describes basic information on who has been contacting whom, without detailing the content.)
By May last year 300 analysts from GCHQ, and 250 from the NSA, had been assigned to sift through the flood of data.
The Americans were given guidelines for its use, but were told in legal briefings by GCHQ lawyers: "We have a light oversight regime compared with the US".
When it came to judging the necessity and proportionality of what they were allowed to look for, would-be American users were told it was "your call".
The Guardian understands that a total of 850,000 NSA employees and US private contractors with top secret clearance had access to GCHQ databases.
The documents reveal that by last year GCHQ was handling 600m "telephone events" each day, had tapped more than 200 fibre-optic cables and was able to process data from at least 46 of them at a time.
[...]
As the probes began to generate data, GCHQ set up a three-year trial at the GCHQ station in Bude, Cornwall. By the summer of 2011, GCHQ had probes attached to more than 200 internet links, each carrying data at 10 gigabits a second. "This is a massive amount of data!" as one internal slideshow put it. That summer, it brought NSA analysts into the Bude trials. In the autumn of 2011, it launched Tempora as a mainstream programme, shared with the Americans.
The intercept probes on the transatlantic cables gave GCHQ access to its special source exploitation. Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.
"Internet buffers represent an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data," one document explained.
The processing centres apply a series of sophisticated computer programmes in order to filter the material through what is known as MVR – massive volume reduction. The first filter immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads, which reduces the volume by about 30%. Others pull out packets of information relating to "selectors" – search terms including subjects, phone numbers and email addresses of interest. Some 40,000 of these were chosen by GCHQ and 31,000 by the NSA. Most of the information extracted is "content", such as recordings of phone calls or the substance of email messages. The rest is metadata.
The GCHQ documents that the Guardian has seen illustrate a constant effort to build up storage capacity at the stations at Cheltenham, Bude and at one overseas location, as well a search for ways to maintain the agency's comparative advantage as the world's leading communications companies increasingly route their cables through Asia to cut costs. Meanwhile, technical work is ongoing to expand GCHQ's capacity to ingest data from new super cables carrying data at 100 gigabits a second. As one training slide told new users: "You are in an enviable position – have fun and make the most of it."
QuoteThat operation, codenamed Tempora,
How British.
A German article from 2012:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/datenschutz-geheimdienste-ueberwachten-mehr-als-millionen-e-mails-1.1293275
In 2010, German intelligence agencies scanned 37,000,000 emails and data connections because they contained certain keywords (bomb, atom, missile etc.). Of those 37 million items, 213 contained information that was useful to the agencies (or about 0.0006%).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2013, 11:25:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2013, 11:10:20 AM
Instead of arguing with me about it, go send some letters to the Von Mises institute.
They are even more impervious to reason.
As some of the chief standard bearers of Libertarianism and defenders of the South I'll take that as a concession.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2013, 06:00:31 AM
QuoteThat operation, codenamed Tempora,
How British.
O Tempora, O Mores!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2013, 01:30:35 PM
As some of the chief standard bearers of Libertarianism and defenders of the South I'll take that as a concession.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 23, 2013, 07:58:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2013, 06:00:31 AM
QuoteThat operation, codenamed Tempora,
How British.
O Tempora, O Mores!
Heh, just realised that myself a few minutes back.............the latin lessons are lost in the distant past nowadays :(
Still, it is nice to know that someone at GCHQ knows how disgusting their behaviour is.
In 2009, Snowden told a friend via chat that leakers "should be shot" in their genitals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/world/under-snowdens-screen-name-a-declaration-in-09-that-leakers-should-be-shot.html
Well that was before the Chinese gave him a good deal for it.
Arsificial sounds like Languish.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/67907_700641653298624_1734414715_n.jpg) :lol:
It's probably just going to be published with so many black lines so as to be unreadable.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/16/yahoo_wins_crucial_fisc_battle_in_secret_prism_spying_case.html
Quote
Yahoo Wins Crucial Court Battle in Secret PRISM Spying Case
By Ryan Gallagher
Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 5:11 PM
Yahoo doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to protecting users' data from surveillance. But the company is bolstering its privacy credentials by taking on the government in a fight to reveal details about secret spying.
On Monday, Yahoo won a partial but significant victory in an effort to force the release of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order demanding it that it turn over users' data, which it first unsuccessfully challenged in 2008. The case was revived after the recent leaks about NSA surveillance programs, including an Internet spy initiative called PRISM, which the government uses to collect information under FISA from major companies including Yahoo, Google, and Apple.
Yahoo asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to release the decision in the 2008 case, citing "the current controversy" about the FISA-PRISM surveillance as one of the reasons why disclosure is necessary. In a decision published on Monday, FISC Judge Reggie Walton ruled in Yahoo's favor, ordering the government to conduct a "declassification review," after which time Walton said the court "anticipates publishing" the 2008 documents "in a form that redacts any properly classified information."
In a statement, Yahoo said it was pleased with the decision and added that publication of the documents would "contribute constructively to the ongoing public discussion around online privacy."
The company's complicity in the PRISM program was a public relations disaster. But by challenging the surveillance, Yahoo has earned back some credibility, even receiving a "gold star" from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Since the series of stories about the NSA's surveillance programs broke last month, an unprecedented amount of pressure has been on the government to justify its spy efforts. The FISC has also been under heavy scrutiny, with critics blasting its excessive secrecy and branding it a "rubber stamp" court because it rarely rules against the government. Notably, the FISC's Yahoo decision is the second it has issued against the government since the NSA revelations. Last month, the court rejected an ongoing attempt by the Justice Department to prevent the release of a classified 2011 opinion detailing unlawful surveillance. It may be the case that the NSA revelations have indirectly had an impact on the FISC judges, making them more inclined to favor less secrecy and increased transparency in a effort to prove that they aren't just government lapdogs, after all
Hope he succeeds! :)
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/gop_civil_war_leaders_target_rising_star/
QuoteGOP insurrection heats up over surveillance
Rep. Justin Amash wants to deprive the NSA of funds for spying. Now, his angry House leadership is fighting back
By David Sirota
Topics: Republican Party, U.S. House of Representatives, Congress, NSA, Budget, Justin Amash, Editor's Picks, John Boehner, Politics News
GOP insurrection heats up over surveillanceJustin Amash, John Boehner (Credit: AP/Carlos Osorio/J. Scott Applewhite)
In an attempt to prevent Washington lawmakers from having to publicly declare their position on the National Security Administration's mass surveillance, will congressional leaders formally snuff out one of the last embers of democracy in the U.S. House? This is one of the big questions this week in Washington, as the Republicans who control the House are resorting to brass knuckled tactics in an effort to thwart one of their own.
Before getting to that stunning story, it's worth reviewing how the Congress actually operates.
As I learned from four-plus years working in the Capitol's lower chamber during President Bush's first term, the U.S. House of Representatives runs like a politburo did in a typical Soviet satellite state. Decisions about what even gets voted on — much less passed — usually happen behind closed doors, with a handful of party leaders handing down orders to the rest of the body's loyal apparatchiks. That means most legislative drama can't be seen by voters, and it means congresspeople rarely have to cast public votes on anything the House Speaker doesn't want them to vote on. By design, this system (which differs from the Senate, where all members can force votes on almost anything) deliberately protects majority party House members from having to cast embarrassing campaign-ad-worthy public votes against the minority party's proposals.
Repressive as the House is, tradition provides lawmakers with a few ways to hack the system — that is, if they happen to know what they are doing (which most lawmakers and staff, alas, don't). The best of these hacks is what's known as the appropriations "rider" — or what can alternately be called the Amendment Hack.
For various reasons, any lawmaker of either party has — up until now — been permitted to go the floor of the House and offer an amendment to any annual spending bill, as long as the amendment is germane to the bill. Translated from legislativese: roughly speaking, any House member of either party can get an amendment to an appropriations bill ruled in order — and thus force a vote on it — as long as the amendment doesn't add to the cost of the bill, and either transfers money from one program in the bill to another in the bill, or simply blocks funding for something in the bill.
advertisement
Because these parameters for getting a piece of legislation ruled in order tend to (by design) obscure the legislation's ostensible goal, there is a distinct art to writing the best of these kinds of amendments. And, if you are one of the relatively few working in Washington who actually wants to challenge the establishment, I can attest that there is little that's more professionally satisfying than succeeding in the craft of getting a bill ruled in order and preserving its intent. Indeed, one of my most cherished experiences in my four years working in the House was helping then-Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., successfully sculpt an amendment that — somehow — was both germane to an annual appropriations bill yet forced every member of the House to publicly disclose whether or not they supported Social Security privatization (the vote was later used in campaign commercials against the GOP's pro-privatization lawmakers).
The contemporary era's Picasso of the Amendment Hack was my old boss Bernie Sanders — indeed, so successful were his maneuvers against the Tom Delay-run Congress that they became the subject of a Rolling Stone profile identifying the Vermont lawmaker as "the amendment king" of the House. Today, that distinction may go to Florida Rep. Alan Grayson on the Democratic side, and, soon, to Michigan Rep. Justin Amash on the Republican side.
Now, let's stop for a moment because I can sense you wondering: Why would a lawmaker from the House's majority party like Amash ever use the Amendment Hack? It's a good question because normally, lawmakers from the House's majority party don't have to — or want to — resort to the Amendment Hack. Usually, because they ideologically agree with the Speaker, they can convince the Speaker to embed their priorities in legislation at the committee level so that their priorities never face real scrutiny when the larger bill comes up for a final-passage vote. And in the rare instance when they diverge from the Speaker on a given issue, majority-party legislators often just back down and avoid the Amendment Hack, for fear of punishment for disloyalty. Indeed, a majority-party legislator using the Amendment Hack against his own leadership is seen as the ultimate form of apostasy.
This brings us to Amash, the simmering fight over mass surveillance in America — and just how committed transpartisan Permanent Washington is to preserving that surveillance.
According to The Hill, Amash is openly defying his party's leadership by championing a simple amendment to the annual Defense Appropriations Bill based on the larger bill he's co-sponsoring with Democratic Rep. John Conyers. As National Journal suggests, Amash's amendment would ostensibly get his legislation ruled in order for an up-or-down vote by simply barring funds in the bill from going to the NSA for the purpose of "collecting telephone and other records from anyone who is not the subject of an investigation."
It's a brilliant example of the Amendment Hack, raising precisely the questions that Washington doesn't even want to talk about. Do lawmakers support an NSA that inherently presumes all Americans are guilty and worthy of surveillance? Or do they want surveillance resources aimed only at those who truly warrant probable cause? Amash's amendment would tell us exactly where each member of the House stands on those critical queries — which is why, of course, Permanent Washington is in a tizzy and why the House leadership is now hustling to figure out some way to stop the amendment from even being voted on.
Yes, in reaction to Amash's amendment, Republican leaders are considering a set of radical procedural moves to limit the total number of amendments on the defense spending bill — all while National Journal reports those leaders somehow insist "they are not abandoning the open amendment process they promised when they took the majority in 2011." Obviously, they are abandoning that promise — and they are abandoning it out of sheer fear that Permanent Washington is losing control of the national security debate. More specifically, they are apparently so afraid that public outrage over NSA surveillance will result in the amendment passing that they are trying to prevent it from even being voted on in the first place.
"Trying," though, is the key word. Amash's office told Politico on Friday that it believes enough Republicans will join with Democrats to procedurally stall out the entire Defense Bill if Republican leaders proceed with their plans to block a vote on the amendment. Calling Amash the leader of a bipartisan "insurrection" against civil liberties abuses by the Obama administration and NSA, Politico noted that this threat is why action on the Defense Bill was delayed last week — and why its future remains cloudy.
Assuming Amash and the bipartisan coalition around his amendment doesn't back down, there should be little doubt that Permanent Washington and supporters of mass surveillance will soon pivot to the "support our troops" frame. As they always do, they will insist that any delay of any bill relating to the military — in this case the Defense Appropriations Bill — is akin to not supporting the troops. Appealing to the most cartoonish mantras of militarism to try to force the bipartisan coalition to back down, the assertion will be that Amash's amendment is unpatriotic and treasonous because it might delay the passage of the bill, which would supposedly then leave American troops naked and unarmed on various battlefields across the world.
Not surprisingly, it's an absurd claim on two levels. Budget-wise, on top of the Pentagon's already huge appropriations, there are built-in "feed and forage" safeguards protecting resources for troops. Likewise, in terms of oversight, this inevitable "support the troops" argument on Defense appropriations bills effectively implies that there shouldn't be any oversight at all and that lawmakers shouldn't take extra time to even debate and vote on the specifics of what the bill actually funds — even if it happens to be funding an illegal and unconstitutional surveillance program aimed at millions of Americans.
Amash's amendment says the opposite — that Congress needs to have an open debate over that program. In the process, he and his bipartisan coalition have engineered a big moment in the fight over liberties and rights — and that includes Americans' basic right to know where their own elected officials stand on issues as fundamental as privacy and mass surveillance.
Should lawmakers respond to such a critical moment by blocking a vote on the amendment and then passing a defense bill funding more surveillance, the harrowing message should be clear: Congress will be saying that We the People shouldn't be permitted to see where our government officials stand on key public policy questions, but government officials should be allowed to continue surveilling, collecting and datamining the most intimate details of all of our lives.
I hope Cantor crushes his balls.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 08:23:03 AM
I hope Cantor crushes his balls.
Agreed. Paulite tendencies <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 11:07:02 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 08:23:03 AM
I hope Cantor crushes his balls.
Agreed. Paulite tendencies <_<
Come out of the closet Ed and Sheilbh.
The fascist closet that is.
Vote lost but it was pretty close, it seems like the surveillance issue is gaining traction over time.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
QuoteAyes Noes PRES NV
Republican 94 134 6
Democratic 111 83 6
Independent
TOTALS 205 217 12
:yeah:
It is amazing how bipartisan both sides of the issue are.
Considering how rather radical this bill was I think victory is at hand. Just need to do enough to move a few votes.
Though I guess I need to check myself. The Senate may not be as favorable. And of course Obama can veto.
Quote from: citizen k on July 23, 2013, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 11:07:02 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 08:23:03 AM
I hope Cantor crushes his balls.
Agreed. Paulite tendencies <_<
Come out of the closet Ed and Sheilbh.
The fascist closet that is.
It's fabulous in there.
U.S. Promises Snowden Won't Face Death Penalty
'U.S. authorities said NSA leaker Edward Snowden wouldn't face the death penalty—and promised he wouldn't be tortured—in a letter hoping to persuade Russia not to grant him asylum or refugee status.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578629781061789620.html
They would have better luck with the Russians if they said the opposite. Torture and death are core values of the Putin justice system.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2013, 11:47:59 AM
They would have better luck with the Russians if they said the opposite. Torture and death are core values of the Putin justice system.
But then again, the one thing Russians love even more than torture is bullying. This way, they get to tell themselves that they're pushing around the US, keeping them from executing this guy. As an added bonus, he'll probably be tortured in prison.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2013, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2013, 11:47:59 AM
They would have better luck with the Russians if they said the opposite. Torture and death are core values of the Putin justice system.
But then again, the one thing Russians love even more than torture is bullying. This way, they get to tell themselves that they're pushing around the US, keeping them from executing this guy. As an added bonus, he'll probably be tortured in prison.
They didn't mention he'll be flown home on a 787. :ph34r:
Imagine seeing this story in the 80's, the US asking Russia to deliver one of their citizens, on the promise he won't be killed or tortured. Would anyone have believed this would be the situation thirty years later?
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2013, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2013, 11:47:59 AM
They would have better luck with the Russians if they said the opposite. Torture and death are core values of the Putin justice system.
But then again, the one thing Russians love even more than torture is bullying. This way, they get to tell themselves that they're pushing around the US, keeping them from executing this guy. As an added bonus, he'll probably be tortured in prison.
The Russians are probably wondering what the US will pay for him.
I propose we give them another third of Georgia.
Quote from: citizen k on July 26, 2013, 01:32:58 PM
Imagine seeing this story in the 80's, the US asking Russia to deliver one of their citizens, on the promise he won't be killed or tortured. Would anyone have believed this would be the situation thirty years later?
No. It's bizarre how naive the Russians have become.
Hopefully this one will pass.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/29/patrick_leahy_s_fisa_accountability_and_privacy_protection_act_would_curtail.html
Quote
Last week, an effort in Congress to scale back the NSA's surveillance of Americans failed after a close vote. But another new law that could significantly rein in the government's spy programs is being proposed.
As part of a bipartisan push to reform surveillance laws, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. The bill aims to bring more judicial oversight, public accountability, and transparency to the secret surveillance powers used by the NSA and FBI, focusing specifically on controversial sections of the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill is co-sponsored by nine senators, including several outspoken critics of current spy laws, like Mark Udall, D-Colo., Ron Wyden D-Ore., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The bill would, among other things:
* Narrow the scope of the section 215 of the Patriot Act, the law used by the NSA to gather millions of Americans' phone records on a daily basis. Under Leahy's bill, to obtain the data the government would first have to produce a statement of facts showing that it is relevant to an authorized investigation and that there is a link to a foreign group or power.
* Allow for judicial review of "gag order" provisions of the Patriot Act that can stop a recipient from challenging a nondisclosure order until one year has passed.
* Bring forward the sunset clause of the recently renewed FISA Amendments Act by more than two years, to June 2015, enabling a sooner "re-examination" of the controversial spy law.
* Require the inspector general of the intelligence community to conduct a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act and its impact on the privacy rights of all Americans.
* Mandate the production of an unclassified report for the public that would review the impact of the government's secret surveillance powers on the privacy of Americans.
Leahy, who is separately pushing to update an outdated privacy law to protect email from warrantless snooping, says he has been trying for the last two Congresses to bring reform to the surveillance laws, but so far he has been unsuccessful. This time, however, his chances of success are surely markedly higher. More so than at any time in more than a decade, concern is mounting about the extent of the NSA's sweeping surveillance programs, which have been exposed to an unprecedented level of public scrutiny and debate following a series of leaked secret documents in June. Last week, in a sign that support for the government's spy initiatives is waning, an amendment that would have cut funding for the NSA's mass phone records collection was defeated in the House by a narrow 205-217 majority. The vote, described as "extraordinary" and "amazing" by senators who have been pushing for reform of surveillance laws for years, was taken as an indication that support is rapidly growing for enhanced oversight measures because in recent years votes on reining in NSA surveillance powers have usually been voted down with much larger majorities.
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Leahy chairs, will host a public hearing on privacy issues in the wake of the disclosures about the NSA surveillance programs. Senior officials from the NSA, FBI, and the Justice Department will be attending—and can expect to face what will no doubt be a severe grilling from Leahy. "I remain deeply concerned about the expansive use of government surveillance under FISA," the senator said in a statement announcing the hearing. "As I have said, just because we have the ability to collect huge amounts of data, it does not mean that we should be doing so."
Hmm... <_<
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nsa-tool-tracks-all-internet-conversations-says-guardian-6C10808165
QuoteNSA tool tracks all Internet conversations, says Guardian
Suzanne Choney NBC News
Americans' email and online chats can be monitored without authorization by any National Security Agency analyst using a computer program known as "XKeyscore," according to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, who shared the information with the Guardian in a story published Wednesday.
XKeyscore is described by the NSA in training materials as its "widest reaching" means of gathering information from the Internet, according to the Guardian. Using the program, "analysts can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the Internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used."
NSA analysts "can also use XKeyscore and other NSA systems to obtain ongoing 'real-time' interception of an individual's Internet activity," the Guardian said.
The NSA documents contend that by the year 2008, 300 terrorists had been captured using information gathered with XKeyscore, the newspaper said.
At a press briefing Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that "some of the claims made in that article are false."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., released a joint statement saying "The latest in the parade of classified leaks published today is without context and provides a completely inaccurate picture of the program."
XKeyscore, they said, "does not target American citizens. Further, the program referenced in the story is not used for indiscriminate monitoring of the Internet, as many falsely believe. Rather, the program is simply a tool used by our intelligence analysts to better understand foreign intelligence, including terrorist targets overseas."
Snowden referenced XKeyscore, although not by name, in June, when his first interviews with the British newspaper were published. In a Guardian video interview, Snowden said, "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."
Nor is this the first public mention of XKeyscore. Earlier this month, German intelligence agencies said the NSA gave them XKeyscore to use, according to documents seen by Der Spiegel reporters, with the program meant to "expand their ability to support NSA as we jointly prosecute CT [counter-terrorism] targets."
XKeyscore was also described earlier this year in "Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry," a book by Marc Ambinder and D.B. Grady published earlier this year.
"At Fort Meade, a program called XKeyscore processes all signals before they are shunted off to various 'production lines' that deal with specific issues," the authors wrote.
David Brown, who wrote "Deep State" using D.B. Grady as a pen name, told NBC News that what is "surprising everybody" with the XKeyscore information is "just how easily low-level analysts can access the data. The impediments that are supposed to be there really aren't."
"I like to think of it as plumbing," he said. "The pipes come in through XKeyscore, which then diverts the data through different channels, because there's just an awful lot of data."
Another NSA tool, called DNI Presenter, the Guardian said, lets an analyst who uses XKeyscore "read the content of Facebook chats or private messages," as well as the content of stored emails. Facebook declined to comment to NBC News about the report.
The amount of information gathered using XKeyscore is "staggeringly large," the newspaper said. "One NSA report from 2007 estimated that there were 850 billion 'call events' collected and stored in the NSA databases, and close to 150 billion Internet records. Each day, the document says, 1-2b billion records were added."
The Guardian said the XKeyscore training materials shared by Snowden show how easy it is for analysts to use it "and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed."
If that claim is true, it may conflict with U.S. legal requirements for performing digital surveillance of Americans, that the NSA obtain a warrant first from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.
"As we've explained, and the intelligence community has explained, allegations of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are false," said White House spokesman Carney.
"Access to all of NSA's analytic tools is limited to only those personnel who require access for their assigned tasks," he continued. "And there are multiple technical, manual and supervisory checks and balances within the system to prevent those who don't have access from achieving that access."
'Straightforward answers'
The Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday held a hearing on the oversight of FISA surveillance programs, which may have something to do with the timing of the Guardian's story. Also underway Wednesday was the annual Black Hat hackers' conference in Las Vegas, where Gen. Keith Alexander, head of the NSA, spoke to a somewhat hostile crowd.
"The assumption is that people are out there just wheeling and dealing, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said in a speech there Wednesday. "We have tremendous oversight in these programs ... You know that we can audit the actions of our people 100 percent in this case, and we do that."
Congressmen Rogers and Ruppersberger echoed Alexander's remarks, saying the Guardian story "also once again ignores the legal constraints, comprehensive training, and layers of oversight built into all NSA programs. Every search on the program by an NSA analyst is fully auditable to ensure it is done within the law."
But at the Senate hearing in Washington, D.C., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and chairman of the committee said, "We need straightforward answers. I'm concerned we're not getting them.
"I think the patience of the American people is beginning to wear thin, but what has to be of more concern in a democracy is the trust of the American people is wearing thin."
Also on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released declassified documents relating to the government's collection of Americans' telephone data, one of the first disclosures by Snowden in June.
Jameel Jaffer, the American Civil Liberties Union's deputy legal director, said in a statement that the Guardian's "latest revelations make clear that the government's surveillance activities are far more extensive and intrusive than previously understood, and they underscore that the surveillance laws are in desperate need of reform."
Meanwhile, Snowden remains in Russia, where he has spent more than a month in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, as he seeks temporary asylum there.
As ever Greenwald and the Guardian overpromise and the US bureaucracy's love affair with baffling names continues:
http://theweek.com/article/index/247684/whats-xkeyscore
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2013, 02:46:30 PM
I propose we give them another third of Georgia.
I like this idea. Maybe we can throw in the top part of Florida as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2013, 08:43:32 PM
As ever Greenwald and the Guardian overpromise
Maybe if there was more transparency the government would not be subject to the righteous efforts of the defenders of liberty -_-
By the way your counter-revolutionary aristo-sympathizing ways have been noticed by the committee :frog:
I can't wait until Glen Greeneald's tragic shaving accident.
And the Russians have given him asylum:
QuoteMOSCOW, Russia - NSA leaker Edward Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia and has left the Moscow airport where he had been stranded for more than a month, his lawyer said Thursday.
An airport representative told Reuters that the former intelligence contractor had already crossed through the immigration line and left the airport.
Snowden's lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said he wouldn't disclose the 30-year-old fugitive's whereabouts for security reasons.
"He is the most wanted man on planet Earth. What do you think he is going to do? He has to think about his personal security. I cannot tell you where he is going," Kucherena told Reuters.
I put him in a taxi 15 to 20 minutes ago and gave him his certificate on getting refugee status in the Russian Federation," he said. "He can live wherever he wants in Russia. It's his personal choice."
WikiLeaks also posted on Twitter that Snowden had left the airport.
"We would like to thank the Russian people and all those others who have helped to protect Mr. Snowden," it said in a tweet.
"We have won the battle -- now the war."
Marie Harf, a State Department deputy spokesperson, told reporters Wednesday that Snowden was "not a human rights activist."
"He's not a dissident. He's been accused of leaking classified information, has been charged with three very serious felony counts, and must be, should be, returned to the United States to face a free and fair trial as soon as possible," she said at the daily briefing.
"We are working through law enforcement channels with the Russian government to make the point that Mr. Snowden is wanted on serious felony charges and needs to be returned to the United States."
But Harf added that the U.S. had also "made the point that we don't want this issue to have a hugely negative impact on our bilateral relationship."
A senior Kremlin official, Yuri Ushakov, told Reuters that he doubted ties between Russia and the United States would suffer because of the "relatively insignificant" Snowden case.
"Our president has ... expressed hope many times that this will not affect the character of our relations," he told reporters, saying there was no sign that U.S. President Barack Obama would cancel a planned visit to Moscow in September.
Well, probably easier for him to have an "accident" now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 31, 2013, 08:43:32 PM
As ever Greenwald and the Guardian overpromise and the US bureaucracy's love affair with baffling names continues:
http://theweek.com/article/index/247684/whats-xkeyscore
Wow, short enough that even I didn't need a tl;dr summary. So it basically functions as an API, and really has nothing to do with the actual surveillance tools.
Putin once again pokes a finger at the US, and likely enjoys doing what he can to take jabs at the US.
Quote
Germany ends Cold War spying pact with US, Britain
BERLIN (AP) — Germany canceled a Cold War-era surveillance pact with the United States and Britain on Friday in response to revelations by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden about those countries' alleged electronic eavesdropping operations.
The move appeared largely symbolic, designed to show that the German government was taking action to stop unwarranted surveillance directed against its citizens without actually jeopardizing relations with Washington and London. With weeks to go before national elections, opposition parties had seized on Snowden's claim that Germany was complicit in the NSA's intelligence-gathering operations.
Government officials have insisted that U.S. and British intelligence were never given permission to break Germany's strict privacy laws. But they conceded last month that an agreement dating back to the late 1960s gave the U.S., Britain and France the right to request German authorities to conduct surveillance operations within Germany to protect their troops stationed there.
"The cancellation of the administrative agreements, which we have pushed for in recent weeks, is a necessary and proper consequence of the recent debate about protecting personal privacy," Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in a statement.
British Foreign Office brushed off the significance of the German move. "It's a loose end from a previous era which is right to tie up," the Foreign Office said in a statement, noting that the agreement had not been used since 1990.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Berlin, Ruth Bennett, confirmed that the agreement had been canceled but declined to comment further on the issue.
A German official, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said the cancellation would have little practical consequences.
He said the agreement had not been invoked since the end of the Cold War and would have no impact on current intelligence cooperation between Germany and its NATO allies. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Germany is currently in talks with France to cancel its part of the agreement as well.
Public reaction in Germany to Snowden's revelations was particularly strong, with civil rights campaigners recalling the mass surveillance carried out by secret police in communist East Germany and during the Nazi era. Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to raise the issue of alleged NSA spying with President Barack Obama when he visited Berlin in June.
"The government needs to do something to show voters it's taking the issue seriously," said Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based think tank. "Ending an agreement made in the pre-Internet age gives the Germans a chance to show they're doing something, and at the same time the Americans know it's not going to hurt them. Given the good relations between the intelligence agencies, they'll get the information they need anyway."
According to Snowden, Germany has been a particular focus on U.S. intelligence gathering operations in recent years. Several of those who plotted and carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States had lived in Germany.
In March 2011, two U.S. Air Force members were killed and two wounded when a gunman from Kosovo fired on a military bus at Frankfurt International Airport. The gunman told police he was motivated by anger over the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote
http://news.yahoo.com/germany-ends-cold-war-spying-pact-us-britain-145752116.html (http://news.yahoo.com/germany-ends-cold-war-spying-pact-us-britain-145752116.html)
That's what they want you to think. Bullshit.
What's what who wants us to believe?
The backlash is gaining steam! ^_^
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919
QuoteJuly 10, 2013 - U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Big Shift On Civil Liberties vs. Counter-Terrorism
American voters say 55 - 34 percent that Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
In a massive shift in attitudes, voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 14, 2010, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country.
Almost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.
There is a gender gap on counter-terrorism efforts as men say 54 - 34 percent they have gone too far and women say 47 - 36 percent they have not gone far enough. There is little difference among Democrats and Republicans who are about evenly divided. Independent voters say 49 - 36 percent that counter-terrorism measures have gone too far.
Some of the largest growth in those concerned about the threat to civil liberties is among men and Republicans, groups historically more likely to be supportive of governmental anti- terrorism efforts.
"The massive swing in public opinion about civil liberties and governmental anti- terrorism efforts, and the public view that Edward Snowden is more whistle-blower than traitor are the public reaction and apparent shock at the extent to which the government has gone in trying to prevent future terrorist incidents," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"The fact that there is little difference now along party lines about the overall anti- terrorism effort and civil liberties and about Snowden is in itself unusual in a country sharply divided along political lines about almost everything. Moreover, the verdict that Snowden is not a traitor goes against almost the unified view of the nation's political establishment."
When Quinnipiac University asked voters in January, 2010, whether they thought the government had gone too far restricting civil liberties or not gone far enough to protect the country, not more than 35 percent of any demographic group thought it had gone too far. Then, Republicans said not far enough 72 - 17 percent; today GOP voters say not far enough 46 - 41 percent. Democrats went from not far enough 57 - 29 percent to too far 43 - 42 percent. Men went from 61 - 28 percent not far enough to 54 - 34 percent too far. Women went from 64 - 22 not far enough to 47 - 36 percent not far enough.
"The change in public attitudes has been extraordinary, almost across the board and obviously not just related to the revelation of the phone-scanning program, given all that has transpired since 2010," said Brown. "Yet it would be naive to see these numbers as anything but evidence of a rethinking by the public about the tradeoffs between security and freedom."
While voters support the phone-scanning program 51 - 45 percent and say 54 - 40 percent that it "is necessary to keep Americans safe," they also say 53 - 44 percent that the program "is too much intrusion into Americans' personal privacy."
"Americans' views on anti-terrorism efforts are complicated," said Brown. "They see the threat from terrorism as real and worth defending against, but they have a sense that their privacy is being invaded and they are not happy about it at all."
From June 28 - July 8, Quinnipiac University surveyed 2,014 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and the nation as a public service and for research.
For more information, visit http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling, call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter.
Fuck off.
QuoteAlmost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.
This is what I don't get. What is going on with white folks these days?
What kind of whisteblower packs up his evidence and heads to that beacon of liberty . . . the PRC? And when it turns out even they have standards, his next move is to try Cuba by way of Russia?
Probably one who doesn't want to be Bradley Manning?
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized. So whether he goes to Russia or the moon, zero shits given as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Probably one who doesn't want to be Bradley Manning?
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized. So whether he goes to Russia or the moon, zero shits given as far as I am concerned.
So you're broadly in favour of what he did, the benefits of bringing this surveillance to light and public debate, out-weighing intelligence loses ?
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized. So whether he goes to Russia or the moon, zero shits given as far as I am concerned.
I haven't seen the political movement you have. No new laws, no new commissions, no real swings in public opinion (other that one based on a report from a rather dubious source at Quinnipiac University that compared July 2013 data to Jan 2010 data - three years before Snowden - to get its "big swing). The question "is Snowden more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower" doesn't seem particularly useful, either. I don't think he is much of either, myself.
Bacon of liberty. :mmm:
Quote from: The Brain on August 05, 2013, 09:52:55 AM
Bacon of liberty. :mmm:
FREE BACON!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.lehighvalleylive.com%2Fentertainment-general_impact%2Fphoto%2Fkevin-bacon-deb256270e6b93c2.jpg&hash=af090f30b3eb479dbb6d92e7191ab705203ddc5e)
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 09:48:08 AM
I haven't seen the political movement you have. No new laws, no new commissions, no real swings in public opinion (other that one based on a report from a rather dubious source at Quinnipiac University that compared July 2013 data to Jan 2010 data - three years before Snowden - to get its "big swing). The question "is Snowden more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower" doesn't seem particularly useful, either. I don't think he is much of either, myself.
Yeah, he's really not a traitor in the legal sense, just a law breaker. And he's not a whistle blower by that particular definition, either. He's just a self-absorbed Millennial hipster high school dropout with some PowerPoints about things that, if people were paying attention for the last 10 years, they'd know existed anyway. And I doubt any "revelations" he delivers will result in some sort of new Church Commission.
His importance is magnified by the 24 hour news cycle, and himself.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 05, 2013, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 09:48:08 AM
I haven't seen the political movement you have. No new laws, no new commissions, no real swings in public opinion (other that one based on a report from a rather dubious source at Quinnipiac University that compared July 2013 data to Jan 2010 data - three years before Snowden - to get its "big swing). The question "is Snowden more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower" doesn't seem particularly useful, either. I don't think he is much of either, myself.
Yeah, he's really not a traitor in the legal sense, just a law breaker. And he's not a whistle blower by that particular definition, either. He's just a self-absorbed Millennial hipster high school dropout with some PowerPoints about things that, if people were paying attention for the last 10 years, they'd know existed anyway. And I doubt any "revelations" he delivers will result in some sort of new Church Commission.
His importance is magnified by the 24 hour news cycle, and himself.
:yes: :hug:
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:45:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Probably one who doesn't want to be Bradley Manning?
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized. So whether he goes to Russia or the moon, zero shits given as far as I am concerned.
So you're broadly in favour of what he did, the benefits of bringing this surveillance to light and public debate, out-weighing intelligence loses ?
My hope is that we can get the tide turned back the other way and be able to debate these sorts of things. I think we have the momentum in our direction and Snowden, and the Guardian, have a big part to play in that. Now whether Snowden is an admirable guy or whether the intelligence losses are vital I am not sure, I think that is still up in the air. The real lesson is you cannot just make huge policy decisions like this involving the American people on the executive level and silence all debate about it via secrecy. That strikes me as taking executive privilege too far and the sort of thinking that will lead to more leakers.
So I guess I hope the political process results in a new consensus in intelligence gathering that re-assures all of our Constitutional scruples and makes unfortunate things like these big leaks unnecessary and something we can all condemn.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Probably one who doesn't want to be Bradley Manning?
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized.
I agree there are hardworking Senators and Reps who are concerned about these issues. Which raises the questions why the "whistleblowers" didn't come to them in the first instance as opposed to that moral giant of our era, Julian Assange, or the HK correspondence bureau of the Guardian.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 10:03:40 AM
My hope is that we can get the tide turned back the other way and be able to debate these sorts of things. I think we have the momentum in our direction and Snowden, and the Guardian, have a big part to play in that. Now whether Snowden is an admirable guy or whether the intelligence losses are vital I am not sure, I think that is still up in the air. The real lesson is you cannot just make huge policy decisions like this involving the American people on the executive level and silence all debate about it via secrecy. That strikes me as taking executive privilege too far and the sort of thinking that will lead to more leakers.
I somewhat disagree, and would argue, instead, that we have the momentum in our direction, and have had it for some time, Snowden or not. This was not a program established by Executive Order, it was established by Congressional mandate. We are trying to get Congress to assert itself in its constitutionally-mandated role of oversight over the spending of public funds. There has been no assertion of Executive Privilege here of which we are aware, let alone the abuse of such an assertion; the problem lies almost entirely in the hands of the Congress, and especially its leadership. Subcommittee oversight hearings are too often either too buddy-buddy or too stridently seeking headlines to exercise due diligence in making sure these programs stayed within the bound Congress intended for them. But, as I said, I think the tide has been shifting in our direction since shortly after the Patriot Act started rotting in 2003 or 2004, and it really just needs some new Congressional leadership, on both sides of the aisle, to end the abuses. I think one more losing election will see the two biggest problems, Pelosi and McConnel, gone.
[/quote]
So I guess I hope the political process results in a new consensus in intelligence gathering that re-assures all of our Constitutional scruples and makes unfortunate things like these big leaks unnecessary and something we can all condemn. [/quote]
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 10:30:21 AM
I think one more losing election will see the two biggest problems, Pelosi and McConnel, gone.
:w00t:
Oh don't taunt me so! :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 10:03:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on August 05, 2013, 09:45:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
Probably one who doesn't want to be Bradley Manning?
The fact of the matter is Snowden is actually producing results, we are getting political movement on this, when before the efforts of hardworking Senators and Congresspeople were being ignored and marginalized. So whether he goes to Russia or the moon, zero shits given as far as I am concerned.
So you're broadly in favour of what he did, the benefits of bringing this surveillance to light and public debate, out-weighing intelligence loses ?
My hope is that we can get the tide turned back the other way and be able to debate these sorts of things. I think we have the momentum in our direction and Snowden, and the Guardian, have a big part to play in that. Now whether Snowden is an admirable guy or whether the intelligence losses are vital I am not sure, I think that is still up in the air. The real lesson is you cannot just make huge policy decisions like this involving the American people on the executive level and silence all debate about it via secrecy. That strikes me as taking executive privilege too far and the sort of thinking that will lead to more leakers.
So I guess I hope the political process results in a new consensus in intelligence gathering that re-assures all of our Constitutional scruples and makes unfortunate things like these big leaks unnecessary and something we can all condemn.
Thanks, I hadn't read all of the thread to know were people here stood on the issue.
I also broadly agree with you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 09:20:38 AM
QuoteAlmost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.
This is what I don't get. What is going on with white folks these days?
What kind of whisteblower packs up his evidence and heads to that beacon of liberty . . . the PRC? And when it turns out even they have standards, his next move is to try Cuba by way of Russia?
The kind of whistleblower who doesn't want to be thrown deep into the military justice system, never to be heard from again?
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 12:37:22 PM
The kind of whistleblower who doesn't want to be thrown deep into the military justice system, never to be heard from again?
You mean like the way Bradley Manning wasn't heard from again?
If "not being heard from" means a three month long trial covered daily by the press, an impressive trial team of 3 experienced defense counsel, and resulting in acquittal on the most serious charge against him, you'd be right. Justice in America is often flawed but from all appearances, Bradley Manning has about as little to complain about as just about anyone I can think of.
It would be more accurate IMO to say that Snowden is the kind of whistleblower who knows he has broken the law and the trust placed in him but doesn't want to take the consequences.
I can certainly understand why a criminal would want to escape prosecution; I don't understand why such conduct should be excused or admired.
Yea I can admire someone who breaks the law for the greater good as long as they stand and accept judgement for it. He lost any cred as a whistleblower when he fled the country.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 12:59:50 PM
I can certainly understand why a criminal would want to escape prosecution; I don't understand why such conduct should be excused or admired.
OK, BB.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 12:59:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 12:37:22 PM
The kind of whistleblower who doesn't want to be thrown deep into the military justice system, never to be heard from again?
You mean like the way Bradley Manning wasn't heard from again?
If "not being heard from" means a three month long trial covered daily by the press, an impressive trial team of 3 experienced defense counsel, and resulting in acquittal on the most serious charge against him, you'd be right. Justice in America is often flawed but from all appearances, Bradley Manning has about as little to complain about as just about anyone I can think of.
It would be more accurate IMO to say that Snowden is the kind of whistleblower who knows he has broken the law and the trust placed in him but doesn't want to take the consequences.
I can certainly understand why a criminal would want to escape prosecution; I don't understand why such conduct should be excused or admired.
There is a slight difference between "heard from" and "heard about".
Quote from: Maximus on August 05, 2013, 01:01:37 PM
Yea I can admire someone who breaks the law for the greater good as long as they stand and accept judgement for it. He lost any cred as a whistleblower when he fled the country.
Let's turn it around. Let's say that a Russian intelligence officer decides to blow the whistle on some terrorist act that his intelligence agency perpetrated (say, blowing up a couple of apartment buildings). Would that intelligence officer lose his credibility if he decided against staying in Russia, and escaped to, say, Great Britain?
No, there is a reason I immigrated to the US and not Russia
Quote from: Maximus on August 05, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
No, there is a reason I immigrated to the US and not Russia
Hot American poontang.
I reject both the false equivalence between the UK and Putin's Russia and the false equivalence between the indiscriminate release of over a quarter of a million confidential diplomatic cables and the cover up of a terrorist bombing.
Quote from: Maximus on August 05, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
No, there is a reason I immigrated to the US and not Russia
Well, when it comes to blowing state secrets, every country is more or less like Russia. Some will take your life directly, some will just ruin it, but your life will be essentially done for. I generally don't hold lack of suicidal behavior against people, not to mention the fact that it's harder to keep blowing the whistle once you're in the hands of the entity you're blowing the whistle on.
These critiques make zero sense. Those are rationalizations, not reasons.
Yea, I disagree with pretty much all of that.
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 05, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
No, there is a reason I immigrated to the US and not Russia
Well, when it comes to blowing state secrets, every country is more or less like Russia.
The USA has a perfectly reasonably functioning rule of law.
Snowden is running not because he thinks he cannot get a fair trial in the USA, but because he knows he will get a fair trial in the USA.
Quote
U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
By John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.
"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."
THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION
The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.
Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed. The documents reviewed by Reuters are marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive," a government categorization that is meant to keep them confidential.
"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."
A spokesman with the Department of Justice, which oversees the DEA, declined to comment.
But two senior DEA officials defended the program, and said trying to "recreate" an investigative trail is not only legal but a technique that is used almost daily.
A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, 'Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.
"PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION"
After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."
The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."
A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.
"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.
Some defense lawyers and former prosecutors said that using "parallel construction" may be legal to establish probable cause for an arrest. But they said employing the practice as a means of disguising how an investigation began may violate pretrial discovery rules by burying evidence that could prove useful to criminal defendants.
A QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
"That's outrageous," said Tampa attorney James Felman, a vice chairman of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association. "It strikes me as indefensible."
Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."
Lustberg and others said the government's use of the SOD program skirts established court procedures by which judges privately examine sensitive information, such as an informant's identity or classified evidence, to determine whether the information is relevant to the defense.
"You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"
Some lawyers say there can be legitimate reasons for not revealing sources. Robert Spelke, a former prosecutor who spent seven years as a senior DEA lawyer, said some sources are classified. But he also said there are few reasons why unclassified evidence should be concealed at trial.
"It's a balancing act, and they've doing it this way for years," Spelke said. "Do I think it's a good way to do it? No, because now that I'm a defense lawyer, I see how difficult it is to challenge."
CONCEALING A TIP
One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.
"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.
A senior DEA official said he was not aware of the case but said the agent should not have misled the prosecutor. How often such misdirection occurs is unknown, even to the government; the DEA official said the agency does not track what happens with tips after the SOD sends them to agents in the field.
The SOD's role providing information to agents isn't itself a secret. It is briefly mentioned by the DEA in budget documents, albeit without any reference to how that information is used or represented when cases go to court.
The DEA has long publicly touted the SOD's role in multi-jurisdictional and international investigations, connecting agents in separate cities who may be unwittingly investigating the same target and making sure undercover agents don't accidentally try to arrest each other.
SOD'S BIG SUCCESSES
The unit also played a major role in a 2008 DEA sting in Thailand against Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout; he was sentenced in 2011 to 25 years in prison on charges of conspiring to sell weapons to the Colombian rebel group FARC. The SOD also recently coordinated Project Synergy, a crackdown against manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of synthetic designer drugs that spanned 35 states and resulted in 227 arrests.
Since its inception, the SOD's mandate has expanded to include narco-terrorism, organized crime and gangs. A DEA spokesman declined to comment on the unit's annual budget. A recent LinkedIn posting on the personal page of a senior SOD official estimated it to be $125 million.
Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE.
The DICE database contains about 1 billion records, the senior DEA officials said. The majority of the records consist of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. Records are kept for about a year and then purged, the DEA officials said.
About 10,000 federal, state and local law enforcement agents have access to the DICE database, records show. They can query it to try to link otherwise disparate clues. Recently, one of the DEA officials said, DICE linked a man who tried to smuggle $100,000 over the U.S. southwest border to a major drug case on the East Coast.
"We use it to connect the dots," the official said.
"AN AMAZING TOOL"
Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst.
"They do a pretty good job of screening, but it can be a struggle to know for sure whether the person on a wiretap is American," the senior law enforcement official said.
Tips from domestic wiretaps typically occur when agents use information gleaned from a court-ordered wiretap in one case to start a second investigation.
As a practical matter, law enforcement agents said they usually don't worry that SOD's involvement will be exposed in court. That's because most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial and therefore never request to see the evidence against them. If cases did go to trial, current and former agents said, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement.
Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away.
"It was an amazing tool," said one recently retired federal agent. "Our big fear was that it wouldn't stay secret."
DEA officials said that the SOD process has been reviewed internally. They declined to provide Reuters with a copy of their most recent review.
How DEA program differs from recent NSA revelations
By John Shiffman
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former spy-agency contractor Edward Snowden has caused a fierce debate over civil liberties and national-security needs by disclosing details of secret U.S. government surveillance programs.
Reuters has uncovered previously unreported details about a separate program, run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, that extends well beyond intelligence gathering. Its use, legal experts say, raises fundamental questions about whether the government is concealing information used to investigate and help build criminal cases against American citizens.
The DEA program is run by a secretive unit called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Here is how NSA efforts exposed by Snowden differ from the activities of the SOD:
Purpose of the programs
NSA: To use electronic surveillance to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation catch terrorists, the U.S. military fight wars, and the Central Intelligence Agency collect intelligence about foreign governments.
SOD: To help the DEA and other law enforcement agents launch criminal investigations of drug dealers, money launderers and other common criminals, including Americans. The unit also handles global narco-terrorism cases.
Gathering of evidence
NSA: Much of what the agency does remains classified, but Snowden's recent disclosures show that NSA not only eavesdrops on foreign communications but has also created a database of virtually every phone call made inside the United States.
SOD: The SOD forwards tips gleaned from NSA intercepts, wiretaps by foreign governments, court-approved domestic wiretaps and a database called DICE to federal agents and local law enforcement officers. The DICE database is different from the NSA phone-records database. DICE consists of about 1 billion records, and is primarily a compilation of phone log data that is legally gathered by the DEA through subpoenas or search warrants.
Disclosure to the accused
NSA: Collection of domestic data by the NSA and FBI for espionage and terrorism cases is regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If prosecutors intend to use FISA or other classified evidence in court, they issue a public notice, and a judge determines whether the defense is entitled to review the evidence. In a court filing last week, prosecutors said they will now notify defendants whenever the NSA phone-records database is used during an investigation.
SOD: A document reviewed by Reuters shows that federal drug agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to conceal the SOD's involvement. Defense attorneys, former prosecutors and judges say the practice prevents defendants from even knowing about evidence that might be exculpatory. They say it circumvents court procedures for weighing whether sensitive, classified or FISA evidence must be disclosed to a defendant.
Oversight
NSA: Congressional leaders and intelligence committee members are briefed on the NSA's classified programs. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews and approves warrants for domestic eavesdropping.
SOD: DEA officials who oversee the unit say the information sent to law enforcement authorities was obtained through subpoena, court order and other legal means. A DEA spokesman said members of Congress "have been briefed over the years about SOD programs and successes." This includes a 2011 letter to the Senate describing the DICE database. But the spokesman said he didn't know whether lawmakers have been briefed on how tips are being used in domestic criminal cases.
Quote"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011.
I think she doth protesteth too much. Keeping informants' identities hidden when their evidence is not actually being used in the case isn't uncommon in criminal cases. Unless she was some kind of federal administrative judge who never encountered a criminal case nor ever talked to prosecutors or defense attorneys, I think she probably heard something like this "at all."
Ditto for almost any intelligence feed into a criminal investigation. A foreign source might not be willing to come and testify in the US, but the information provided by that source could be used in internal US investigations without, I believe, violating any "Constitutional rights" (which consist of the right to vote and nothing more - the rest of the rights of US citizens are "Constitutionally protected" but not "Constitutional"
per se).
All true grumbler, but what is unusual here is that the information is also withheld from prosecutors, which prevents them from complying with their Brady obligations.
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 05, 2013, 01:06:46 PM
No, there is a reason I immigrated to the US and not Russia
Well, when it comes to blowing state secrets, every country is more or less like Russia. Some will take your life directly, some will just ruin it, but your life will be essentially done for.
:console:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
All true grumbler, but what is unusual here is that the information is also withheld from prosecutors, which prevents them from complying with their Brady obligations.
Are intelligence officials required to provide classified information to prosecutors to ensure the prosecutors can meet their Brady obligations, when that information isn't used in the case? If so, are there provisions for the protection of the intel sources?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 05, 2013, 09:59:52 AMYeah, he's really not a traitor in the legal sense, just a law breaker. And he's not a whistle blower by that particular definition, either. He's just a self-absorbed Millennial hipster high school dropout with some PowerPoints about things that, if people were paying attention for the last 10 years, they'd know existed anyway. And I doubt any "revelations" he delivers will result in some sort of new Church Commission.
His importance is magnified by the 24 hour news cycle, and himself.
I think a lot of people are desperate to find a 21st century Daniel Ellsberg (or even if not guys like him, plain ordinary good investigative journalists like Bernstein and Woodward), and are ready to announce anyone who does anything anti-government as sharing in the heritage of people that rooted out or took personal risk to expose government malfeasance. Snowden, Manning, Assange are all of a mold where it appears they acted mostly out of stupidity/mental defect (Manning), or narcissism (Snowden and Assange.) They also mostly exposed nothing, the biggest thing ever to come out of WikiLeaks was a helicopter video showing something that was probably not a criminal act, and a lot of diplomatic cables that mostly contained stuff everyone knew anyway (but we obviously didn't want to be caught saying) and intelligence information on Afghanistan that mostly just hurt operations there and didn't really expose any malfeasance. The Snowden stuff as you say, people should have had some inkling it was going on.
A whistleblower in any case I thought someone at a company or the government who takes a risk and exposes their employer for committing crimes, like financial fraud or things like torture or whatever in the case of the government. Snowden revealed classified but entirely legal processes, that were allowed (as interpreted by a court) by statutes passed by a recent Congress. That's not whistleblowing, that is disagreeing with the law and then breaking another set of laws to try and express your disagreement with said law. That is "something", maybe civil disobedience, but it's not whistleblowing.
I agree 100% with Otto.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 02:53:35 PM
All true grumbler, but what is unusual here is that the information is also withheld from prosecutors, which prevents them from complying with their Brady obligations.
Are intelligence officials required to provide classified information to prosecutors to ensure the prosecutors can meet their Brady obligations, when that information isn't used in the case? If so, are there provisions for the protection of the intel sources?
SOD as described covers a lot of information of which NSA intercepts are only one. And probably a lot less than foreign government wiretaps obtained by normal means, although I guess we have no way of knowing the quantity.
It is not exactly unknown for secret intelliegence information to become relevant to a case. There are various ways this is handled, but often a judge reviews a description in camera, and may rule that the material is not subject to disclosure for security reasons. Or he may rule that some limited material may be seen by selected lawyers who get security clearances for that purpose. But none of that inquiry can happen if one arm of the government is lying to another arm of the government.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 05, 2013, 12:59:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 05, 2013, 12:37:22 PM
The kind of whistleblower who doesn't want to be thrown deep into the military justice system, never to be heard from again?
You mean like the way Bradley Manning wasn't heard from again?
If "not being heard from" means a three month long trial covered daily by the press, an impressive trial team of 3 experienced defense counsel, and resulting in acquittal on the most serious charge against him, you'd be right. Justice in America is often flawed but from all appearances, Bradley Manning has about as little to complain about as just about anyone I can think of.
It would be more accurate IMO to say that Snowden is the kind of whistleblower who knows he has broken the law and the trust placed in him but doesn't want to take the consequences.
I can certainly understand why a criminal would want to escape prosecution; I don't understand why such conduct should be excused or admired.
Manning was also tortured for months, something that Snowden may have wanted to avoid for some reason. :hmm:
He was put in solitary Timmy.
Or are you referring to his food insecurity?
I doubt that Snowden believed that he was at risk of being putting on suicide watch in an overseas military prison.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.repubx.com%2Fimage.axd%3Fpicture%3D2013%252F6%252Fturtlethumb.jpg&hash=df74b35f5fe3c0f2c6001b4345a5bd9369de8ef5)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9CDq31u.jpg&hash=745dfc053ac90ee370888e2cd4b3e104c98ea39e)
Looks like somebody's been eating fermented fruit again.
What the hell is she reading? That can't be a comfortable position for reading.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 07:06:44 PM
What the hell is she reading? That can't be a comfortable position for reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near
Edward Snowden can stay in "free russia" for all I care now...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/07/al-qaeda-conference-call-intercepted-by-u-s-officials-sparked-alerts.html
QuoteExclusive: Al Qaeda Conference Call Intercepted by U.S. Officials Sparked Alerts
by Eli Lake, Josh Rogin Aug 7, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
It wasn't just any terrorist message that triggered U.S. terror alerts and embassy closures—but a conference call of more than 20 far-flung al Qaeda operatives, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report.
The intercept provided the U.S. intelligence community with a rare glimpse into how al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, manages a global organization that includes affiliates in Africa, the Middle East, and southwest and southeast Asia.
Several news outlets reported Monday on an intercepted communication last week between Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda's affiliate based in Yemen. But The Daily Beast has learned that the discussion between the two al Qaeda leaders happened in a conference call that included the leaders or representatives of the top leadership of al Qaeda and its affiliates calling in from different locations, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. All told, said one U.S. intelligence official, more than 20 al Qaeda operatives were on the call.
To be sure, the CIA had been tracking the threat posed by Wuhayshi for months. An earlier communication between Zawahiri and Wuhayshi delivered through a courier was picked up last month, according to three U.S. intelligence officials. But the conference call provided a new sense of urgency for the U.S. government, the sources said.
Al Qaeda members included representatives or leaders from Nigeria's Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and more obscure al Qaeda affiliates such as the Uzbekistan branch. Also on the call were representatives of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates such as al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The presence of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates operating in the Sinai was one reason the State Department closed the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, according to one U.S. intelligence official. "These guys already proved they could hit Eilat. It's not out of the range of possibilities that they could hit us in Tel Aviv," the official said.
Al Qaeda leaders had assumed the conference calls, which give Zawahiri the ability to manage his organization from a remote location, were secure. But leaks about the original intercepts have likely exposed the operation that allowed the U.S. intelligence community to listen in on the al Qaeda board meetings.
"This was like a meeting of the Legion of Doom," one U.S. intelligence officer told The Daily Beast, referring to the coalition of villains featured in the Saturday morning cartoon Super Friends. The official said Zawahiri announced to the broader organization during the meeting that Wuhayshi had been promoted to "Ma'sul al-Amm," an Arabic term that roughly translates as "general manager." The promotion effectively gave the leader of al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen operational control of al Qaeda's many affiliates throughout the Muslim world, the official said, a key factor that led the State Department to close embassies, missions, and consulates throughout the region. "All you need to do is look at that list of places we shut down to get a sense of who was on the phone call," the official said.
Also during the meeting, the various al Qaeda leaders discussed in vague terms plans for a pending attack and mentioned that a team or teams were already in place for such an attack. For some leading members of Congress, the revelation that al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan is actively managing and directing the operations of several affiliates directly refutes the Obama administration's repeated assertion that the leadership of the core of the group has been decimated by American drone strikes and special operations forces while the affiliate groups have been strengthened.
"This may punch a sizable hole in the theory that al Qaeda is on the run," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama often said that his administration's actions put al Qaeda "on its heels," although he later amended that claim to specify that he was referring to al Qaeda's core leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration continued to make that argument Monday.
"We've been clear that we have made a great deal of success against al Qaeda core in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we have taken a number of steps to really decimate that group's leadership, including, of course, most importantly, Osama bin Laden," said State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf on Monday. "But at the same time, we've all made clear, from the president on down, that we remain very concerned about the affiliates, al Qaeda affiliates throughout the world. And in that—first on that list is always AQAP."
McCain said not only are the affiliates gaining strength but also that the core al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan is showing resilience, as evidenced by this latest news.
"The core seems to be able to able to reconstitute itself. The core also seems to be able to coordinate and manage the affiliates," he said. "There was a gross underestimation by this administration of al Qaeda's overall ability to replenish itself."
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush's axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan's leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected].
Note 1: FU Snowden, Fuck you for distracting us about metadata when the NSA is listening in on conference calls
Note 2: Kudos to the NSA for listening to this specific conference call, your quota of permitted fuckups just went up a few notches
Note 3: Apparently the NSA prefer DC to Marvel
Huffy US flakes on a date with Russia, Putin bemused.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23608052 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23608052)
QuoteThe Kremlin says it is "disappointed" the US cancelled bilateral talks in September, after Russia granted asylum to intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.
Big deal, like anything would be accomplished anyway.
We're gonna need a bigger reset button.
Quote from: derspiess on August 08, 2013, 08:04:08 AM
We're gonna need a bigger reset button.
psst, Obama, push the reset button, not the other one!
Russia is just the geopolitical equivalent of a professional internet troll.
We've got more important problems, like 1.35 billion tiger penis and shark fin soup-slurping spying little yerrow rat bastards.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2013, 08:22:00 AM
Russia is just the geopolitical equivalent of a professional internet troll.
Yeah, Russia been acting up and we're treating them accordingly.
Pootie Poot sent Dubya a get well message. How sweet.
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2013, 08:22:00 AM
Russia is just the geopolitical equivalent of a professional internet troll.
Yeah, Russia been acting up and we're treating them accordingly.
Flouncing off like a chick ain't exactly putting Putin in his place.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 08, 2013, 09:09:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 08:36:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2013, 08:22:00 AM
Russia is just the geopolitical equivalent of a professional internet troll.
Yeah, Russia been acting up and we're treating them accordingly.
Flouncing off like a chick ain't exactly putting Putin in his place.
I think it more like: "You're going to act like a child? No use talking with you then. Come back when you're an adult."
Quote from: Legbiter on August 08, 2013, 09:09:04 AM
Flouncing off like a chick ain't exactly putting Putin in his place.
Has that worked for you with
anyone?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 07:06:44 PM
What the hell is she reading? That can't be a comfortable position for reading.
Who cares what she's reading.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2013, 07:20:59 PM
Edward Snowden can stay in "free russia" for all I care now...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/07/al-qaeda-conference-call-intercepted-by-u-s-officials-sparked-alerts.html
Note 1: FU Snowden, Fuck you for distracting us about metadata when the NSA is listening in on conference calls
Note 2: Kudos to the NSA for listening to this specific conference call, your quota of permitted fuckups just went up a few notches
Note 3: Apparently the NSA prefer DC to Marvel
So, you are not worry that Obama made the capability of intercepting the bad guys conference calls public, instead of keeping it a secret to continue to exploit the source?
Can you imagine how much we could have exploited all the intel captured at OBL's hide if he had kept silence about the attack?
And why would the President mention SEAL 6 by name?
Whatever, man.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2013, 06:40:40 PM
So, you are not worry that Obama made the capability of intercepting the bad guys conference calls public, instead of keeping it a secret to continue to exploit the source?
No, on this topic I am not the manifestation of "worry". This information seems to have been leaked. We are democracies, this is why we will win in the end, our ideas and values are better. In democracies people leak for good and bad reasons. Obama's supporters probably like it since is shows how cool and hip him and his people are, replete with superhero references. Obamas opponents are probably grumbling both because of the leak, the fact that they weren't in power to leak and the fact that they can't accuse him of wagging the dog.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2013, 06:40:40 PM
Can you imagine how much we could have exploited all the intel captured at OBL's hide if he had kept silence about the attack?
I'm pretty sure Al-Qaeda knew something fishy was up when the US closed all the embassies they were planning on attacking and I'm pretty sure somebody suggested that the NSA was listening to their conference calls (thank you Snowden)
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2013, 06:40:40 PM
And why would the President mention SEAL 6 by name?
Whatever, man.
Because he, like all other politicians, uses other people to his advantage. Plus, America needed to know who their new heroes were.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2013, 06:40:40 PM
So, you are not worry that Obama made the capability of intercepting the bad guys conference calls public, instead of keeping it a secret to continue to exploit the source?
Can you imagine how much we could have exploited all the intel captured at OBL's hide if he had kept silence about the attack?
And why would the President mention SEAL 6 by name?
Whatever, man.
You are assuming that Obama leaked that information, and that the intelligence gathering on the conference call was due to signal intercept. It's also possible that there's a mole, and they are using the signal intercept threat as a cover while still reacting to the call.
Keeping the OBL assassination secret would have gained very little. OBL's allies would have known anyway, no way you could keep it from them.
Meh, it's not like SEAL team's existence is secret.
Quote from: 11B4V on August 09, 2013, 05:19:24 PM
Who cares what she's reading.
Anyone who needs a narrative to really plumb the depths of sexual attraction.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 05, 2013, 05:53:52 PM
He was put in solitary Timmy.
Or are you referring to his food insecurity?
Didnt the judge take time off his future punishment because he was treated wrong? That sounds like an admission of sorts.
Quote from: Viking on August 07, 2013, 07:20:59 PM
Note 1: FU Snowden, Fuck you for distracting us about metadata when the NSA is listening in on conference calls
Note 2: Kudos to the NSA for listening to this specific conference call, your quota of permitted fuckups just went up a few notches
Note 3: Apparently the NSA prefer DC to Marvel
1. They are listening in on all calls. So yeah, they get those conference calls too.
2. Yeah, kudos to the NSA for listening in on all telephone and internet traffic passing through US/European/whatever servers.
What could possibly go wrong with a government agency collecting all that information about all their and other nations citizens.
Yeah, except they aren't "listening in on everyone's calls".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2013, 03:26:41 AM
Yeah, except they aren't "listening in on everyone's calls".
of course not. but there are a number of posters here who read 1984 when they were younger and had its (silly) influence captivate them a bit more than it should have*
*excluding those born or living under authoritarian governments - which is a bit more understandable
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2013, 03:26:41 AM
Yeah, except they aren't "listening in on everyone's calls".
No, that would be impossible, that is why they are intercepting/downloading and storing the contents of all telephone and internet traffic. Then they can search, read and/or listen whenever they want.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 10, 2013, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 10, 2013, 03:26:41 AM
Yeah, except they aren't "listening in on everyone's calls".
No, that would be impossible, that is why they are intercepting/downloading and storing the contents of all telephone and internet traffic. Then they can search, read and/or listen whenever they want.
Yeah, except they aren't doing that either.
They are storing the meta data for those calls. Not recording the contents of those calls. The alternative is to have the phone company do that for you - the problem with the phone company is that they aren't accountable to the voters and have a history of being sloppy when it comes to data storage. Right now in the EU Phone companies are being forced to store the info for up to a year and a half, the phone companies don't want to pay for infrastructure and personnel required to save that data, they want to give their customers cheaper minutes and their shareholder larger dividends.
The one concern that I could take seriously is the concern that the data is kept indefinitely. However, on the other hand, there are crimes with no statue of limitations.
I agree that the meta data is not private and is of use when combating crime. I agree that a centralized database for this information is better than a hodge podge of different corporate IT solutions to the problem both in terms of data integrity, data quality, ease and quickness of access and taking this data from faceless international megacongolmerates and putting it in the hands of the people.
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2013, 09:28:16 AM
Yes, I live in a democracy.
Relevance? This is not about Norway.
Quote from: Zanza on August 10, 2013, 09:49:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2013, 09:28:16 AM
Yes, I live in a democracy.
Relevance? This is not about Norway.
It is relevant, I was talking in general terms.
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2013, 08:48:05 AM
The one concern that I could take seriously is the concern that the data is kept indefinitely.
It will be kept indefinitely as soon as it is feasible. It's just too valuable a tool not to. In a few decades it will be possible to entirely reconstruct a person's life in a few queries. And that of anyone he or she holds dear.
It astounds me that you guys see nothing dangerous in grating a few people that ability.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 10, 2013, 11:04:06 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2013, 08:48:05 AM
The one concern that I could take seriously is the concern that the data is kept indefinitely.
It will be kept indefinitely as soon as it is feasible. It's just too valuable a tool not to. In a few decades it will be possible to entirely reconstruct a person's life in a few queries. And that of anyone he or she holds dear.
It astounds me that you guys see nothing dangerous in grating a few people that ability.
Google and Facebook can already do that without any real legal regulation. This is going to happen no matter what. We cannot prevent this.
The thing with the meta data they are collecting now they don't know if you order a pizza every other night, or you are calling your girlfriend who works at the pizza shop every second night.
The death of democracy in the us. :(
But they are storing content already. But keep drinking the kool-aid..
http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/57589495?ds=1
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2013, 01:40:57 PM
The death of democracy in the us. :(
That happened in 2008.
Quote from: Siege on August 11, 2013, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2013, 01:40:57 PM
The death of democracy in the us. :(
That happened in 2008.
Most of us are pretty sure that if it died it died 12 December 2000.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 11, 2013, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 10, 2013, 01:40:57 PM
The death of democracy in the us. :(
That happened in 2008.
Most of us are pretty sure that if it died it dies 12 December 2000.
Nah, 2008 is when the media failed for the first time to vett a presidential candidate and people ended up voting for a dude of whom we know nothing but what he wrote in his autobiography.
I guess this is how the liberals think. They don't care who the guy is or what he have done in the past. They only care about the guys promises for a liberal agenda.
To me, however, who the guy is or have been in the past tells me what his policies are going to be in the future.
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2013, 08:48:05 AM
They are storing the meta data for those calls. Not recording the contents of those calls. The alternative is to have the phone company do that for you - the problem with the phone company is that they aren't accountable to the voters and have a history of being sloppy when it comes to data storage. Right now in the EU Phone companies are being forced to store the info for up to a year and a half, the phone companies don't want to pay for infrastructure and personnel required to save that data, they want to give their customers cheaper minutes and their shareholder larger dividends.
When I worked cellular (in the United States) the companies I worked for kept envelope data indefinitely. As a traffic engineer I used envelope data to determine traffic patterns. It's necessary to be able to go back several years in order to observe seasonal patterns. The companies also needed to keep the data in case it was subpoenaed; I was once an expert witness at a murder trial after one of the killers used his mobile phones on our network.
I thought this was interesting on online privacy:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/do-we-have-a-privacy-instinct-or-are-we-wired-to-share/
:mmm: In the vein of not needing Big Brother because we're already doing it to each other:
QuoteThis recycling bin is following you
By Siraj Datoo @sirajdatoo August 8, 2013
Update (Aug. 12): City of London halts recycling bins tracking phones of passers-by
Recycling bins in the City of London are monitoring the phones of passers-by, so advertisers can target messages at people whom the bins recognize.
Renew, the startup behind the scheme, installed 100 recycling bins with digital screens around London before the 2012 Olympics. Advertisers can buy space on the internet-connected bins, and the city gets 5% of the airtime to display public information. More recently, though, Renew outfitted a dozen of the bins with gadgets that track smartphones.
The idea is to bring internet tracking cookies to the real world. The bins record a unique identification number, known as a MAC address, for any nearby phones and other devices that have Wi-Fi turned on. That allows Renew to identify if the person walking by is the same one from yesterday, even her specific route down the street and how fast she is walking.
The technology, developed by London-based Presence Aware, is supposed to help advertisers hone their marketing campaigns. Say a coffee chain wanted to win customers from a rival. If it had the same tracking devices in its stores, it could tell whether you're already loyal to the brand and tailor its ads on the recycling bins accordingly. "Why not Pret?" the screen might say to you. Over time, the bins could also tell whether you've altered your habits.
This kind of personalized advertising was famously envisioned in the movie Minority Report—except, in this real-life example, brands are scanning iPhones instead of irises. Retailers like Nordstrom have tested similar technology in their stores, the revelation of which sparked a minor outcry. Kaveh Memari, CEO of Renew, doesn't think what his company is doing violates anyone's privacy.
"From our point of view, it's open to everybody, everyone can buy that data," Memari told Quartz. "London is the most heavily surveillanced city in the world...As long as we don't add a name and home address, it's legal."
In the European Union, websites are legally required to inform users if a tracking cookie is placed on their computer. Tracking smartphones and other Wi-Fi devices isn't nearly as regulated, in part because the technology is so new.
Renew would like to expand the technology to all of its recycling bins in London as well as those in New York City, Dubai, and Kuala Lumpur. In its test this summer, Renew installed the tracking devices in 12 of its London bins, most of them along a stretch of Cheapside, a busy street lined with retail stores:
The company still needs to sell retailers on the concept. Memari said he was working on a proposal for a bar that would install five tracking devices: one by the entrance, one on the roof, one near the cash register, and one in each of the bathrooms. That would allow the bar to know each person's gender (from the bathroom trackers), how long they stay ("dwell time" is the official metric), and what they were there for (a drink outside or a meal inside). And targeted advertising for the pub could follow those people around London on Renew's omniscient recycling bins.
In the first month after installing the trackers, Renew says it picked up over a million unique devices. On July 6, a record day, its bins identified 106,629 people, taking note of their presence 946,016 times, according to the company. This chart, provided by Renew, shows one recycling bin's readings over the course of a week, with spikes during commutes and lunch:
Memari notes that MAC addresses, while unique, don't reveal the owner's name or other identifying information. He says companies like Facebook and Google collect more information about people. Of course, those sites have terms and conditions of use, even if few people read them. In theory, MAC addresses could be paired with other consumer data collection, like a supermarket loyalty card, which could reveal the person's name. Memari says that would go too far.
It's possible to avoid one's phone being tracked by turning off Wi-Fi on the device or filling out an online form. Memari says 80% of people in London leave Wi-Fi on when leaving their home or office. 2
"The chances are, if we don't see you on the first, second, or third day, we'll eventually capture you," he said. "We just need you to have it on once."
Edit: More here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/updated-londons-bins-are-tracking-your-smartphone-8754924.html
And as they suggest the City of London's stopped them.
Quote from: Siege on August 11, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
Nah, 2008 is when the media failed for the first time to vett a presidential candidate and people ended up voting for a dude of whom we know nothing but what he wrote in his autobiography.
I guess this is how the liberals think. They don't care who the guy is or what he have done in the past. They only care about the guys promises for a liberal agenda.
To me, however, who the guy is or have been in the past tells me what his policies are going to be in the future.
We know significantly more about our presidential candidates (and every other national figure) now than at any other point in our nation's history. The average citizen 100 years ago knew little about the candidates apart from their platform and bits of their history.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 11, 2013, 07:34:18 PM
I thought this was interesting on online privacy:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/living-together/do-we-have-a-privacy-instinct-or-are-we-wired-to-share/
Sure, let's justify the goverments encroachment of our civic liberties.
Its not the government, is us.
Quote from: frunk on August 13, 2013, 04:45:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 11, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
Nah, 2008 is when the media failed for the first time to vett a presidential candidate and people ended up voting for a dude of whom we know nothing but what he wrote in his autobiography.
I guess this is how the liberals think. They don't care who the guy is or what he have done in the past. They only care about the guys promises for a liberal agenda.
To me, however, who the guy is or have been in the past tells me what his policies are going to be in the future.
We know significantly more about our presidential candidates (and every other national figure) now than at any other point in our nation's history. The average citizen 100 years ago knew little about the candidates apart from their platform and bits of their history.
Yes, with the exeption of the current President.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama
Quote
UK Government "Pulverizes" Guardian Hard Drives In Snowden Retaliation, Says "There's No Need To Write Any More"
While the much publicized Sunday morning detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda at Heathrow on his way back to Brazil, in a stunning move that as we subsequently learned had been telegraphed apriori to the US, could potentially be explained away as a desperate attempt at personal intimidation by a scared, and truly evil empire in its last death throes, it is what happened a month earlier at the basement of the Guardian newspaper that leaves one truly speechless at how far the "democratic" fascist regimes have fallen and fondly reminiscing of the times when dictatorial, tyrannical regimes did not pretend to be anything but.
For the fully story, we go to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger who, in a long editorial focusing on the tribulations of Greenwald, his partner, modern journalism and free speech and press in a time of near-ubiquitous tyranny when the status quo is questioned, happened to let his readers know that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."
It gets better: after further talks with the British government, Rusbirdger says that two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British NSA equivalent, visited the Guardian's London offices and in the building's basement, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. One of the officials jokes: "We can call off the black helicopters."
Reuters adds that according to a source familiar with the event said Guardian employees destroyed the computers as government security experts looked on.
What is shocking is that as Rusbridger explained to the gentlemen from Whitehall, they had no jurisdiction over the forced destruction of Guardian property as it has offices in New York, that Greenwald himself was in Brazil, and that future reporting on the NSA did not even have to take place in London. That did not stop the UK government's punitive measures, and obviously neither did pleas, before the computers were destroyed, that the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.
In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying.
What is most shocking is that the UK government was apparently dumb enough to think that by forcing the Guardian to destroy its own hardware it would actually destroy some of the underlying data. It is this unprecedented idiocy that is most disturbing, because when interacting in a game theoretical fashion with an opponent one assumes rationality. In this case, what one got instead, was brute force and sheer, jawdropping stupidity.
Yet that is precisely what happened, and is why the stakes have suddenly been drastically higher: because the opponent now suddenly finds himself hurt, bleeding, ready to lash out at anything and everything without regard for the retaliation, and just happens to be dumb as a bag of hammers.
The full must read excerpt from Rusbridger:
QuoteMiranda, a Brazilian citizen in transit from Berlin to Brazil, said he was released without charge after nine hours of questioning but minus his laptop, cellphone and memory sticks.
The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments – while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Snowden – are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception is right. Here follows a little background on the considerable obstacles being placed in the way of informing the public about what the intelligence agencies, governments and corporations are up to.
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks – the thumb drive and the first amendment – had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes – and, increasingly, it looks like "when".
We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting – indeed, most human life in 2013 – leaves too much of a digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Snowden or say reporters should trust the state to know best (many of them in the UK, oddly, on the right) may one day have a cruel awakening. One day it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack. But at least reporters now know to stay away from Heathrow transit lounges.
The Guardian must be loving all of this.
:lol: So they actually thought that merely pulverizing computers would destroy data? While leaving the monitors intact? :XD:
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2013, 11:45:20 PM
:lol: So they actually thought that merely pulverizing computers would destroy data? While leaving the monitors intact? :XD:
Probably not. Just sending a message to the Guardian and the press in general.
Or possibly compliance with existing policy regarding computers with classified information.
Quotea desperate attempt at personal intimidation by a scared, and truly evil empire in its last death throes . . . truly speechless at how far the "democratic" fascist regimes have fallen and fondly reminiscing of the times when dictatorial, tyrannical regimes did not pretend to be anything but.
Dig the calm rhetoric.
Really telling reactions.. "Nothing to see here citizen, move along."
Indeed, "OMG the Evul Americans are listening in on all our calls!". If it was revealed the US was collecting metadata on phones in Angola or Pakistan or Bolivia our European friends wouldn't give a flying fuck. Likewise I don't really see why I should care if the US collects this information on Europeans.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 06:48:53 PM
Indeed, "OMG the Evul Americans are listening in on all our calls!". If it was revealed the US was collecting metadata on phones in Angola or Pakistan or Bolivia our European friends wouldn't give a flying fuck. Likewise I don't really see why I should care if the US collects this information on Europeans.
Im not really concerned that US intelligence is gathering information about me, or anyone else living outside the US. To be spied upon by other nations is a possibility that has always been there.
What concerns me is when governments start spying on their own citizens, gathering, collecting and saving information that each taken on its own is harmless, but when used in a systematic way will become parts of a really frightening information database.
Traffic cameras are really ok. Adding a computer program to read license plates is ok. But building a database where every vehicle is tracked as it passes various traffic cameras, and then have this information stored indefinitively is not ok. And adding this vehicle-movement information to the owners phone traffic metadata, internet activity history, credit card transactions etc, and then storing all this information indefinitively is really really frightening.
To hide behind some "but the intelligence agencies and the police are not allowed to do searches in that database unless they have permission from a secret court" or "the intelligence agencies and the police have functioning internal control systems in place that prevent any missuse" is very naive. Not to mention that it has been proven wrong several times in the past weeks.
One must always find a balance between personal integrity and the states interest of maintaining security. What the Snowden leak has shown is that this point of balance is currently not where most people thought it was. That is what is new with Snowden, despite the fact that the laws were known before him. And that is why this is such an eye-opener for most people.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5478%2F9550520773_e5b17d95aa_b.jpg&hash=615ea342c888c683f6365e8b6c81de6a35bd21f9)
Quote from: Bluebook on August 21, 2013, 01:33:32 AM
To hide behind some "but the intelligence agencies and the police are not allowed to do searches in that database unless they have permission from a secret court" or "the intelligence agencies and the police have functioning internal control systems in place that prevent any missuse" is very naive. Not to mention that it has been proven wrong several times in the past weeks.
I agree it would be foolish to rely solely on FISA and on the NSA's internal audit function.
I disagree that evidence about the NSA's internal audit catching failures of protocol should be read as evidence that the NSA internal audit function doesn't work.
QuoteAn 'Overwhelmed' NSA Still Doesn't Know What Snowden Took
The Atlantic Wire
Despite the NSA's statements to the contrary, it looks like the intelligence agency doesn't know everything that whistleblower Edward Snowden took from them after all. Intelligence officials told NBC News that the NSA was still "overwhelmed" with the work of finding out what else Snowden has. The news comes just two days after British authorities detained journalist Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda for nearly 9 hours.
Here's why the agency hasn't yet caught up to Snowden's leaks, according to NBC:
The NSA had poor data compartmentalization, said the sources, allowing Snowden, who was a system administrator, to roam freely across wide areas. By using a "thin client" computer he remotely accessed the NSA data from his base in Hawaii. One U.S. intelligence official said government officials "are overwhelmed" trying to account for what Snowden took. Another said that the NSA has a poor audit capability, which is frustrating efforts to complete a damage assessment.
NBC's report fits right into a PR war over what the government knows about Snowden's secret stash. Here's the recap: in early June, investigators figured out that Snowden probably took information from the NSA's servers using a thumb drive, leading one official to say that they "know how many documents he downloaded and what server he took them from," implying that the government was well on its way to getting a handle on the damage. But later that month, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters that the White House still didn't know what Snowden took. Then, an anonymously-sourced story at CNN confidently claimed that Snowden didn't have the "instruction manual" to the NSA's surveillance programs, in response to a comment from Greenwald indicating that Snowden had something like a "blueprint" to the agency in his hands. But the most overtly omniscient statement on the NSA's capacity to figure out what Snowden has comes from the agency's director Keith Alexander:
We have tremendous oversight over these programs. We can audit the actions of our people 100 percent, and we do that.
The Atlantic previously raised some doubts over that claim. For one thing, Alexander said in June that the agency was "now putting in place actions that would give us the ability to track our system administrators." Alexander has since said that he was going to just replace almost all of the system administrators working for the NSA with machines.
NSA followers won't be terribly surprised at the discrepancy between public and private statements from the agency. Just last week, an internal audit obtained by Snowden and leaked to the Washington Post revealed that the agency has very little oversight from the secret court designed to keep it legal. That report was, if not the last, one of the final nails in the coffin for the agency's "oversight" rebuttal to criticism of their secret data collection programs.
The detention of Greenwald's partner Miranda, and the ensuing reports of apparent intimidation from British officials towards the Guardian over their reporting on Snowden's leaks, indicates that some authorities might be taking harder tactic towards the whole damage control problem. According to the Guardian's editor, British intelligence officials even forced the paper to destroy hard drives containing encrypted versions of the leaks. British intelligence officials could be worried about potential reports in the future on some of the information authorities are pretty sure Snowden took: details of the data collection programs in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who work closely with the NSA. But don't worry: the White House is ready to assure Americans that such tactics wouldn't happen in the U.S. of A.: Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters today in a press briefing that it was "very difficult to imagine a scenario in which" destroying the hard drive of a journalist "would be appropriate."
Looks like the court is also in the dark about a lot that goes on. How surprising...<_<
Posted the first page, click the link to read page 2 and 3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-gathered-thousands-of-americans-e-mails-before-court-struck-down-program/2013/08/21/146ba4b6-0a90-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html
Quote
NSA gathered thousands of Americans' e-mails before court ordered it to revise its tactics
By Ellen Nakashima, Thursday, August 22, 4:07 AM E-mail the writer
For several years, the National Security Agency unlawfully gathered tens of thousands of e-mails and other electronic communications between Americans as part of a now-revised collection method, according to a 2011 secret court opinion.
The redacted 85-page opinion, which was declassified by U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday, states that, based on NSA estimates, the spy agency may have been collecting as many as 56,000 "wholly domestic" communications each year.
In a strongly worded opinion, the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court expressed consternation at what he saw as a pattern of misleading statements by the government and hinted that the NSA possibly violated a criminal law against spying on Americans.
"For the first time, the government has now advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe," John D. Bates, then the surveillance court's chief judge, wrote in his Oct. 3, 2011, opinion.
The court, which meets in secret, oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law authorizing such surveillance in the United States. It has been criticized by some as a "rubber stamp" for the government, but the opinion makes clear the court does not see itself that way.
Bates's frustration with the government's lack of candor extended beyond the program at issue to other NSA surveillance efforts.
"The court is troubled that the government's revelations regarding NSA's acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program," Bates wrote in a scathing footnote.
The Washington Post reported last week that the court had ruled the collection method unconstitutional. The declassified opinion sheds new light on the volume of Americans' communications that were obtained by the NSA and the nature of the violations, as well as the FISA court's interpretation of the program.
The release marks the first time the government has disclosed a FISA court opinion in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought a year ago by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group.
"It's unfortunate it took a year of litigation and the most significant leak in American history to finally get them to release this opinion," said foundation staff attorney Mark Rumold, "but I'm happy that the administration is beginning to take this debate seriously."
The pressure to release the opinion was heightened by a series of recent revelations about government surveillance based on documents leaked to The Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Over the past 21 / 2 months, those revelations have reignited a national debate on the balance between privacy and security, and President Obama has promised to assuage concerns about government overreach, in part through more transparency.
I think the dangerous thing is the NSA don't know what he took, I imagine Snowden doesn't. I bet Chinese and Russian intelligence services have a better idea.
As an aside, I agree with this:
QuoteMatthew d'Ancona: In this spy story the state is not so clear-cut a villain
Its heavy-handed response to the NSA leaks does not make the Government wrong to worry about security
MATTHEW D'ANCONA
Published: 21 August 2013 Updated: 17:25, 21 August 2013
The detention of David Miranda: it sounds like a movie title, as much as a gripping news story. Why was the partner of a Guardian journalist held for nine hours at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act 2000? Why did shadowy figures from GCHQ insist on witnessing the destruction of hard drives in the newspaper's basement? Does the trail of the Edward Snowden saga — the tale of the US National Security Agency contractor who went public — lead all the way to the Prime Minister's study?
At first blush, this looks like a straightforward tale of good and bad, of plucky hacks versus the overmighty state. We live in an age in which government is held in contempt and transparency venerated. A journalist's instinct is to side with his fellow journalists, with glasnost against disk-smashers. Nice Guardian, nasty spooks. Right?
Look closer and the nuances of this apparently straightforward story emerge. Miranda was detained because of his relationship with Glenn Greenwald, who has written a series of reports based on Snowden's disclosures. Those stories initially prompted a legitimate debate on the activities of the NSA and the proper limits of the agency's powers of surveillance over US citizens. But Snowden quickly shifted from domestic surveillance to global intelligence — disclosing information about America's interception of Chinese and Russian communications. He sought refuge in Hong Kong and then in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum. His objective no longer seemed quite so clear. Was he trying to protect US citizens, or to embarrass America?
Last month, Greenwald told the Argentinian daily newspaper, La Nacion, that Snowden had "enough information to cause more harm to the US government in a single minute than any other person has ever had". Since the detention of his partner, the journalist has declared that "I am going to publish a lot about England, too, I have a lot of documents about the espionage system in England". That may just be a statement of fact, of course. But it has the ring of a threat, too — or, more accurately, the promise of reprisal.
Who truly has the advantage here? As Ethan Zuckerman says in Rewire, his brilliant new book on the social significance of the web: "Infrastructures of connection can allow small groups to be disproportionately powerful." Culturally, we are still steeped in the imagery and assumptions of the 20th century — from Kafka's The Trial, via Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four, to A Clockwork Orange and Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest — of the individual crushed by the totalitarian system. Yet, thanks to the digital revolution, the changing nature of the state, and globalisation, the reality in 2013 is much more complex.
The laureate of the new institutional order, Philip Bobbitt, has spoken of the "unique vulnerabilities of globalised, network market states" and a "connectivity that allows a cascading series of vulnerabilities to be exploited". What Bobbitt calls the "market state" is semi-privatised (note that Snowden was a contractor), hyper-technological and digitally configured (and therefore porous), and lacks the "immune systems" that a secure structure requires.
Every time a Julian Assange or Edward Snowden steps up to the plate, he does so already posturing as the victim of persecution. The state frequently obliges them with ponderous, heavy-handed treatment. But what these episodes have in common is not the scary power of 21st-century government but its scary weakness. Digital technology has made it alarmingly easy to seize, to store and to disclose at whim extraordinarily sensitive information about the activities of those tasked with protecting our collective security.
Again, so deep is the general contempt for government that the default assumption in 2013 is that all information, no matter how sensitive, ought to be published — and damn the consequences. But consequences there will be. As one senior Whitehall source puts it: "The trouble is they [the journalists and campaigners] don't always realise what they've got." Every disclosure of intelligence files tells the target something about our modus operandi, the limits of our knowledge, and perhaps more.
There was a flurry of anxiety at the very apex of government yesterday, as Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian, revealed the gist of his negotiations with "a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the Prime Minister". Those around Cameron, used to deal-making after three years of coalition, feel that a reasonable balance was struck: the Guardian got to publish its stories but the disks were destroyed. Not surprisingly, Rusbridger interprets the deal rather differently, as a "peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism" (the disk-smashing) carried out to fend off the threat of prior restraint.
The fact that Cameron was so closely involved with all this — along with Theresa May — means that the story is now deeply, inescapably political. It does not help the PM one bit that Miranda was held under Schedule 7 the Terrorism Act — a badly named statute that plainly deals with broad threats far removed from any normal definition of "terrorism". Schedule 7 itself is presently being amended by Parliament, following a Government review last year. But the mismatch of language and reality — Miranda was scarcely engaged in "terrorism" — is an embarrassment to the Government.
Even so, the seductions of this story should put us on our guard. Consider, indeed, the options: if one of the intelligence agencies learns that a passenger passing through Heathrow may be carrying data files stuffed with top secret information about national security, should that passenger be detained? What if the files include details of intelligence assets, or operational information, or anything else that might put lives at risk? Should the authorities at least take a look?
Imagine, then, that they don't. Instead, happy to take everyone and everything on trust, the airport officials wave through Miranda, his civil liberties quite intact, shrug their shoulders, and head home in a glow of righteousness. We'd all feel so much better. Wouldn't we?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 09:00:06 AM
I think the dangerous thing is the NSA don't know what he took, I imagine Snowden doesn't. I bet Chinese and Russian intelligence services have a better idea.
The only danger is that their power to break the law with impunity may be curtailed through the political action of right thinking people.
QuoteAgain, so deep is the general contempt for government that the default assumption in 2013 is that all information, no matter how sensitive, ought to be published — and damn the consequences. But consequences there will be. As one senior Whitehall source puts it: "The trouble is they [the journalists and campaigners] don't always realise what they've got." Every disclosure of intelligence files tells the target something about our modus operandi, the limits of our knowledge, and perhaps more
What a goddamn strawman. Yeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG. And yes our numerous enemies who combine for about 1 millionth of our resources may gain %0.0000001 of our intelligence. Clearly we are all doomed and must panic at once. What a bunch of scaremongering garbage.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
What a goddamn strawman.
QuoteYeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG.
I am going to assume you are trying to be ironic. Or something.
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
What a goddamn strawman.
QuoteYeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG.
I am going to assume you are trying to be ironic. Or something.
I think my position on this is pretty clear. These leaks are a Godsend as far as I am concerned. The public mood is changing and political pushback is coming. If the cost is some tiny bit of inconsequential information getting to our completely outclassed "enemies" well color me non-plussed, and unless somebody has something specific it is hard to not regard this sort of handwringing with contempt.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
What a goddamn strawman.
QuoteYeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG.
I am going to assume you are trying to be ironic. Or something.
I think my position on this is pretty clear. These leaks are a Godsend as far as I am concerned. The public mood is changing and political pushback is coming. If the cost is some tiny bit of inconsequential information getting to our completely outclassed "enemies" well color me non-plussed, and unless somebody has something specific it is hard to not regard this sort of handwringing with contempt.
I agree 100%.
Valmy: tainted
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
What a goddamn strawman. Yeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG. And yes our numerous enemies who combine for about 1 millionth of our resources may gain %0.0000001 of our intelligence. Clearly we are all doomed and must panic at once. What a bunch of scaremongering garbage.
There is oversight by the legislature. The intelligence services are acting based on a law passed by the legislature and approved by the President. There is judicial oversight and there's internal procedures to try and catch inevitable mistakes. Of course most of that shouldn't be public, by its nature it's dealing in state secrets. But in a democratic system I can't think of another way of managing those secrets. And if we don't trust judicial oversight, the legislature, the executive and in the US the constitution then I don't really know what we're left with, but the broiling tempests of Glenn Greenwald's outrage.
D'Ancona said and I agree that it did provoke a useful debate. My view is that it's similar to Wikileaks. For all the sound and fury the truth is that what a lot of these published leaks so far show is what the public would want. American diplomats weren't nefariously influencing or toppling foreign regimes. They were generally trying to do their best at reporting on their host countries and projecting American interests. Similarly there isn't some terrifying cyber-Stasi. Rather the intelligence services are conscientiously trying to do their job - as set by the laws elected bodies and governed by an independent judiciary.
However when you're then in China and Russia, or treating this data as some sort of blackmail then it's a different issue. In terms of public debate and the public interest, I cannot think of a single good reason for publishing this article, for example:
QuoteExclusive: Edward Snowden leaks reveal UK's secret Middle-East internet surveillance base
Data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn web project still being assembled by GCHQ
DUNCAN CAMPBELL , OLIVER WRIGHT , JAMES CUSICK , KIM SENGUPTA THURSDAY 22 AUGUST 2013
Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.
The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.
The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the West's "war on terror" and provides a vital "early warning" system for potential attacks around the world.
The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspaper's reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data.
The Middle East installation is regarded as particularly valuable by the British and Americans because it can access submarine cables passing through the region. All of the messages and data passed back and forth on the cables is copied into giant computer storage "buffers" and then sifted for data of special interest.
Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQ's wiki was generally classified Top Secret or above.
The disclosure comes as the Metropolitan Police announced it was launching a terrorism investigation into material found on the computer of David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of The Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald – who is at the centre of the Snowden controversy.
Scotland Yard said material examined so far from the computer of Mr Miranda was "highly sensitive", the disclosure of which "could put lives at risk".
The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government's request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that could damage national security.
As well as destroying a computer containing one copy of the Snowden files, the paper's editor, Alan Rusbridger, agreed to restrict the newspaper's reporting of the documents.
The Government also demanded that the paper not publish details of how UK telecoms firms, including BT and Vodafone, were secretly collaborating with GCHQ to intercept the vast majority of all internet traffic entering the country. The paper had details of the highly controversial and secret programme for over a month. But it only published information on the scheme – which involved paying the companies to tap into fibre-optic cables entering Britain – after the allegations appeared in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. A Guardian spokeswoman refused to comment on any deal with the Government.
A senior Whitehall source said: "We agreed with The Guardian that our discussions with them would remain confidential".
But there are fears in Government that Mr Greenwald – who still has access to the files – could attempt to release damaging information.
He said after the arrest of Mr Miranda: "I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I have many more documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did." [:bleeding:]
One of the areas of concern in Whitehall is that details of the Middle East spying base which could identify its location could enter the public domain.
The data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn internet project still being assembled by GCHQ. It is part of the surveillance and monitoring system, code-named "Tempora", whose wider aim is the global interception of digital communications, such as emails and text messages.
Across three sites, communications – including telephone calls – are tracked both by satellite dishes and by tapping into underwater fibre-optic cables.
Access to Middle East traffic has become critical to both US and UK intelligence agencies post-9/11. The Maryland headquarters of the NSA and the Defence Department in Washington have pushed for greater co-operation and technology sharing between US and UK intelligence agencies.
The Middle East station was set up under a warrant signed by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, authorising GCHQ to monitor and store for analysis data passing through the network of fibre-optic cables that link up the internet around the world
The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the "political intentions of foreign powers", terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and serious financial fraud.
However, the certificates are reissued every six months and can be changed by ministers at will. GCHQ officials are then free to target anyone who is overseas or communicating from overseas without further checks or controls if they think they fall within the terms of a current certificate.
The precise budget for this expensive covert technology is regarded as sensitive by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.
However, the scale of Middle East operation, and GCHQ's increasing use of sub-sea technology to intercept communications along high-capacity cables, suggest a substantial investment.
Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and organised crime.
Given that the article hints at far more details they're choosing not to reveal, it annoys me that that's in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese intelligence services. It's also a very good reason to detain someone carrying that information around.
QuoteThe public mood is changing and political pushback is coming.
I doubt it. The people who care are already engaged.
Edit: On the other hand I do worry about the use of contractors for this sort of thing. Snowden went for a job at his firm precisely so he could steal this information. I don't think there's any way you can get private companies to vet candidates as much as the intelligence services should. Generally I'm very reluctant to see private companies being given widespread access to top secret material.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 07:46:30 PM
QuoteThe public mood is changing and political pushback is coming.
I doubt it. The people who care are already engaged.
Not true, I posted polling data that shows that public view on these matters has radically changed on this matter, and the congress has followed. A vote so close on the matter as what we had last month would have been unthinkable two years ago.
I think polling data should be posted to you with a fucking staple gun.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 07:55:33 PMNot true, I posted polling data that shows that public view on these matters has radically changed on this matter, and the congress has followed. A vote so close on the matter as what we had last month would have been unthinkable two years ago.
I've read all of that I just don't think it matters. I think it's like the environment. Some people feel they should care and consciously try to, some people care after an unusually hot summer and a few people genuinely really, really care. It's mid-summer and mid-elections, so it's perfect conditions for niche concerns to suddenly seem important.
When it comes to an election people will really vote about the economy and taxes and immigration and how they feel and what people have always voted about. People say they care about lots of things (Europe, climate change, civil liberties, animal welfare), but the truth is that almost no elections turn on those issues.
There was a close vote in Congress. Luckily there's enough sensible Republicans and Democrats for the leadership to keep this going.
I imagine there'll be another vote, say when a Republican's in the White House. Suddenly less Republicans will care about this issue. Many Democrats will start to regard civil liberties with the same type of self-loathing that Bush-era Republicans feel about the deficit. The result will be much the same.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 08:09:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 07:55:33 PMNot true, I posted polling data that shows that public view on these matters has radically changed on this matter, and the congress has followed. A vote so close on the matter as what we had last month would have been unthinkable two years ago.
I've read all of that I just don't think it matters. I think it's like the environment. Some people feel they should care and consciously try to, some people care after an unusually hot summer and a few people genuinely really, really care. It's mid-summer and mid-elections, so it's perfect conditions for niche concerns to suddenly seem important.
When it comes to an election people will really vote about the economy and taxes and immigration and how they feel and what people have always voted about. People say they care about lots of things (Europe, climate change, civil liberties, animal welfare), but the truth is that almost no elections turn on those issues.
There was a close vote in Congress. Luckily there's enough sensible Republicans and Democrats for the leadership to keep this going.
I imagine there'll be another vote, say when a Republican's in the White House. Suddenly less Republicans will care about this issue. Many Democrats will start to regard civil liberties with the same type of self-loathing that Bush-era Republicans feel about the deficit. The result will be much the same.
Election of 1800 :contract:
And if that Republican in the White House is someone like Rand Paul?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 08:24:27 PMElection of 1800 :contract:
:lol: :hug:
As an aside, 'almost no', that may be the exception that proves the rule.
QuoteAnd if that Republican in the White House is someone like Rand Paul?
I generally don't like alternative history.
If you've elected Rand Paul something catastrophically terrible's happened in the next 3 years because generally speaking voters are sensible and don't elect extremists.
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 22, 2013, 10:05:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 22, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
What a goddamn strawman.
QuoteYeah clearly there should be no public debate on programs nor any oversight by the legislature at all...or EVERYTHING WILL BE PUBLISHED OMG.
I am going to assume you are trying to be ironic. Or something.
I think my position on this is pretty clear. These leaks are a Godsend as far as I am concerned. The public mood is changing and political pushback is coming. If the cost is some tiny bit of inconsequential information getting to our completely outclassed "enemies" well color me non-plussed, and unless somebody has something specific it is hard to not regard this sort of handwringing with contempt.
I think you are in for a world of disappointment then. People just don't really care about this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 08:32:57 PM
I generally don't like alternative history.
If you've elected Rand Paul something catastrophically terrible's happened in the next 3 years because generally speaking voters are sensible and don't elect extremists.
:hug:
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 08:36:00 PM
I think you are in for a world of disappointment then. People just don't really care about this.
If that was really true, the congress wouldn't have shifted at all. Since it has, they believe otherwise. Since they're mainly concerned with reelection, I assume that as a collective group they have a decent handle on what their constituents care about.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 08:53:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 22, 2013, 08:36:00 PM
I think you are in for a world of disappointment then. People just don't really care about this.
If that was really true, the congress wouldn't have shifted at all. Since it has, they believe otherwise. Since they're mainly concerned with reelection, I assume that as a collective group they have a decent handle on what their constituents care about.
Sure it makes them sound good (to some people) at this moment in the media cycle.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 22, 2013, 08:53:39 PMIf that was really true, the congress wouldn't have shifted at all. Since it has, they believe otherwise. Since they're mainly concerned with reelection, I assume that as a collective group they have a decent handle on what their constituents care about.
Republicans wanted to embarrass Obama. Democrats are probably a bit more worried about at least seeming to care about civil liberties issues. As Garbon says they all wanted to 'do something' during the media cycle - which as I say is mid-election and I believe the fag end of a Congressional session. I think they were all also emboldened in the knowledge that there were enough votes for it to fail.
My prediction is for substantial changes to protocols overseas and cosmetic changes domestically.
Quote
THE SILENT POWER OF THE N.S.A.
By David Burnham
Published: March 27, 1983
A Federal Court of Appeals recently ruled that the largest and most secretive intelligence agency of the United States, the National Security Agency, may lawfully intercept the overseas communications of Americans even if it has no reason to believe they are engaged in illegal activities. The ruling, which also allows summaries of these conversations to be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, significantly broadens the already generous authority of the N.S.A. to keep track of American citizens.
Over the years, this virtually unknown Federal agency has repeatedly sought to enlarge its power without consulting the civilian officials who theoretically direct the Government, while it also has sought to influence the operation and development of all civilian communications networks. Indeed, under Vice Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, N.S.A. director from 1977 to 1981, the agency received an enlarged Presidential mandate to involve itself in communications issues, and successfully persuaded private corporations and institutions to cooperate with it.
Yet over the three decades since the N.S.A. was created by a classified executive order signed by President Truman in 1952, neither the Congress nor any President has publicly shown much interest in grappling with the far-reaching legal conflicts surrounding the operation of this extraordinarily powerful and clandestine agency. A Senate committee on intelligence, warning that the N.S.A.'s capabilities impinged on crucial issues of privacy, once urged that Congress or the courts develop a legislative or judicial framework to control the agency's activities. In a nation whose Constitution demands an open Government operating according to precise rules of fairness, the N.S.A. remains an unexamined entity. With the increasing computerization of society, the conflicts it presents become more important. The power of the N.S.A., whose annual budget and staff are believed to exceed those of either the F.B.I. or the C.I.A., is enhanced by its unique legal status within the Federal Government. Unlike the Agriculture Department, the Postal Service or even the C.I.A., the N.S.A. has no specific Congressional law defining its responsibilities and obligations. Instead, the agency, based at Fort George Meade, about 20 miles northeast of Washington, has operated under a series of Presidential directives. Because of Congress's failure to draft a law for the agency, because of the tremendous secrecy surrounding the N.S.A.'s work and because of the highly technical and thus thwarting character of its equipment, the N.S.A. is free to define and pursue its own goals.
According to an unpublished analysis by the House Government Operations Committee, the N.S.A. may have employed 120,000 people in 1976 when armed-services personnel were included in the official count. (According to a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, overseas listening posts numbered 2,000.) In comparison, the F.B.I. had one employee for every six working for the N.S.A. The House report also estimated that the agency's annual expenditures were as high as $15 billion.
During the course of the investigation, its chairman, Senator Frank Church, repeatedly emphasized his belief that the N.S.A.'s intelligence-gathering activities were essential to the nation's security. He also stressed that the equipment used to watch the Russians could just as easily "monitor the private communications of Americans.'' If such forces were ever turned against the country's communications system, Senator Church said, "no American would have any privacy left. ... There would be no place to hide."
The N.S.A. gradually developed a "watch list" of Americans that included those speaking out against the Vietnam War.
According to the subsequent investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a total of 1,200 Americans were targeted by the N.S.A. between 1967 and 1973 because of their political activities. The subjects – chosen by the F.B.I., the Secret Service, the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency -included members of radical groups, celebrities and ordinary citizens. When it appeared that Congress might learn about the eavesdropping, the surveillance halted.
The records obtained by the committee indicate that from the project's earliest stages, both Government officials and corporate executives understood that the surveillance flatly violated a Federal law against intercepting or divulging telegrams. Certainly, they were aware that such interception violated the Fourth Amendment, guaranteeing against unreasonable searches and seizures, which also holds that a court warrant can be issued only when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
Using the information thus gathered, the N.S.A. between 1952 and 1974 developed files on approximately 75,000 Americans, some of whom undoubtedly threatened the nation's security. However, the agency also developed files on civil-rights and antiwar activists, Congressmen and other citizens who lawfully questioned Government policies. For at least 13 of the 22 years the agency was building these files, the C.I.A. had access to them and used the data in its Operation Chaos, another computerized and illegal tracking system set up during the Vietnam War. At its peak, the Chaos files had references to more than 300,000 Americans.
Certainly, precedent had been established in 1971, when the N.S.A. was the lead agency in the Nixon Administration's attempt to stop newspapers from printing the Pentagon Papers, the bureaucratic history of the war in Vietnam. After blocking publication for 15 days, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government had failed to show why the material should not be published and that "without compelling reasons" prior restraint would be an unreasonable infringement of the freedom of the press.
Until that time, the Federal Government sought to control and protect only those military and diplomatic secrets that had been declared confidential, secret or top secret under a long-established and formally prescribed classification procedure. But now, President Carter had decided to create a huge new category of material worthy of Government protection: information that "would be useful to an adversary."
A few years before, the director of the National Science Foundation, Richard C. Atkinson, and Inman had begun privately discussing whether the role of the spy agency in supervising cryptographic research should be expanded. The precise outcome of the talks remains murky, but the N.S.A. apparently won the debate. Today, the National Science Foundation routinely allows the N.S.A. to review any request for the funding of cryptographic research.
Speaking before the annual meeting of the American As-sociation for the Advancement of Science last year, Inman said that other areas where restrictions were required because publication of certain "technical information could affect the national security in a harmful way. Examples include computer hardware and software, other electronic gear and techniques, lasers, crop projections and manufacturing procedures."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science passed a brief resolution on the day Inman spoke: "Whereas freedom and national security are best preserved by adherence to the principles of openness that are a fundamental tenet of both American society and the scientific process, be it resolved that the A.A.A.S. opposes governmental restrictions on the dissemination, exchange or availability of unclassified knowledge."
Every day, in almost every area of culture and commerce, systems and procedures are being adopted by private companies and organizations as well as by the nation's security leaders that make it easier for the N.S.A. to dominate American society should it ever decide such action is necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/magazine/the-silent-power-of-the-nsa.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/magazine/the-silent-power-of-the-nsa.html)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2013, 09:09:50 PM
My prediction is for substantial changes to protocols overseas and cosmetic changes domestically.
:huh: Why? I would expect the opposite.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2013, 02:06:32 AM
:huh: Why? I would expect the opposite.
Because the foreign operation seems to be more intrusive and Krauts are more hung up about the Stasi and because they don't get as much benefit out of it as we do.
QuoteFor at least 13 of the 22 years the agency was building these files, the C.I.A. had access to them and used the data in its Operation Chaos, another computerized and illegal tracking system set up during the Vietnam War. At its peak, the Chaos files had references to more than 300,000 Americans.
That's a lot of tape reels and punch cards, people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 22, 2013, 07:46:30 PM
But there are fears in Government that Mr Greenwald – who still has access to the files – could attempt to release damaging information.
He said after the arrest of Mr Miranda: "I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I have many more documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did." [:bleeding:]
:bleeding: indeed. That is gross unprofessionalism. He should not have a job writing for a junior high school paper.
If he really has newsworthy material that can be responsibly published without endangering others, he should have published it already.
If he doesn't have it, he is a liar and a blackmailer.
And if he has it and refrained from publishing because it would endanger others, but is now willing to do so out of revenge, no reputable publisher should associate with him.
Welcome to the post-apocalyptic landscape of Dead Professional Journalism.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-usa-security-nsa-un-idUSBRE97O0DD20130825
QuoteU.S. spy agency bugged U.N. headquarters: Germany's Spiegel
(Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency has bugged the United Nations' New York headquarters, Germany's Der Spiegel weekly said on Sunday in a report on U.S. spying that could further strain relations between Washington and its allies.
Citing secret U.S. documents obtained by fugitive former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, Der Spiegel said the files showed how the United States systematically spied on other states and institutions.
Der Spiegel said the European Union and the U.N.'s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were among those targeted by U.S. intelligence agents.
In the summer of 2012, NSA experts succeeded in getting into the U.N. video conferencing system and cracking its coding system, according one of the documents cited by Der Spiegel.
"The data traffic gives us internal video teleconferences of the United Nations (yay!)," Der Spiegel quoted one document as saying, adding that within three weeks the number of decoded communications rose to 458 from 12.
Internal files also show the NSA spied on the EU legation in New York after it moved to new rooms in autumn 2012. Among the documents copied by Snowden from NSA computers are plans of the EU mission, its IT infrastructure and servers.
According to the documents, the NSA runs a bugging program in more than 80 embassies and consulates worldwide called "Special Collection Service". "The surveillance is intensive and well organized and has little or nothing to do with warding off terrorists," wrote Der Spiegel.
OPEN LETTER
Snowden's leaks have embarrassed the United States by exposing the global extent of its surveillance programs. Washington has said its spies operate within the law and that the leaks have damaged national security.
A week ago Britain, a staunch U.S. ally in the intelligence field, detained the partner of a Brazil-based journalist working for London's Guardian newspaper who has led coverage of Snowden's leaks. British police said documents seized from David Miranda were "highly sensitive" and could put lives at risk if disclosed.
The Guardian last week destroyed computer equipment containing Snowden files after it was threatened with possible legal action by senior British government advisers.
In an open letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron published on Sunday, editors of leading Nordic newspapers said Miranda's detention and moves against the Guardian were "undermining the position of the free press throughout the world".
"(We are) deeply concerned that a stout defender of democracy and free debate such as the United Kingdom uses anti-terror legislation in order to legalize what amounts to harassment of both the paper and individuals associated with it," said the letter from Sweden's Dagens Nyheter, Finland's Helsingin Sanomat, Denmark's Politiken and Norway's Aftenposten.
Earlier this month, U.S. President Barack Obama announced plans to limit U.S. government surveillance programs, saying the United States could and should be more transparent.
The issue has also become a hot topic in Germany before an election next month. Some reports have suggested that German intelligence agents have cooperated with U.S. spies.
There could be a voter backlash if it emerges that Chancellor Angela Merkel, tipped to win a third term, knew more about such cooperation than she has so far acknowledged.
(Reporting by Madeline Chambers; Additional reporting by Gwladys Fouche; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 23, 2013, 02:11:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2013, 02:06:32 AM
:huh: Why? I would expect the opposite.
Because the foreign operation seems to be more intrusive and Krauts are more hung up about the Stasi and because they don't get as much benefit out of it as we do.
Americans won't care about complaining foreigners. If the government changes policy, it'll be because their domestic constituency pressures them to do so.
I'm with Yi though. I don't think Americans care that much about the issue but the administration will want to play nice with Europe.
People here may dislike it but it isn't a burning, important issue for them.
D.E.A. Uses Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.'s
'The scale and longevity of a data storage program run by the government in partnership with AT&T is unmatched by other government programs.
The government pays AT&T to place its employees in drug-fighting units around the country. Those employees sit alongside Drug Enforcement Administration agents and local detectives and supply them with the phone data from as far back as 1987.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F09%2F02%2Fus%2Fjp-DATABASE-2%2Fjp-DATABASE-2-articleInline.jpg&hash=128788e78b78e31d13e1af1d1c9107d97952993c)
Given how close the last major vote was, with the NRA coming out against NSA surveillance, this should be enough to change the outcome.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/15/20483283-nra-fearing-gun-registry-joins-aclu-in-opposing-nsa-phone-records-sweep?lite
QuoteNRA, fearing gun registry, joins ACLU in opposing NSA phone records sweep
By Michael Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
Leaders of the National Rifle Association plan to press members of Congress in the coming weeks to block the National Security Agency's controversial program to collect records of Americans' phone calls, arguing that the surveillance efforts can be used as a "backdoor" to construct a national gun registry.
"We will be up there and we will be making our feelings known," David Keene, a member of the NRA's executive board who served until this spring as the group's president, told NBC News. "Our members are concerned about this. This metadata can be used to construct a list" of every gun owner.
Keene's comments signaled a new determination by the gun lobby to take up opposition to the NSA surveillance efforts as a political cause, joining with civil liberties groups and others on the left who have been lobbying against the program for months, and potentially complicating the Obama administration's efforts to preserve the phone surveillance program.
The comments came as NRA board members gathered this weekend in Arlington, Va., for a quarterly meeting and to celebrate the gun lobby's latest political coup: Its defeat of two state senators in Colorado — including the state Senate president — in a special recall election pushed by the NRA as payback for the lawmakers' support of gun control measures.
"Everybody is feeling insufferably proud of how things are going today," said Grover Norquist, the veteran conservative activist who also serves on the NRA board.
Board members also will hear a report on the NRA's surprise decision this month to file a friend-of-the- court brief on behalf of an ACLU lawsuit to halt the NSA collection program as an unconstitutional violation of American privacy rights. Norquist predicted the move, which is being promoted on the web page of the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's lobbying arm, will tip the political balance in Congress over the issue.
"This is the beginning of a game changer," Norquist said. "It will solidify conservative and Republican opposition to the program, without endangering the left-of-center opposition. ... If you're the (Obama) administration, you will begin to offer tactical retreats. "
Laura Murphy, legislative director for the ACLU in Washington, recruited the NRA to join efforts to stop the program and said its participation will have a big impact. "We've got momentum going," she said. "They (the NRA) have got access to all the Republicans."
Murphy said a recently declassified FBI training manual on how agents can use their authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in the course of terrorism and espionage cases helped sway the NRA leadership. The manual, a copy of which she provided to NBC News, instructs agents how they can use the Patriot Act to collect a wide range of "sensitive records" -- including "firearms sales."
Although there was nothing especially secret about using the Patriot Act to obtain such records — all business records, including firearms sales, are routinely subpoenaed during federal law enforcement investigations — the fact that they were specifically highlighted in the manual made a big impact with the NRA, Murphy said. "They were surprised," she said. "It was like, 'wow!"
Keene, the NRA leader, said the FBI training manual was especially disturbing because other federal laws require the destruction of records of gun purchases after they are used for a federally mandated background check. And it showed how federal agents can stretch their legal authorities to collect data on gun owners.
A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has taken the Obama administration lead in defending the surveillance program, declined comment about the NRA's opposition to the NSA program. "We do not as a matter of policy, comment on matters under litigation," said Michael Birmingham, a Clapper spokesman.
But Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a leading gun control group, called the NRA's stance self-serving. "Leave it to the NRA to exploit legitimate privacy concerns for their own purposes — stoking gun owners' paranoia to raise money," she said.
Under the so-called NSA "metadata" program, first disclosed last June by ex-contractor Edward Snowden, the agency has collected tens of millions of records on the time, duration and destination of every phone call in the country as part of a wide ranging and highly classified surveillance effort aimed at identifying potential terrorist threats. The agency has received the records from phone companies under secret orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) based on a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act that allows the FBI to collect "business records" deemed relevant to terrorist investigations.
Even before the NRA got involved, the NSA program was facing political trouble. An amendment brought by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and John Conyers, D-Mich., to pare back the program was defeated last July by just 12 votes in the House, 205 to 217.
Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has made a series of disclosures about "compliance" problems with the program, including a previously classified finding by a federal judge that U.S. intelligence misled the FISC about how the phone numbers were being used.
President Barack Obama, who has vigorously defended the NSA collection as "an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots," last month named a five-member review panel to study the program and report back to him within 60 days.
In its friend of the court brief filed Sept. 4, the NRA argued that the NSA collection of all phone records, as well as other agency collection efforts revealed by Snowden, threatens NRA members' s First Amendment rights.
"Under the programs revealed so far, the government may already possess information about everyone who has called the NRA by phone, emailed the NRA or visited the NRA's website," it wrote in the brief.
In addition, the brief states, the mass phone collection would make it easier for the government to create a nationwide "registry" of all gun owners.
"For example, a person whose phone records show a pattern of repeated calls to gun stores, shooting ranges, and the NRA, is considerably more likely to be a gun owner than a person who makes no such calls. If phone records are combined with other information, far more detailed profiles could be assembled," it said.
Clapper, the intelligence director, and other administration officials have repeatedly said there are tight controls on the use of the NSA database of phone records and the records can only be accessed for terrorism investigations.
The most important manifesto since Ted Kaczynski's:
QuoteReport: NSA, GCHQ among worst surveillance offenders, Snowden says
(CNN) -- Leaked classified documents show the U.S. National Security Agency and its British counterpart are among the "worst offenders" of mass surveillance without oversight, according to an open letter purportedly written by Edward Snowden and published Sunday by the German magazine Der Spiegel.
The publication of the letter, titled "A Manifesto for the Truth," comes as leaks by the former NSA contract analyst have roiled U.S.-European relations amid allegations that the NSA and the UK's Government Communications Headquarters monitored the communication data of some world leaders.
"The world has learned a lot in a short amount of time about irresponsibly operated security agencies and, at times, criminal surveillance programs. Sometimes the agencies try to avoid controls," Snowden wrote, according to the news magazine.
"While the NSA and GCHQ (the British national security agency) appear to be the worst offenders -- at least according to the documents that are currently public -- we cannot forget that mass surveillance is a global problem and needs a global solution."
Glenn Greenwald on NSA spying on allies
The letter, published in German by Der Spiegel, was written on Friday in Moscow and provided to Der Spiegel through a "locked channel," the news magazine said. It was published in German and has been translated by CNN.
Snowden, 30, has admitted in interviews he was the source behind the leak of classified NSA documents, which revealed the existence of top-secret surveillance programs that collect records of domestic e-mails and telephone calls in the United States and monitor the cell phone and Internet activity of overseas residents. He is wanted in the United States on espionage charges.
A recent report by Der Spiegel, citing documents provided by Snowden, alleged the NSA monitored German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone. Some reports also suggest the United States carried out surveillance on French and Spanish citizens.
The allegations have prompted some European countries to call for investigations. It also has prompted congressional hearings in the United States, where some are calling for more transparency and more oversight of American spy programs.
'Witch hunt'
The letter also accused governments of trying to squash debate about mass surveillance "with a never before seen witch hunt" that threatens journalists and criminalizes the publication of details about the programs.
In the letter, Snowden purportedly writes that his actions were bringing about change.
"The debate they wanted to avoid is now taking place in countries around the world," the letter said.
"And instead of causing damage, the use of this new public knowledge is causing society to push for political reforms, oversight and new laws."
Snowden has been in Moscow since June after fleeing from Hong Kong. In August, Russia granted him asylum for one year.
Snowden gets website job in Russia
The release of the open letter is the second in a matter of days from Snowden, who released a letter to German authorities through an intermediary.
Last week, Hans-Christian Stroebele, a member of Germany's parliament, met with Snowden in Russia. Stroebele returned from the meeting with a letter from Snowden to German authorities, which was distributed to the media.
In it, Snowden said he is confident that with international support, the United States would abandon its efforts to "treat dissent as defection" and "criminalize political speech with felony charges."
"I hope that when the difficulties of this humanitarian situation have been resolved, I will be able to cooperate in the responsible finding of fact regarding reports in the media, particularly in regard to the truth and authenticity of documents, as appropriate and in accordance with the law," he wrote.
Report: Snowden's Russia asylum not breached by NSA spying reports
'Face justice'
The White House did not immediately respond to Snowden's claims in the letter.
But earlier Sunday, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on ABC's "This Week" that there has been no discussion of granting Snowden clemency.
"Mr. Snowden violated U.S. law," Pfeiffer said. "And our belief has always been that he should return to the U.S. and face justice."
It was a sentiment echoed by the heads of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
"He had an opportunity -- if what he was, was a whistle-blower -- to pick up the phone and call the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and say, 'I have some information,'" Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said Snowden has to "own up with what he's done."
"If he wants to come back and open up to the responsibility of the fact that he took and stole information, he violated his oath, he disclosed classified information -- that by the way has allowed three different terrorist organizations, affiliates of al Qaeda to change the way they communicate -- I'd be happy to have that discussion with him," Rogers said on "Face the Nation."
Good job on the witch hunt, Barack. I haven't heard of a single instance of witchcraft since you took office. :)
I wonder how much of The man Without a Country's claims stem from actual belief, and how much they stem from his need to justify his own botched attempt to become famous. As he gets more shrill, the vibe I get is closer to the latter.
QuoteThe publication of the letter, titled "A Manifesto for the Truth,"
Creative.
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
I wonder how much of The man Without a Country's claims stem from actual belief, and how much they stem from his need to justify his own botched attempt to become famous. As he gets more shrill, the vibe I get is closer to the latter.
Botched attempt to become famous?
The man is known around the world, he has become a hero and an icon to some and a traitor to others. But he is clearly famous.
Hey, if we got him back, what do you suppose he would be tried with?
Quote from: Bluebook on November 04, 2013, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
I wonder how much of The man Without a Country's claims stem from actual belief, and how much they stem from his need to justify his own botched attempt to become famous. As he gets more shrill, the vibe I get is closer to the latter.
Botched attempt to become famous?
The man is known around the world, he has become a hero and an icon to some and a traitor to others. But he is clearly famous.
He gets more press here than any other American except for Barack Obama.
Quote from: Bluebook on November 04, 2013, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
I wonder how much of The man Without a Country's claims stem from actual belief, and how much they stem from his need to justify his own botched attempt to become famous. As he gets more shrill, the vibe I get is closer to the latter.
Botched attempt to become famous?
The man is known around the world, he has become a hero and an icon to some and a traitor to others. But he is clearly famous.
Perhaps, but I don't think he's enjoying it the way he wanted to. Life outside of North America is pretty grim, and life in Russia doubly so.
Moscow is pretty cool. As long as you have enough cash, you can definitely have a very good time there.
Quote from: Zanza on November 04, 2013, 05:50:27 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on November 04, 2013, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 04, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
I wonder how much of The man Without a Country's claims stem from actual belief, and how much they stem from his need to justify his own botched attempt to become famous. As he gets more shrill, the vibe I get is closer to the latter.
Botched attempt to become famous?
The man is known around the world, he has become a hero and an icon to some and a traitor to others. But he is clearly famous.
He gets more press here than any other American except for Barack Obama.
I wonder if would get so much coverage in Germany if he revealed phone tapping in Pakistan or Nigeria.
I am certain that he wouldn't get anywhere near the same coverage then.
Quote from: Zanza on November 04, 2013, 06:01:23 PM
I am certain that he wouldn't get anywhere near the same coverage then.
Yeah, I suspect so. Funny that.
Quote from: Zanza on November 04, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
Moscow is pretty cool. As long as you have enough cash, you can definitely have a very good time there.
And so long as you don't mind getting murdered.
Still, I doubt that he has tons of cash on hand.
Quote from: Bluebook on November 04, 2013, 05:39:44 PM
Botched attempt to become famous?
The man is known around the world, he has become a hero and an icon to some and a traitor to others. But he is clearly famous.
His revelations are famous but himself... not so much. He is much more like Manning than, say, Solzhenitsyn.
It would be a real shame if he came down with a terminal case of the sniffles.
I await the day his toothpaste explodes.
Why not hit him with some polonium?
A fate devised by Col Flagg is more entertaining.
Your tax dollars at work:
QuoteNSA spied on 'World of Warcraft,' other online games, leaked documents show
You can never trust a Halfling again.
The National Security Agency (NSA) and UK sister agency GCHQ sought to infiltrate the massive virtual worlds in online video games such as "World of Warcraft" and interactive environments like "Second Life," according to the latest secret documents stolen by Edward Snowden and jointly released by the Guardian, the New York Times and ProPublica.
According to a document titled "Exploiting Terrorist Use of Games & Virtual Environments," the secretive spy agencies were concerned by potential terrorist use of such games and felt an immediate need to begin analyzing in-game communications as early as 2007.
[Certain] games offer realistic weapons training (what weapon to use against what target, what ranges can be achieved, even aiming and firing), military operations and tactics, photorealistic land navigation and terrain familiarization, and leadership skills," the document notes. "Some of the 9-11 pilots had never flown a real plane, they had only trained using Microsoft's Flight Simulator."
"The Hizballah has even hooked up a PlayStation controller to a laptop in order to guide some of its real missiles," it notes.
According to the Guardian, real-world agents were deployed into those virtual worlds to extract communications, recruit potential informants and keep tabs on potential terrorists.
"So many different U.S. intelligence agents were conducting operations inside games that a 'deconfliction' group was required to ensure they weren't spying on, or interfering with, each other," wrote the Guardian.
The documents don't indicate whether the push led to any usable information, nor whether any terrorist plots were detected or foiled in "World of Warcraft" or other virtual environments.
The NSA, Microsoft and Second Life creator Philip Rosedale all declined to comment, the paper noted. But Blizzard Entertainment, the creator of "World of Warcraft," said it was unaware of any attempts to monitor terrorist activity in its game.
"We are unaware of any surveillance taking place," a spokesman said. "If it was, it would have been done without our knowledge or permission."
How did that pitch go? "Boss, I think terrorists are hiding in my massive multiplayer online role playing game. I need to be assigned to play it all the time."
They certainly stopped Chinese gold farmers.
The terrorists are rumored to be gathering in Molten Core every Wednesday about 3 PM. Me and my team will be there.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 09, 2013, 05:25:03 PM
How did that pitch go? "Boss, I think terrorists are hiding in my massive multiplayer online role playing game. I need to be assigned to play it all the time."
In the early days of PS2 modem connectivity with comms, there would be a shitload of weed dealing going on in Madden here in Baltimore.
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2013, 05:29:43 PM
The terrorists are rumored to be gathering in Molten Core every Wednesday about 3 PM. Me and my team will be there.
:lol:
I got a laugh out of this when I read it the other day. I can see why Intel agencies would be interested in some games which require a strong use of real world tactics, such as WW2 first person war games and similar type war games beyond WW2. But WoW wouldn't seem to fit that bill, as it doesn't really require the kinds of tactics that would train someone to for use in the real world.
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2013, 02:59:25 PM
But WoW wouldn't seem to fit that bill, as it doesn't really require the kinds of tactics that would train someone to for use in the real world.
Too true :(
I have yet to use my uber healing skills in any real life context.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 03:00:55 PM
Too true :(
I have yet to use my uber healing skills in any real life context.
It does teach you how you how you can use the refreshments tray for Shield Bash during those contentious meetings to interrupt the speaker.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 11, 2013, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2013, 03:00:55 PM
Too true :(
I have yet to use my uber healing skills in any real life context.
It does teach you how you how you can use the refreshments tray for Shield Bash during those contentious meetings to interrupt the speaker.
:lol:
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2013, 02:59:25 PM
I got a laugh out of this when I read it the other day. I can see why Intel agencies would be interested in some games which require a strong use of real world tactics, such as WW2 first person war games and similar type war games beyond WW2. But WoW wouldn't seem to fit that bill, as it doesn't really require the kinds of tactics that would train someone to for use in the real world.
I don't think they are snooping on every game because of its tactics. Some are just being monitored because communications between terrorists could easily be hidden inside some game chat. i'd think that there problem there is that it would be hard to tell terrorism euphemisms from just the goofy game shit that WoWtards or any other MMO players naturally talk about.
*I wonder what "run over with a kubelwagon" really means; it is obviously a euphemism for something
. *
On the other hand, one can argue that standard gameplay tactics for people like Seedy in WoW pretty much amounts to terrorism.
lulz, Osama bin Griefin from al-Ganka.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2013, 04:25:42 PM
I don't think they are snooping on every game because of its tactics. Some are just being monitored because communications between terrorists could easily be hidden inside some game chat. i'd think that there problem there is that it would be hard to tell terrorism euphemisms from just the goofy game shit that WoWtards or any other MMO players naturally talk about.
*I wonder what "run over with a kubelwagon" really means; it is obviously a euphemism for something. *
This. I notice there's damned near silence on the fact that they're monitoring Second Life, which pretty much advertises virtual conferencing, so it's almost tailor-made for that. Frankly, trawling for tactics would have to be an impractibly wide net, since in most online games I've played, military players are frequent and quick to teach squad tactics to overcome missions/quests (I never beat Crystalline Catastrophe in STO until working with a massive PUG that ended up organized by a military player).
My WoW raid had a few military guys. Most of them were pretty bad at following any tactic though. And their wives were downright terrible.
QuotePutin: 'I envy' Obama's spy program
Russia President Vladimir Putin says his government is not working with National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, and defended President Obama over his spying program - sort of.
"How do I feel about Obama after Snowden's revelations? I envy him, because he can get away with it," Putin said during a Thursday news conference in Russia.
Speaking a day after a White House advisory panel released a report recommending changes in NSA programs, Putin defended espionage in general.
He called it "one of the oldest professions in the world, just like some other well-known professions - we won't mention them here," an apparent reference to prostitution.
But Putin did say regulations, such as those envisioned for the NSA, are necessary: "On political level, it's necessary to limit the appetite of special services with certain rules."
As for Snowden - granted political asylum by Russia earlier this year -- Putin said: "To speak in professional jargon, operatively speaking, we are not working with him, and we never worked with him.
"It is up to him to determine his future," he said. "We are not going to help him, just give him shelter."
Don't feel bad, Vlad, I'm sure Barack wishes he could jail his critics the way you do.
Crap, there were two Saudis in my guild.
I'll probably be in the no-fly list now.
Lol, Putin is such an amazing Troll
Thanks to Sav's tip off, I read the original transcript, which is slightly more interesting. I'll throw in a slightly edited (to fix some of the pidgeon English) from Google translate version here:
QuoteI will be brief . Did you personally met with Snowden? And if such a meeting , what did you talk about ? If there was no such meeting, is it even possible, as a matter of principle? Talk about - maybe in the detail, what you would want to ask him about?
Thank you.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No , I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Snowden , never met him . I have a lot more pressing business. He has his own ideas about life , about how he wants to do things, and how to live.
Frankly, this man is not without interest to me. I think that thanks to Mr. Snowden much in the minds of millions of people somehow changed, including from major political figures of our time (as they say in Soviet times , when we remembered Leonid Brezhnev) , and among my colleagues...much has changed, it is certainly true, thanks to him.
For me, I always (not always, but when I came across this ) was curious as to why he did this , for he was quite a young man. What does he have? Nothing. How is he going to live? Where is he going to live? He is 30 years old and has bery little , in my opinion. But then he made that choice for himself. Noble, but difficult. He curious person, interesting, but he has his own business, as I have my own.
We gave him the opportunity to live with us, we, as I already said, we proceed from the fact that, on the territory of the Russian Federation, he will not engage in any anti-American propaganda. All that stuff (ed: likely referring to all the leaks) that is thrown around, everything that is coming out, or was left somewhere worldwide. We do not know where he had left it.
I have already said, I will tell you in what is pretty much operational terms, we do not work with him and have never worked with him...nor do we pester him with all sorts of questions as to what to he has done pertaining to Russia during his service, or where he worked.
He remained in our territory because of the known circumstances. I've already explained this. He must define his life for the future, we are not helping him in this , and do not interfere. We just gave him refuge .
Next part:
QuoteQUESTION: Catherine Kotrikadze , TV RTVi, New York , USA.
Vladimir Vladimirovich , we have already mentioned the name Edward Snowden , but I would like to continue this theme and ask about the Russian-American relations .
It is known that after Snowden's revelations, that American relations with their strategic partners, such as Germany, we soured, or at least, severely strained. We know that Angela Merkel was shocked to learn that her phone was tapped.
VLADIMIR PUTIN : But she feels alright, do not worry , everything is okay. (ed: I am presuming he is kinda joking here)
E.KOTRIKADZE : According to Western media, including German , it was said that it was a shock . But be that as it may, the relationship soured .
Russian-American relations have never been particularly warm , nevertheless, the world depends very much on them Now I would like to understand your personal relationship with Barack Obama, and how it was affedtec? And how do you feel about it, whether you communicate? And in general , the prospects of US- Russian relations on the basis of these revelations - what could they be?
VLADIMIR PUTIN : How I feel about Obama after Snowden's revelations?
E.KOTRIKADZE : Pretty much.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I envy him . Envy , because he can do it, and nothing will come of it.
But is is particularly pleasing , of course, because on the other hand, there isn't really much reason to be upset about it. First, it has always been. Espionage - is one of the oldest professions , along with some others, we will not list them...and some not so much old professions.
And then , you know, such a volume (of information) is impossible to read anyway , and reading excerpts is useless. Policy Briefs from the intelligence services are useless because they are not the facts, they are the opinion of analysts. I myself have worked on this, I know what I'm saying . It's always such a very delicate thing.
Or you have to be absolutely sure of these analysts and know them personally, know who writes them, know their opinion, their views . I wrote them myself. I'm serious , this is a serious thing. Or should we then read the original documents . But the originals of these interceptions, of which there are billions copies, cannot not be read, that is obvious.
Therefore , those who curse our American friends, did they not initially think that all of this work is carried out mainly in the fight against terrorism? Sure, it has its some negative components, and here you need to, naturally from the political level, limit the appetite of the security services, to introduce some rules . But on the whole, you know, it's a necessity.
After all, why so many (ed: intercepts)? Because you have to keep track of not just the particular terrorism suspect, but the whole system of their relationships. Keeping in mind the modern means of communication , it is almost impossible to do if you are just shadowing the actions of only one suspect.
I repeat, I am not going to try to justify this to anyone , God forbid . But it is fair to say that, after all, this is done primarily in the fight against terror. These are anti-terrorist measures . But it should be more or less clear that there are rules and certain agreements, including those of amoral character.
:hmm: Man, Putin is a lot more naive about that spying business than I gave him credit for.
Miranda detention was lawful:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/david-miranda-detention-lawful-court-glenn-greenwald
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf
'Mr Greenwald's account of the practice of "responsible journalism" has a didactic quality' :lol:
John Laws was born to be a judge. 'Lord Justice Laws'. lol.
At any rate, good for the UK for making the correct ruling. Just because you're a reporter doesn't give you the ironclad right to steal whatever your want in your quest to raise a ruckus.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
QuoteGCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide
• Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk
• 1.8m users targeted by UK agency in six-month period alone
• Yahoo: 'A whole new level of violation of our users' privacy'
• Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of "a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy".
GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans' images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.
The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff, though there is little discussion about the privacy implications of storing this material in the first place.
NSA ragout 4
Optic Nerve, the documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show, began as a prototype in 2008 and was still active in 2012, according to an internal GCHQ wiki page accessed that year.
The system, eerily reminiscent of the telescreens evoked in George Orwell's 1984, was used for experiments in automated facial recognition, to monitor GCHQ's existing targets, and to discover new targets of interest. Such searches could be used to try to find terror suspects or criminals making use of multiple, anonymous user IDs.
Rather than collecting webcam chats in their entirety, the program saved one image every five minutes from the users' feeds, partly to comply with human rights legislation, and also to avoid overloading GCHQ's servers. The documents describe these users as "unselected" – intelligence agency parlance for bulk rather than targeted collection.
One document even likened the program's "bulk access to Yahoo webcam images/events" to a massive digital police mugbook of previously arrested individuals.
"Face detection has the potential to aid selection of useful images for 'mugshots' or even for face recognition by assessing the angle of the face," it reads. "The best images are ones where the person is facing the camera with their face upright."
The agency did make efforts to limit analysts' ability to see webcam images, restricting bulk searches to metadata only.
However, analysts were shown the faces of people with similar usernames to surveillance targets, potentially dragging in large numbers of innocent people. One document tells agency staff they were allowed to display "webcam images associated with similar Yahoo identifiers to your known target".
Optic Nerve was based on collecting information from GCHQ's huge network of internet cable taps, which was then processed and fed into systems provided by the NSA. Webcam information was fed into NSA's XKeyscore search tool, and NSA research was used to build the tool which identified Yahoo's webcam traffic.
Bulk surveillance on Yahoo users was begun, the documents said, because "Yahoo webcam is known to be used by GCHQ targets".
NSA ragout 3
Programs like Optic Nerve, which collect information in bulk from largely anonymous user IDs, are unable to filter out information from UK or US citizens. Unlike the NSA, GCHQ is not required by UK law to "minimize", or remove, domestic citizens' information from its databases. However, additional legal authorisations are required before analysts can search for the data of individuals likely to be in the British Isles at the time of the search.
There are no such legal safeguards for searches on people believed to be in the US or the other allied "Five Eyes" nations – Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
GCHQ insists all of its activities are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with UK law.
The documents also show that GCHQ trialled automatic searches based on facial recognition technology, for people resembling existing GCHQ targets: "f you search for similar IDs to your target, you will be able to request automatic comparison of the face in the similar IDs to those in your target's ID".
The undated document, from GCHQ's internal wiki information site, noted this capability was "now closed ... but shortly to return!"
The privacy risks of mass collection from video sources have long been known to the NSA and GCHQ, as a research document from the mid-2000s noted: "One of the greatest hindrances to exploiting video data is the fact that the vast majority of videos received have no intelligence value whatsoever, such as pornography, commercials, movie clips and family home movies."
Sexually explicit webcam material proved to be a particular problem for GCHQ, as one document delicately put it: "Unfortunately ... it would appear that a surprising number of people use webcam conversations to show intimate parts of their body to the other person. Also, the fact that the Yahoo software allows more than one person to view a webcam stream without necessarily sending a reciprocal stream means that it appears sometimes to be used for broadcasting pornography."
The document estimates that between 3% and 11% of the Yahoo webcam imagery harvested by GCHQ contains "undesirable nudity". Discussing efforts to make the interface "safer to use", it noted that current "naïve" pornography detectors assessed the amount of flesh in any given shot, and so attracted lots of false positives by incorrectly tagging shots of people's faces as pornography.
NSA ragout 1
GCHQ did not make any specific attempts to prevent the collection or storage of explicit images, the documents suggest, but did eventually compromise by excluding images in which software had not detected any faces from search results – a bid to prevent many of the lewd shots being seen by analysts.
The system was not perfect at stopping those images reaching the eyes of GCHQ staff, though. An internal guide cautioned prospective Optic Nerve users that "there is no perfect ability to censor material which may be offensive. Users who may feel uncomfortable about such material are advised not to open them".
It further notes that "under GCHQ's offensive material policy, the dissemination of offensive material is a disciplinary offence".
NSA ragout 2
Once collected, the metadata associated with the videos can be as valuable to the intelligence agencies as the images themselves.
It is not fully clear from the documents how much access the NSA has to the Yahoo webcam trove itself, though all of the policy documents were available to NSA analysts through their routine information-sharing. A previously revealed NSA metadata repository, codenamed Marina, has what the documents describe as a protocol class for webcam information.
In its statement to the Guardian, Yahoo strongly condemned the Optic Nerve program, and said it had no awareness of or involvement with the GCHQ collection.
"We were not aware of, nor would we condone, this reported activity," said a spokeswoman. "This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy that is completely unacceptable, and we strongly call on the world's governments to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.
"We are committed to preserving our users' trust and security and continue our efforts to expand encryption across all of our services."
Yahoo has been one of the most outspoken technology companies objecting to the NSA's bulk surveillance. It filed a transparency lawsuit with the secret US surveillance court to disclose a 2007 case in which it was compelled to provide customer data to the surveillance agency, and it railed against the NSA's reported interception of information in transit between its data centers.
The documents do not refer to any specific court orders permitting collection of Yahoo's webcam imagery, but GCHQ mass collection is governed by the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and requires certification by the foreign secretary, currently William Hague.
The Optic Nerve documentation shows legalities were being considered as new capabilities were being developed. Discussing adding automated facial matching, for example, analysts agreed to test a system before firming up its legal status for everyday use.
"It was agreed that the legalities of such a capability would be considered once it had been developed, but that the general principle applied would be that if the accuracy of the algorithm was such that it was useful to the analyst (ie, the number of spurious results was low, then it was likely to be proportionate)," the 2008 document reads.
The document continues: "This is allowed for research purposes but at the point where the results are shown to analysts for operational use, the proportionality and legality questions must be more carefully considered."
Optic Nerve was just one of a series of GCHQ efforts at biometric detection, whether for target recognition or general security.
While the documents do not detail efforts as widescale as those against Yahoo users, one presentation discusses with interest the potential and capabilities of the Xbox 360's Kinect camera, saying it generated "fairly normal webcam traffic" and was being evaluated as part of a wider program.
Documents previously revealed in the Guardian showed the NSA were exploring the video capabilities of game consoles for surveillance purposes.
Microsoft, the maker of Xbox, faced a privacy backlash last year when details emerged that the camera bundled with its new console, the Xbox One, would be always-on by default.
Beyond webcams and consoles, GCHQ and the NSA looked at building more detailed and accurate facial recognition tools, such as iris recognition cameras – "think Tom Cruise in Minority Report", one presentation noted.
The same presentation talks about the strange means the agencies used to try and test such systems, including whether they could be tricked. One way of testing this was to use contact lenses on detailed mannequins.
To this end, GCHQ has a dummy nicknamed "the Head", one document noted.
In a statement, a GCHQ spokesman said: "It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters.
"Furthermore, all of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.
"All our operational processes rigorously support this position."
The NSA declined to respond to specific queries about its access to the Optic Nerve system, the presence of US citizens' data in such systems, or whether the NSA has similar bulk-collection programs.
However, NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said the agency did not ask foreign partners such as GCHQ to collect intelligence the agency could not legally collect itself.
"As we've said before, the National Security Agency does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the US government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself," she said.
"The NSA works with a number of partners in meeting its foreign intelligence mission goals, and those operations comply with US law and with the applicable laws under which those partners operate.
"A key part of the protections that apply to both US persons and citizens of other countries is the mandate that information be in support of a valid foreign intelligence requirement, and comply with US Attorney General-approved procedures to protect privacy rights. Those procedures govern the acquisition, use, and retention of information about US persons."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F26%2F1393452070858%2FNSA-ragout-4-001.jpg&hash=9a2604e5cb5852c252e6264fee8d75e9e97670fd)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F26%2F1393452051275%2FNSA-ragout-3-001.jpg&hash=e5e55778d523b57f6907bdf1ff4aff770926b191)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F26%2F1393452001667%2FNSA-ragout-1-001.jpg&hash=d5ef6fc8e22cb3fe6729c3d1f41e154d621ab345)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2014%2F2%2F26%2F1393452030724%2FNSA-ragout-2-001.jpg&hash=f6859ba20148110cb7f66def2bfba88e451d57cf)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-surveillance-program-reaches-into-the-past-to-retrieve-replay-phone-calls/2014/03/18/226d2646-ade9-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html
QuoteNSA surveillance program reaches 'into the past' to retrieve, replay phone calls
The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording "100 percent" of a foreign country's telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.
A senior manager for the program compares it to a time machine — one that can replay the voices from any call without requiring that a person be identified in advance for surveillance.
The voice interception program, called MYSTIC, began in 2009. Its RETRO tool, short for "retrospective retrieval," and related projects reached full capacity against the first target nation in 2011. Planning documents two years later anticipated similar operations elsewhere.
In the initial deployment, collection systems are recording "every single" conversation nationwide, storing billions of them in a 30-day rolling buffer that clears the oldest calls as new ones arrive, according to a classified summary.
The call buffer opens a door "into the past," the summary says, enabling users to "retrieve audio of interest that was not tasked at the time of the original call." Analysts listen to only a fraction of 1 percent of the calls, but the absolute numbers are high. Each month, they send millions of voice clippings, or "cuts," for processing and long-term storage.
At the request of U.S. officials, The Washington Post is withholding details that could be used to identify the country where the system is being employed or other countries where its use was envisioned.
No other NSA program disclosed to date has swallowed a nation's telephone network whole. Outside experts have sometimes described that prospect as disquieting but remote, with notable implications for a growing debate over the NSA's practice of "bulk collection" abroad.
Bulk methods capture massive data flows "without the use of discriminants," as President Obama put it in January. By design, they vacuum up all the data they touch — meaning that most of the conversations collected by RETRO would be irrelevant to U.S. national security interests.
In the view of U.S. officials, however, the capability is highly valuable.
In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on "specific alleged intelligence activities." Speaking generally, she said "new or emerging threats" are "often hidden within the large and complex system of modern global communications, and the United States must consequently collect signals intelligence in bulk in certain circumstances in order to identify these threats."
NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines, in an e-mailed statement, said that "continuous and selective reporting of specific techniques and tools used for legitimate U.S. foreign intelligence activities is highly detrimental to the national security of the United States and of our allies, and places at risk those we are sworn to protect."
Some of the documents provided by Snowden suggest that high-volume eavesdropping may soon be extended to other countries, if it has not been already. The RETRO tool was built three years ago as a "unique one-off capability," but last year's secret intelligence budget named five more countries for which the MYSTIC program provides "comprehensive metadata access and content," with a sixth expected to be in place by last October.
The budget did not say whether the NSA now records calls in quantity in those countries, or expects to do so. A separate document placed high priority on planning "for MYSTIC accesses against projected new mission requirements," including "voice."
Ubiquitous voice surveillance, even overseas, pulls in a great deal of content from Americans who telephone, visit and work in the target country. It may also be seen as inconsistent with Obama's Jan. 17 pledge "that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security," regardless of nationality, "and that we take their privacy concerns into account."
In a presidential policy directive, Obama instructed the NSA and other agencies that bulk acquisition may be used only to gather intelligence on one of six specified threats, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The directive, however, also noted that limits on bulk collection "do not apply to signals intelligence data that is temporarily acquired to facilitate targeted collection."
The emblem of the MYSTIC program depicts a cartoon wizard with a telephone-headed staff. Among the agency's bulk collection programs disclosed over the past year, its focus on the spoken word is unique. Most of the programs have involved the bulk collection of either metadata — which does not include content — or text, such as e-mail address books.
Telephone calls are often thought to be more ephemeral and less suited than text for processing, storage and search. Indeed, there are indications that the call-recording program has been hindered by the NSA's limited capacity to store and transmit bulky voice files.
In the first year of its deployment, a program officer wrote that the project "has long since reached the point where it was collecting and sending home far more than the bandwidth could handle."
Because of similar capacity limits across a range of collection programs, the NSA is leaping forward with cloud-based collection systems and a gargantuan new "mission data repository" in Utah. According to its overview briefing, the Utah facility is designed "to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."
Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said history suggests that "over the next couple of years they will expand to more countries, retain data longer and expand the secondary uses."
Spokesmen for the NSA and the Office of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. declined to confirm or deny expansion plans or discuss the criteria for any change.
Based on RETRO's internal reviews, the NSA has strong motive to deploy it elsewhere. In the documents and interviews, U.S. officials said RETRO is uniquely valuable when an analyst first uncovers a new name or telephone number of interest.
With up to 30 days of recorded conversations in hand, the NSA can pull an instant history of the subject's movements, associates and plans. Some other U.S. intelligence agencies also have access to RETRO.
Highly classified briefings cite examples in which the tool offered high-stakes intelligence that would not have existed under traditional surveillance programs in which subjects were identified for targeting in advance. Unlike most of the government's public claims about the value of controversial programs, the briefings supply names, dates, locations and fragments of intercepted calls in convincing detail.
Present and former U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide context for a classified program, acknowledged that large numbers of conversations involving Americans would be gathered from the country where RETRO operates.
The NSA does not attempt to filter out their calls, defining them as communications "acquired incidentally as a result of collection directed against appropriate foreign intelligence targets."
Until about 20 years ago, such incidental collection was unusual unless an American was communicating directly with a foreign intelligence target. In bulk collection systems, which are exponentially more capable than the ones in use throughout the Cold War, calls and other data from U.S. citizens and permanent residents are regularly ingested by the millions.
Under the NSA's internal "minimization rules," those intercepted communications "may be retained and processed" and included in intelligence reports. The agency generally removes the names of U.S. callers, but there are several broadly worded exceptions.
An independent group tasked by the White House to review U.S. surveillance policies recommended that incidentally collected U.S. calls and e-mails — including those obtained overseas — should nearly always "be purged upon detection." Obama did not accept that recommendation.
Vines, in her statement, said the NSA's work is "strictly conducted under the rule of law."
RETRO and MYSTIC are carried out under Executive Order 12333, the traditional grant of presidential authority to intelligence agencies for operations outside the United States.
Since August, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and others on that panel have been working on plans to assert a greater oversight role for intelligence gathering abroad. Some legislators are now considering whether Congress should also draft new laws to govern those operations.
Experts say there is not much legislation that governs overseas intelligence work.
"Much of the U.S. government's intelligence collection is not regulated by any statute passed by Congress," said Timothy H. Edgar, the former director of privacy and civil liberties on Obama's national security staff. "There's a lot of focus on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is understandable, but that's only a slice of what the intelligence community does."
All surveillance must be properly authorized for a legitimate intelligence purpose, he said, but that "still leaves a gap for activities that otherwise basically aren't regulated by law because they're not covered by FISA."
Beginning in 2007, Congress loosened 40-year-old restrictions on domestic surveillance because so much foreign data crossed U.S. territory. There were no comparable changes to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens and residents whose calls and e-mails now routinely cross international borders.
Vines noted that the NSA's job is to "identify threats within the large and complex system of modern global communications," where ordinary people share fiber-optic cables with legitimate intelligence targets.
For Peter Swire, a member of the president's review group, the fact that Americans and foreigners use the same devices, software and networks calls for greater care to safeguard Americans' privacy.
"It's important to have institutional protections so that advanced capabilities used overseas don't get turned against our democracy at home," he said.
Can only be a matter of weeks until they have to admit that they actually did that for all domestic calls too... ;)
That Optic Nerve story is disgusting. :yucky:
What a gutted piece of crap. <_<
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/usa-freedom-act-2/
QuoteThe U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would end the NSA's mass collection of Americans' phone records. Unfortunately, it may not end the NSA's mass collection of Americans' phone records.
The House voted 303 to 121 Thursday in favor of the USA Freedom Act, broad legislation aimed at reforming the NSA's surveillance powers exposed by Edward Snowden. The central provision of the bill, which now moves on to debate in the Senate, is intended to limit what the intelligence community calls "bulk" collection–the indiscriminate vacuuming of citizen's phone and internet records. But privacy advocates and civil libertarians say last-minute changes to the legislation supported by the White House added ambiguous language that could essentially give the NSA a broad loophole through which it can continue its massive domestic data collection.
In the House's final version of the bill, the NSA would be stripped of the power to collect all Americans' phone records for metadata analysis, a practice revealed in the first Guardian story about Snowden's leaks published last year. It instead would be required to limit its collection to specific terms. The problem is that those terms may not be nearly specific enough, and could still include massive lists of target phone numbers or entire ranges of IP addresses.
"The core problem is that this only ends 'bulk' collection in the sense the intelligence community uses that term," says Julian Sanchez, a researcher at the Cato Institute. "As long as there's some kind of target, they don't call that bulk collection, even if you're still collecting millions of records...If they say give us the record of everyone who visited these thousand websites, that's not bulk collection, because they have a list of targets."
"To any normal person," he adds, "that's still pretty bulky."
Specifically, the House changed the definition of a search term from "a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account" to "a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device." That shift, particularly the removal of the word "unique" and addition of "such as," might be enough to enable nearly the same sort of mass surveillance the NSA now conducts, according to a statement from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute.
"Taken together," the Institute wrote, "the changes to this definition may still allow for massive collection of millions of Americans' private information based on very broad selection terms such as a zip code, an area code, the physical address of a particular email provider or financial institution, or the IP address of a web hosting service that hosts thousands of web sites."
Of course, how those "specific terms" are defined in practice will be decided by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which must approve NSA requests for data collection under the 214 and 215 provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But after a year of revelations that have showed how the NSA uses word games to expand its legal powers, Kevin Bankston of the the Open Technology Institute says the court can't be fully trusted to interpret the law strictly. "The danger is that it's ambiguous, and if the FISA court and the NSA has showed us anything, it's that any ambiguity in these laws is dangerous," Bankston says.
In fact, the watered-down version of the Freedom Act passed by the House also weakens early provisions that would have provided more resistance against the NSA in its FISA arguments, Sanchez says. The earlier version of the bill would have established a "public advocate" to argue against the NSA in FISA proceedings; the current bill has only a weaker "amicus" option, something closer to an outside adviser to the court.
The bulk surveillance element of the bill is but one point its critics are disappointed to see pass the House. The Open Technology Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the anti-surveillance group Access Now all published statements enumerating the bill's flaws. Other problems they cite include the removal of provisions giving companies more freedom to report the intelligence community's demands for users' data, and a provision that still allows the NSA to collect information "about" a target; Rather than limiting data collection to communications sent to or from that target, the measure that would allow mass data collection that sweeps in any communications that are reference the target but may not involve that person.
Despite all those problems, some policy-watchers still see the passage of the Freedom Act in the House as a step towards real reform. They're also holding out hope that the bill could be amended–and its teeth reinserted–in the Senate. "While far from perfect, this bill is an unambiguous statement of congressional intent to rein in the out-of-control NSA," reads a statement from Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative director. "While we share the concerns of many–including members of both parties who rightly believe the bill does not go far enough–without it we would be left with no reform at all, or worse, a House Intelligence Committee bill that would have cemented bulk collection of Americans' communications into law. We will fight to secure additional improvements in the Senate."
QuoteEdward Snowden 'was trained as a spy,' he tells NBC
(CNN) -- A low-level systems administrator? Or a highly trained spy?
Edward Snowden sought to bolster his credentials during an interview with NBC "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams.
The one-hour interview, Snowden's first with a U.S. television network, is scheduled to air at 10 p.m. ET on Wednesday.
"I was trained as a spy in sort of the traditional sense of the word -- in that I lived and worked undercover, overseas, pretending to work in a job that I'm not -- and even being assigned a name that was not mine," Snowden said.
"Now, the government might deny these things. They might frame it in certain ways, and say, oh, well, you know, he's a low-level analyst.
"But what they're trying to do is they're trying to use one position that I've had in a career, here or there, to distract from the totality of my experience, which is that I've worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, undercover, overseas.
"I've worked for the National Security Agency, undercover, overseas. And I've worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency as a lecturer at the Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy, where I developed sources and methods for keeping our information and people secure in the most hostile and dangerous environments around the world."
Snowden continued: "So when they say I'm a low-level systems administrator, that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'd say it's somewhat misleading."
A spokeswoman for the NSA declined to comment Tuesday on the NBC report.
Williams traveled to Moscow, where Snowden fled to escape prosecution for leaking classified documents that detailed U.S. surveillance programs.
Snowden hasn't been able to leave Russia since U.S. officials charged him with espionage and revoked his passport.
What he leaked sparked a national debate about privacy and security.
President Barack Obama and military officials remain in support of mass, warrantless surveillance. But civil libertarians, technology companies and others oppose it, noting the lack of transparency.
Edward Snowden, International Man of Mystery...
I just heard Susan Rice state on CNN that this is not true. :D
Thanks, Obama! :mad:
Quote from: garbon on May 28, 2014, 04:21:41 PM
I just heard Susan Rice state on CNN that this is not true. :D
It's the video, stupid.
Quote from: Savonarola on May 28, 2014, 04:16:33 PM
Edward Snowden, International Man of Mystery...
I was with the Green Berets,
Special Unit Battalions...
Commando Airborne Tactics...
Specialist Tactics Unit Battalion.
Yeah, it was real hush hush.
I was Agent Orange,
Special Agent Orange, that was me.
The cute part is when he said that he has no relationship with the Russian government. ORLY?
Snowden, delusions of grandeur! Perhaps gave a little look into his psyche, which gives some additional insight as to why he did what he did?
Quote
BERLIN (AP) — Germany summoned the U.S. ambassador in Berlin on Friday following the arrest of a man reported to have spied for the United States, heightening friction between the two countries over alleged U.S. eavesdropping in Germany.
U.S. Ambassador John B. Emerson was called in "in connection with an investigation by the federal prosecutor," the German Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The U.S. envoy "was asked to help in the swift clarification" of the case, it added.
Federal prosecutors say a 31-year-old German man was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of spying for foreign intelligence services. They did not identify the suspect or the intelligence services.
German government spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters that Chancellor Angela Merkel been personally informed of the arrest.
He declined to comment on reports by Der Spiegel magazine and the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung that the man worked for Germany's foreign intelligence service, known by its German acronym BND.
The newspapers, which didn't identify their sources, said the man was suspected of passing on information about a German parliamentary committee investigating the activities of U.S. and other intelligence agencies in Germany. He claimed to have worked with U.S. intelligence since 2012, they reported.
Seibert said members of the parliamentary panel had also been informed of the arrest.
Reports that the National Security Agency spied on German citizens, including on Merkel's cellphone, have caused friction between Berlin and Washington since they were first published last year, based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
Martina Renner, a member of the opposition Left Party on the parliamentary panel, said the case indicated that anyone who examined Snowden's revelations in detail was subject to scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Her panel heard testimony Thursday from two former NSA employees, Thomas Drake and William Binney.
"If the media reports (about the case) are confirmed then there can't just be a legal response, there also has to be a political response," she said.
In his testimony, Drake claimed that cooperation between the NSA and Germany's BND greatly increased after the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States. He described the German spy agency as an "appendage" of the NSA.
Seibert said Merkel discussed "foreign policy matters" in a telephone conversation with President Barack Obama late Thursday. He said the conversation focused on Ukraine but wouldn't say whether the arrest was also discussed.
The U.S. National Security Council declined to comment Friday and BND didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
Quote
Germany asks top U.S. intelligence official to leave over spy scandal
Reuters
By Madeline Chambers
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany asked the top U.S. intelligence official at the Berlin embassy on Thursday to leave the country, a highly unusual step reflecting the deep anger within Angela Merkel's government at the discovery of two suspected U.S. spies within a week.
The scandal has plunged ties between Germany and one of its closest allies to a new low following last year's revelations from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden about widespread surveillance of Germans, including Merkel.
"The request was made in light of the ongoing investigation by the chief federal prosecutor and questions that have been raised for months about the activities of U.S. intelligence services in Germany," Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said.
On Wednesday, Berlin said it had discovered a suspected U.S. spy in the defence ministry. That came just days after a German foreign intelligence worker was arrested on suspicion of being a CIA informant and admitted passing documents to a U.S. contact.
Merkel delivered her strongest words yet on the alleged espionage, which she said belonged to the era of the Cold War.
"From my point of view, spying on allies ... is a waste of energy. We have so many problems, we should focus on the important things," the chancellor told reporters.
"In the Cold War maybe there was general mistrust. Today we are living in the 21st century. Today there are completely new threats," she said.
Merkel has come under pressure to take action against the United States, given public anger about the spying allegations.
Germans value their privacy highly due to memories of pervasive snooping by the Communist East German Stasi as well as the Nazis' Gestapo.
Seibert said the government took the events very seriously. It was essential for Germany to work with its Western partners, especially the United States, but that required "mutual trust and openness", he added.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the information that the United States appeared to have obtained was "laughable", contrasting that with the "disproportionate and serious political damage" that the scandal had caused.
:bleeding:
Give me the French any day :bleeding:
Yes, we should re-evaluate our relationship with the US. Like the French did in 1966.
Meh, allies spy on each other all the time. Getting caught is bad publicity, but it is naive to think it isn't happening. Same as when the US gets upset over Israel spying on it.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 02:30:38 PM
Yes, we should re-evaluate our relationship with the US. Like the French did in 1966.
Build nukes and an independent military and maybe you can.
Until then Germany's throwing a tantrum about reality and increasingly a wealthy authoritarians' best Western shill. That re-assessing the relationship with the US is thought of is, to me, mind-boggling. The only alternative - short of building a German military - Russia.
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Meh, allies spy on each other all the time. Getting caught is bad publicity, but it is naive to think it isn't happening. Same as when the US gets upset over Israel spying on it.
The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 02:30:38 PM
Yes, we should re-evaluate our relationship with the US. Like the French did in 1966.
Build nukes and an independent military and maybe you can.
Until then Germany's throwing a tantrum about reality and increasingly a wealthy authoritarians' best Western shill. That re-assessing the relationship with the US is thought of is, to me, mind-boggling. The only alternative - short of building a German military - Russia.
:huh:
I have no idea what you are even talking about and why you think that has any relevance to the current affair and the debate around it in Germany.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.
But we spy on everyone.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
But we spy on everyone.
And here are the consequences of that policy decision.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
But we spy on everyone.
Fine. Do it from abroad or illegally then. There is no need for the German government to facilitate America spying on Germans in Germany. That's just naive by our government and should stop.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:17:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
But we spy on everyone.
Fine. Do it from abroad or illegally then. There is no need for the German government to facilitate America spying on Germans in Germany. That's just naive by our government and should stop.
Well there is certainly someone naive here. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on July 10, 2014, 03:16:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
But we spy on everyone.
And here are the consequences of that policy decision.
Sure, I certainly wasn't saying that there can't be ramifications. Just that I hope the bit Zanza was expressing didn't stem from the spying bit as that's not really an indicator of how we feel about a country.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2014, 02:37:59 PM
Meh, allies spy on each other all the time. Getting caught is bad publicity, but it is naive to think it isn't happening. Same as when the US gets upset over Israel spying on it.
The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.
The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.
But we spy on everyone.
Except the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...
And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that. Just like they should know that espionage is a very sensitive topic in Germany. They should ask themselves if the intelligence gotten from these continued activities is worth the annoyance of the German government and public. They can certainly not expect that it has a positive effect on cooperation in other topics like e.g. sanctions on Russia or Iran or so.
Quote from: Syt on July 10, 2014, 04:25:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:09:00 PM
The question the German government has to answer is why we still treat the US like our Cold War protector with all its privileges and don't move the relationship to a more normal level that we also have with other friendly nations. That's the naivety in the German government. It likes to see itself as a first class partner of the US, when the US has made abundantly clear that they don't see us that way. We will obviously remain friends with the US as we share a lot of interests with them. But we need to be realistic about the level of trust and understanding for our concerns we can expect.
But we spy on everyone.
Except the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spying-on-innocent-british-citizens-by-us-intelligence-was-allowed-by-tony-blairs-government--and-still-goes-on-8952747.html
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 04:25:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...
And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that. Just like they should know that espionage is a very sensitive topic in Germany. They should ask themselves if the intelligence gotten from these continued activities is worth the annoyance of the German government and public. They can certainly not expect that it has a positive effect on cooperation in other topics like e.g. sanctions on Russia or Iran or so.
You are right. The US should definitely promise to never, ever, ever again spy on the poor Germans, because it is such a terrible thing that it will apparently cause them to climb into bed with the modern day version of their former fuhrer.
So we promise to stop. Really. No more spying.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 04:25:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
The Cold War died with the Soviet Union - at least, so we all assumed. Putin did not get the memo, though ...
And US demands for harsher sanctions against Russia are rendered completely toothless by Germany not participating. Putin knows that. And US foreign policy makers should know that.
The best part about the breathtaking stupidity of a view point like this is is the idea that checking Putin is somehow a uniquely US interest, that Germany apparently is neutral about, and hence we should change how we deal with Germany in order to make sure they don't side with a dangerous asshole like Putin.
This is the kind of attitude that makes Americans just want to say "You know what? Fuck You Europe. Deal with Putin yourself then, he is on YOUR doorstop, not ours".
US foreign policies makers should realize that?
What about fucking German foreign policy makers? Do they have any? Or is German foreign policy solely driven by how hurt their feelings are at the moment by whatever it is the US has done most recently to offend their delicate sensibilities?
I know the German government is not nearly this idiotic, but I suspect they are in fact largely influence by the batshit level of crazy displayed in comments like this one, that do seem to be quite common.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
I know the German government is not nearly this idiotic,
:yeahright: They killed nuclear power for fear of tsunamis.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
What about fucking German foreign policy makers? Do they have any? Or is German foreign policy solely driven by how hurt their feelings are at the moment by whatever it is the US has done most recently to offend their delicate sensibilities?
German foreign policy is probably driven in part by assessments of German national interests, but also in part by political considerations, including domestic opinion, even if those considerations may mean acting against interest. I.e. pretty much the same as any other democracy. So German diplomats may believe that supporting the US on a particular matter may be in Germany's national interest, but nonetheless the politicians that oversee them may direct otherwise to appease outrage from the voters. Democracy can be inconvenient that way sometimes.
In this particular case, even without hindsight, it looks to me like it may have been an error of judgment by the US. The US had two options - either exploit the source for the information he could access or turn him into the German authorities, thus getting the benefit of demonstrating good faith to an important and useful ally. The question is whether the value of information exceeds the sum of the benefits to be received by turning him plus the product of the risk of being caught times the political fallout of getting caught. And although of course I don't know exactly what the value of the info was, it doesn't appear from the description to be enormously compelling.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 03:10:51 PM
I have no idea what you are even talking about and why you think that has any relevance to the current affair and the debate around it in Germany.
Germany's being naive.
The reason France was able to re-evaluate their relationship with the US (though they kept, and continue to keep, very close intelligence cooperation) is because France had a military force, with nuclear weapons. They were able to credibly claim semi-detached status. To this day even though France has re-joined NATO command structure that's an asset: France was able to 'lead'-ish on Libya (a UNSC vote, endorsed by the EU and the Arab League, in which Germany didn't support her allies but voted with Russia and China) and has lead the AU force in Mali.
If Germany wants to take up that sort of role then that's a plausible basis for re-assessing your relationship with the US. But drifting from the US without developing capability for an independent policy is feckless. The world doesn't care about particular sensitivities of Germany. France and Britain both, aggressively, spy on their EU partners. German companies are probably among the most involved in the West with Russia and China which makes them a useful source. And of course, as everywhere else in Europe, there's a risk of jihadi radicalisation. There's no good reason not to spy on Germany or Germans.
QuoteExcept the UK, Canada, and Australia IIRC.
New Zealand too. They don't spy on each other's governments and share intelligence to an apparently extraordinary degree. So the Aussies help monitor South-East Asia (until Britain left Hong Kong we did too), Britain focuses on Europe, the US snoops everywhere and the results are shared.
But they all have other agreements with other countries. So the Scandis and French are very close and share intelligence on Russia and Africa and Jihadis respectively in exchange for money and other intelligence. I imagine the relationship with the BND was similar, though I understand that Germany's on a slightly lower level of trust.
This is the problem with Germany's position. You want that level of cooperation (and lack of spying on you) then you need to be a reliable, trustworthy, fully integrated ally at an intelligence and military level. If you want to re-assess your place in the Western alliance then you're even more of a target.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
The best part about the breathtaking stupidity of a view point like this is is the idea that checking Putin is somehow a uniquely US interest, that Germany apparently is neutral about, and hence we should change how we deal with Germany in order to make sure they don't side with a dangerous asshole like Putin.
You may want to read the reports on how the Americans were indeed frustrated by Germany's more neutral role in the Ukrainian conflict in the last months. It's a bit of a repetition from similar earlier situations e.g. in Iran. Your foreign policy interests are not necessarily the same as ours. The German public doesn't really care about the dangerous asshole Putin annexing Crimea. It does care about the US spying on it and the government. You may deplore that, but in the end, reality should determine policy.
QuoteThis is the kind of attitude that makes Americans just want to say "You know what? Fuck You Europe. Deal with Putin yourself then, he is on YOUR doorstop, not ours".
A majority of Germans happens to agree with that sentiment, so we have at least that in common with Americans. :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
German foreign policy is probably driven in part by assessments of German national interests, but also in part by political considerations, including domestic opinion, even if those considerations may mean acting against interest. I.e. pretty much the same as any other democracy. So German diplomats may believe that supporting the US on a particular matter may be in Germany's national interest, but nonetheless the politicians that oversee them may direct otherwise to appease outrage from the voters. Democracy can be inconvenient that way sometimes.
In this particular case, even without hindsight, it looks to me like it may have been an error of judgment by the US. The US had two options - either exploit the source for the information he could access or turn him into the German authorities, thus getting the benefit of demonstrating good faith to an important and useful ally. The question is whether the value of information exceeds the sum of the benefits to be received by turning him plus the product of the risk of being caught times the political fallout of getting caught. And although of course I don't know exactly what the value of the info was, it doesn't appear from the description to be enormously compelling.
Agreed. Germany's drifting and the US should be putting a lot of effort into that relationship and be sensitive to it. But that drifting is dangerous for Germany and I suspect their own politicians could do with making a more aggressive case for the Western alliance.
It's a criticism I've made of Merkel on EU, energy and economic policies. I think she seems reluctant to make a case and try to lead and rather too happy to let public opinion coalesce and, as I say, drift.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
You may want to read the reports on how the Americans were indeed frustrated by Germany's more neutral role in the Ukrainian conflict in the last months. It's a bit of a repetition from similar earlier situations e.g. in Iran. Your foreign policy interests are not necessarily the same as ours. The German public doesn't really care about the dangerous asshole Putin annexing Crimea. It does care about the US spying on it and the government. You may deplore that, but in the end, reality should determine policy.
Public opinion isn't a reality. It's an opinion. Putin annexing Crimea or Iran developing nukes or, for that matter, Gaddaffi massacring people in Benghazi are realities. The German public's desire to ignore those and pretend the world is or can be like the EU (with less spying) is a dangerous nonsense that should be confronted by German politicians.
Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:26:48 PM
Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.
I'm saying Germany can't be a big Switzerland and it's naive to think they can. The choice is develop independent capability and you can retreat from the Western alliance, or re-assess and you will end up with your foreign policy aligning (even more) with Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes round the world.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:26:48 PM
Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.
But Switzerland isn't a land of pussies. Germany can't be a big Switzerland because Germany is filled with Germans, not Swiss. Germany needs allies, whle Switzerland does not.
Why can't it be a big Switzerland?
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2014, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:26:48 PM
Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.
But Switzerland isn't a land of pussies. Germany can't be a big Switzerland because Germany is filled with Germans, not Swiss. Germany needs allies, whle Switzerland does not.
For what?
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:31:50 PM
Why can't it be a big Switzerland?
Does Germany plan to provide a convenient hidey-hole for the assets of the world's worst regimes?
Also you can ignore Switzerland. Do you really think the US, Russia or China would ignore the most important country in Europe, with the biggest economy because they don't like it? There's no more chance of Germany being able to be safely left alone than of, say, Japan or Brazil.
You'd be more likely to end up like Sweden or Norway without the close American cooperation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 05:36:52 PM
You'd be more likely to end up like Sweden or Norway without the close American cooperation.
That does not sound like such a terrible prospect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
What about fucking German foreign policy makers? Do they have any? Or is German foreign policy solely driven by how hurt their feelings are at the moment by whatever it is the US has done most recently to offend their delicate sensibilities?
German foreign policy is probably driven in part by assessments of German national interests, but also in part by political considerations, including domestic opinion, even if those considerations may mean acting against interest. I.e. pretty much the same as any other democracy. So German diplomats may believe that supporting the US on a particular matter may be in Germany's national interest, but nonetheless the politicians that oversee them may direct otherwise to appease outrage from the voters. Democracy can be inconvenient that way sometimes.
Of course - which is why it is perfectly reasonable to blast ignorant public opinion that drives policy when it happens.
Like making fun on the Tea Party and lamenting the stupidity they force on politicians in many respects.
Just because this is an unfortunate reality of democracy doesn't mean that the people being batshit stupid get a pass for being ignorant dumbasses.
Quote
In this particular case, even without hindsight, it looks to me like it may have been an error of judgment by the US. The US had two options - either exploit the source for the information he could access or turn him into the German authorities, thus getting the benefit of demonstrating good faith to an important and useful ally. The question is whether the value of information exceeds the sum of the benefits to be received by turning him plus the product of the risk of being caught times the political fallout of getting caught. And although of course I don't know exactly what the value of the info was, it doesn't appear from the description to be enormously compelling.
That sounds like a great plan - when someone comes to the US interested in being an intelligence asset, lets turn them into the local authorities. I am sure that would be a fine way to run an intelligence service.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:33:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2014, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:26:48 PM
Sheilbh, where do you get the idea that Germany has any intention to have a "independent capability" for anything? What Germany wants to be is a big Switzerland.
But Switzerland isn't a land of pussies. Germany can't be a big Switzerland because Germany is filled with Germans, not Swiss. Germany needs allies, whle Switzerland does not.
For what?
To protect its interests outside of Germany.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:45:33 PMThat does not sound like such a terrible prospect.
The reason Sweden's developed close relations with the US is because during the Cold War they were subject to routine submarine incursions. During the Putin era they've had dummy air attacks, huge Russian infiltration and sigint efforts and, apparently, had their air defences jammed by Russian hackers. They're subject to intelligence attacks by Russia on a regular basis. Germany's a country that matters far, far more. Having re-assessed the US relationship, Germany would be subject to at least more sigint collection and infiltration from at least Russia and the US, if not the UK, France and China too.
Not unreasonably Sweden wants to know what Russia's thinking in meddling with them and the Baltic states. What's the state of the Baltic fleet? Why are they putting nukes in Kalingrad? They don't have the resources to answer those questions which are, I think, key to their national security - no spy satellites for example - so they deal with the Americans to get that.
Again there's an element of Sweden developing an independent capability - linguistic skills, analysts, listening posts - that enables them to work with the Western alliance to protect themselves and stay informed on Russia.
In addition with jihadist groups, especially given what's happening in Syria, there's legitimate reasons for countries to want to know what's going on in their own territory. If they've got some constitutional problem with that, then letting the Americans do it for you in exchange for cooperation elsewhere is a good thing for everyone and, frankly, if you don't cooperate they (and the Brits and French I imagine) will do it anyway.
This doesn't seem to be Germany's goal. Less cooperation with the Yanks, no nukes, no armed capability and an under-resourced intelligence service. It's like closing your eyes and wishing the world would go away. Europe isn't, alas, a comfortable retirement home.
Edit: And again I'd add the UK and France have always had a reputation for trying to get sources in EU governments to give their governments an advantage in Euro-summits. That'll also continue regardless and, in the case of the UK, will almost certainly be shared with the US if they want it.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 04:53:07 PM
The best part about the breathtaking stupidity of a view point like this is is the idea that checking Putin is somehow a uniquely US interest, that Germany apparently is neutral about, and hence we should change how we deal with Germany in order to make sure they don't side with a dangerous asshole like Putin.
You may want to read the reports on how the Americans were indeed frustrated by Germany's more neutral role in the Ukrainian conflict in the last months.
Indeed. Other countries acting in a petulant and self-defeating manner that betrays their allies is in fact frustrating.
Quote
It's a bit of a repetition from similar earlier situations e.g. in Iran. Your foreign policy interests are not necessarily the same as ours.
Except that mostly they are. And when it comes to Russia, in fact, Putin is a much larger concern for Germany that they are for the US.
*Especially* given that Germany is probably psychologically incapable of actually taking concrete action against Russia should it become necessary, Putin is a much graver security and foreign policy conern for Germany than the US.
Throw on top the fact that ignorant German civilians like yourself seem so intent on pissing on the US, even though it is the US that provides the bulk of the actual security Germany relies on, and this makes even less sense. You are literally pissing on the policeman who is protecting you from the thieves because they've done such a good job you've actually convinced yourself there aren't any left, and feel it is safe to take a shit on the cop.
And then have the gall to actually blame the cop for the "decline in relations" because the cop might have snooped in your mail.
Quote
The German public doesn't really care about the dangerous asshole Putin annexing Crimea.
That just means they are none too bright.
Quote
It does care about the US spying on it and the government. You may deplore that, but in the end, reality should determine policy.
[
Ignorant people's views are not "reality". It is true that the fact that so many Germans seem to be ignorant is a reality, and that is certainly something that US policy makers should keep in mind - this of course assuming that your representation of the "typical German" being accurate is in itself accurate. I hope it is not, but I fear...
Quote
QuoteThis is the kind of attitude that makes Americans just want to say "You know what? Fuck You Europe. Deal with Putin yourself then, he is on YOUR doorstop, not ours".
A majority of Germans happens to agree with that sentiment, so we have at least that in common with Americans. :hug:
Awesome. I am sure that would work out wonderfully for everyone. It is nice to know that German "morality" is really nothing more than petulance, and they would rather climb in bed with Putin. Because he sure would never spy on them, I am sure.
Quote from: Berkut on July 10, 2014, 06:06:00 PM
That sounds like a great plan - when someone comes to the US interested in being an intelligence asset, lets turn them into the local authorities. I am sure that would be a fine way to run an intelligence service.
Point taken . . .
As a general practice, clearly would not work. But there are exceptional cases. Based on how this has been reported - perhaps with some hindsight benefit/bias - it seems like this particular "asset" was missing the ending "et". An accident waiting to happen. Given the information being peddled - deliberations of a German parliamentary committee - unless the intent was to develop a powerful new soporific, it might have been wiser at the very least to take a pass. Although there may be some details I don't know about that explains why the risk was run to gather this particular info.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:31:50 PM
Why can't it be a big Switzerland?
Switzerland got its neutrality through strength, not weakness. They made themselves a nut too hard to be worth cracking. They didn't achieve and defend their neutrality through wimpiness and hurt feelings. And from the moral perspective, the Swiss used their neutrality to be amoral scumbags, so that's not exactly an ideal to strive towards to from that angle either.
Outside of speculative philosophy, subtlety has rarely been a strong point in the German national character.
It took a lot of effort and trouble to get Germany to understand that aggressive militarism and invading neighbors was a serious no-no. But that effort finally succeeded. It does appear to have pushed Germany close to the opposite extreme. Ideally one would want to see a more nuanced position in between. But again, nuance is not a traditional strong point for Germany. And between the two poles, we are better off where we are now than on the other side.
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
A majority of Germans happens to agree with that sentiment, so we have at least that in common with Americans. :hug:
You do know this will increase spying, not decrease it right? Possibly other things as well. Such as the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating German citizens.
I'm pretty sure the kicking out was mainly for public show, and that the actual discussions are held quietly between German and U.S. intelligence and governments at this point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 10, 2014, 05:45:33 PMThat does not sound like such a terrible prospect.
The reason Sweden's developed close relations with the US is because during the Cold War they were subject to routine submarine incursions. During the Putin era they've had dummy air attacks, huge Russian infiltration and sigint efforts and, apparently, had their air defences jammed by Russian hackers. They're subject to intelligence attacks by Russia on a regular basis. Germany's a country that matters far, far more. Having re-assessed the US relationship, Germany would be subject to at least more sigint collection and infiltration from at least Russia and the US, if not the UK, France and China too.
Not unreasonably Sweden wants to know what Russia's thinking in meddling with them and the Baltic states. What's the state of the Baltic fleet? Why are they putting nukes in Kalingrad? They don't have the resources to answer those questions which are, I think, key to their national security - no spy satellites for example - so they deal with the Americans to get that.
Again there's an element of Sweden developing an independent capability - linguistic skills, analysts, listening posts - that enables them to work with the Western alliance to protect themselves and stay informed on Russia.
Close cooperation between Sweden and the US in the intelligence field goes back to the very earliest days of the cold war. Obviously Sweden has had an independent capability when it comes to intelligence work directed at the Russians for a long time.
Btw, a representative survey of what Germans think of America from last week:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infratest-dimap.de%2Ftypo3temp%2Fpics%2F28ce1db849.png&hash=1b6431ce0d53d30e605a7234606ff1ea702af3e9)
From top to bottom:
- power hungry
- progressive
- arrogant
- democratic
- cosmopolitan/open minded
- reckless
- aggressive
- trustworthy
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 06:08:35 PM
Having re-assessed the US relationship, Germany would be subject to at least more sigint collection and infiltration from at least Russia and the US, if not the UK, France and China too.
Why would Russia, China, UK and France spy more? How does their level of spying relate to our relationship with the US?
The US has huge intelligence facilities in Germany and get the data right at the source. This is what I question. I am sure the US would still want to spy on us in the future, but I don't see why the German government should make it simple for them.
QuoteIf they've got some constitutional problem with that, then letting the Americans do it for you in exchange for cooperation elsewhere is a good thing for everyone
Yeah, we already know you are a police state supporter, but constitutions and constitutionally protected rights actually mean something to some of us.
Quoteand, frankly, if you don't cooperate they (and the Brits and French I imagine) will do it anyway.
Other countries doing something anyway is meaningless for my argument. I question why the German government supports the US government spying on us and whether that should continue when it is clear that their is no trustful cooperation between the intelligence services and the ballooning US intelligence gathering seems to have lost all proportion.
You people never do anything in moderation. Get a grip, Germany.
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2014, 06:42:13 AM
Why would Russia, China, UK and France spy more? How does their level of spying relate to our relationship with the US?
I would think that the Russians and the Chinese would be very intereested in getting more information and thus more leverage on a "neutral" Germany. The worse the German relationship with the US, the more temptation to anti-US forces to try to tilt the Germans to a pro-Russian and/or pro-Chinese "neutrality." A lot of things that German decision-makers could not do as part of the West could be done as a "big Switzerland."
QuoteThe US has huge intelligence facilities in Germany and get the data right at the source. This is what I question. I am sure the US would still want to spy on us in the future, but I don't see why the German government should make it simple for them.
This is a legit beef. There is no reason why the Germans should allow American facilities to exist on German soil if they are acting against what the Germans see as their national interests.
I think it is certainly reasonable for Germany to make some kind of agreement about what they expect out of the US in respects to intelligence gathering as part of any hosting arrangement made about facilities in Germany.
However, I suspect said agreement is in place and in effect, and in fact that the US and Germany do have some kind of understanding about what is and is not acceptable.
Whether the US has violated that agreement is of course impossible to say, since the terms are certainly classified.
All of this is pretty obvious, of course, so the faux outrage is really nothing more than the standard tired "Hate America First" crap with a handy excuse for it. That much is obvious from the bald faced admittance that some trivial matter like this is considered sufficient reason to climb into bed with a truly oppressive regime like Putin's.
Quote from: Berkut on July 11, 2014, 11:52:51 AM
All of this is pretty obvious, of course, so the faux outrage is really nothing more than the standard tired "Hate America First" crap with a handy excuse for it. That much is obvious from the bald faced admittance that some trivial matter like this is considered sufficient reason to climb into bed with a truly oppressive regime like Putin's.
But, you have to remember, Germany wants to be like Switzerland. Switzerland had no problems getting into bed with worse types than Putin's government, and Germans want to emulate that kind of amorality. Of course, it makes their pretense to moral outrage over US data collection kinda hollow, but they don't see that the Swiss, whom they wish to emulate, never resort to that kind of childishness.
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2014, 06:42:13 AM
Why would Russia, China, UK and France spy more? How does their level of spying relate to our relationship with the US?
For the reasons grumbler outlined. For the UK because we spy heavily on Europe in general and share that intelligence with the US. I could be wrong but I'd assume we spy more on countries that are semi-detached from the West, like Greece, than we do with closer allies like the Scandis or Germany. With the French, I think France is probably spying more on Germany in general than they used to simply because Germany's become an unreliable friend but is also very important in Europe. As I've said elsewhere from what I've read the biggest strain on Franco-German relations was Germany's abstention over Libya.
QuoteThe US has huge intelligence facilities in Germany and get the data right at the source. This is what I question. I am sure the US would still want to spy on us in the future, but I don't see why the German government should make it simple for them.
Okay. But I imagine there's a deal which neither government wants made public. I know you don't like it but with young European Muslims going to fight in Syria I think that's just one legitimate reason for a nation to spy on their citizens. If they can't constitutionally getting a friendly power to do it for you while swapping intelligence is a good way to get around that. In addition, I imagine, the Americans pay.
QuoteYeah, we already know you are a police state supporter, but constitutions and constitutionally protected rights actually mean something to some of us.
Is there a right not to be spied upon or a restriction on the power of the government to spy? Those are different things.
QuoteOther countries doing something anyway is meaningless for my argument. I question why the German government supports the US government spying on us and whether that should continue when it is clear that their is no trustful cooperation between the intelligence services and the ballooning US intelligence gathering seems to have lost all proportion.
I imagine there's still lots of trustful cooperation between the services just as there is between the US and Israel, France or the UK despite the intermittent scandals. Though I agree given the spy scandal in Germany the US should probably have turned the guy down unless he had exceptional information.
This BND spy was also caught trying to sell his wares to Russia. My question is why is it only the CIA station chief who's been expelled? Does Exxon need to appoint Kohl to the board or something?
I have seen very little discussion of *what* exactly the US is spying on in Germany. I had thought the focus was on jihadist types. If that's so, I don't really see what the German beef is. If, on the other hand, the US is spying on German state activity, we need to cut that shit out.
I dunno, I would like the US to know what sort of stuff the Germans tell the the Russians.
Apparently Germany was offered an agreement which was in effect them getting a deal like the Five Eyes. If that's accurate they were offered no spying on the German government by any of those countries and intelligence sharing. But the government rejected it. The head of the CIA offered to visit Berlin and try and reach an amicable resolution to this. Apparently the German government aren't impressed with the offer and haven't responded.
I think the CIA probably fucked up here but the US government is trying to resolve this and actually move on in a way that seems in both countries' interests. Germany doesn't seem interested.
It feels like Germany's more concerned about re-assessing her relationship with the US/rest of the West than not being spied on.
Edit: And of course making a big deal about the US working with this BND guy while remaining more or less indifferent to the Russians doing exactly the same adds to that feeling.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
It feels like Germany's more concerned about re-assessing her relationship with the US/rest of the West than not being spied on.
Edit: And of course making a big deal about the US working with this BND guy while remaining more or less indifferent to the Russians doing exactly the same adds to that feeling.
:wacko:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
Apparently Germany was offered an agreement which was in effect them getting a deal like the Five Eyes. If that's accurate they were offered no spying on the German government by any of those countries and intelligence sharing. But the government rejected it. The head of the CIA offered to visit Berlin and try and reach an amicable resolution to this. Apparently the German government aren't impressed with the offer and haven't responded.
I think the CIA probably fucked up here but the US government is trying to resolve this and actually move on in a way that seems in both countries' interests. Germany doesn't seem interested.
It feels like Germany's more concerned about re-assessing her relationship with the US/rest of the West than not being spied on.
Edit: And of course making a big deal about the US working with this BND guy while remaining more or less indifferent to the Russians doing exactly the same adds to that feeling.
Again, the German government is primarily interested in being re-elected, not primarily in serving their country's best interests. Its a near-universal political imperative in democracies, as JR mentioned. From what I can tell, that strategy is working. The Germans don't seem to care so much about what is happening a couple of countries away, they care about the EVOL US. They seem to see the US (and the rest of the West) as a far bigger obstacle to their dreams of just being left alone to be a big Switzerland than they see Putin being. I think they are wrong, but I am biased.
Ironically, the story of Malaysia complaining about Australian spying in almost identical terms has been buried by this story. Maybe Germany should try to be a big Malaysia before it tries to be a big Switzerland.
The German intelligence community must be gnashing its teeth, over both US and German blunders. This looks to cripple them.
Germans expect the Russians to spy on them and play dirty tricks, so they don't get as upset about it.
On the surface, the Germans are among the most pro-American Europeans. The kind of overt anti-Americanism that one can often find in most European countries among both left and right -- even in Britain -- is generally speaking not considered socially or political acceptable (or respectable) in Germany. But there is an under-current of sentiment below the surface. It is difficult to put one's finger on it - the word "resentment" comes to mind, although perhaps that is a bit strong. It is a feeling that is similar to the traditional British complaints of Americans being too arrogant or bullying or taking allies for granted, except not openly stated. It came out a bit 10 years ago when Schroeder ran volubly against the US policy re Iraq and it is coming out now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2014, 08:39:34 PM
Apparently Germany was offered an agreement which was in effect them getting a deal like the Five Eyes. If that's accurate they were offered no spying on the German government by any of those countries and intelligence sharing. But the government rejected it. The head of the CIA offered to visit Berlin and try and reach an amicable resolution to this. Apparently the German government aren't impressed with the offer and haven't responded.
If it is accurate that Germany was offered a Five Eyes type deal and rejected it then this outrage seems to be mainly a political ploy. The German government must have known that the consequence of not sharing intel is that the US would have to obtain intel related to its own national interest by other means.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 12:45:05 PMThe German government must have known that the consequence of not sharing intel is that the US would have to obtain intel related to its own national interest by other means.
That's not what this is about.
Quote from: citizen k on July 14, 2014, 02:33:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 12:45:05 PMThe German government must have known that the consequence of not sharing intel is that the US would have to obtain intel related to its own national interest by other means.
That's not what this is about.
I am not sure what you mean.
US Embassy in Berlin gets illuminated:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FShdb8wD.jpg&hash=dac40b8acb4114a6616017382c89052644dcaaef)
The picture below shows the IZD Tower in Vienna. It has many tenants, including the U.S. delegation to the international organizations in Vienna.
You may notice the small tool shed on the roof, on the right hand side? It's cordoned off completely from the rest of the roof with a steel fence.
Local journalists now claim that it contains U.S. equipment to intercept radio signals ("IMSI Catchers"?) from the United Nations (buildings bottom right).
The U.S. ambassador has rejected such claims said, "We have nothing to say on this."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F19%2FIZD_Tower_von_Donauturm.JPG&hash=a3f4acdb33389aefa269ebb72a7bac3eed559f10)
It's probably a control room for the HVAC system. You paranoid fucks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2014, 09:43:46 PM
It's probably a control room for the HVAC system. You paranoid fucks.
Why would the local journalists speculate that it is a spying machine if it is the control room for the HVAC system? Wouldn't such baseless speculation be completely against the principals of journalism?
Then again, this is Austria. Maybe it's one of those new smokeless Jew-B-Qs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2014, 09:43:46 PM
It's probably a control room for the HVAC system. You paranoid fucks.
Dunno, man. I kind of believe them. And looking at the picture, other buildings have those structures on top. Austria has been: totally compromised.
Quote from: grumbler on September 26, 2014, 06:42:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2014, 09:43:46 PM
It's probably a control room for the HVAC system. You paranoid fucks.
Why would the local journalists speculate that it is a spying machine if it is the control room for the HVAC system? Wouldn't such baseless speculation be completely against the principals of journalism?
:D
Meanwhile, the parliamentary investigation tries to ascertain some kind of feeling what level of cooperation there is between German and American intelligence services. Besides tens of thousands of blackened pages and statements of "Can't say"/"Don't know" from government and members of the services not much has happened.
I get that intelligence services need to do what they do to a point. It would just be nice if there was some more visible oversight over them that goes beyond government and the agencies saying, "Trust us."
Lulz. Too funny. Maybe its better for the Germans not to know the intel agencies are thick as thieves.
Damn, the Krauts are such whinny bitches nowadays.
Now seems as good a time as any to remember that Ed Snowden initially fled to Hong Kong due to its 'commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent' :)
Meh, HK is just the West Berlin of the Far East. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2014, 04:38:08 PM
Now seems as good a time as any to remember that Ed Snowden initially fled to Hong Kong due to its 'commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent' :)
And then to Russia.
So perhaps not the most reliable national character witness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2014, 05:10:38 PM
Meh, HK is just the West Berlin of the Far East. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany.
That analogy only works if the West had agreed to give up West Berlin to the Soviets so long as they allowed it to retain some vague "special capitalist status". :P
For those interested, the oral argument to the Second Circuit (federal appeals court) in the ACLU challenge was televised by CSPAN: http://www.c-span.org/video/?321163-1/aclu-v-clapper-oral-argument-phone-record-surveillance
Judge Gerald Lynch was on the panel - he is very sharp and was quite active asking questions of the litigants.
Oops.
http://www.thelocal.de/20150423/nsa-had-german-spies-target-euro-allies
QuoteNSA had German spies target Euro allies
German spies targeted politicians in friendly European nations and inside Germany for surveillance on behalf of the US National Security Agency (NSA), a media report revealed on Thursday.
Der Spiegel reported that the US spy agency sent Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrictendienst (BND), huge numbers of "selectors" – computer addresses, mobile phone numbers and other identifying information – which are used to target people's digital communications.
Die Zeit reported that the NSA asked for a total of 800,000 people to be targeted for surveillance.
The BND simply plugged the personal details into their own systems and carried out the intimate surveillance on behalf of their American allies.
BND officers had noticed several times since 2008 that some of the selectors directly contradicted the rules on how the agency is supposed to work, and its co-operation agreement for the "War on Terror" Germany signed with the USA in 2002. :face:
The Americans reportedly asked for information on arms manufacturer EADS, the Eurocopter helicopter company and the French government.
But this was not seen by their superiors as a reason to regularly check the lists of selectors for irregularities.
It was only after leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden began in summer 2013, revealing the extent of the surveillance by the American spies against the entire world's communications, that the BND began checking in detail.
By October 2013, they had discovered that around 2,000 of the selectors were definitely targeted at western Europe and even Germany.
Politicians were among the people picked out for the illegal spying.
But the true extent of the scandal wasn't revealed until the Bundestag's (German parliament) NSA Inquiry Committee submitted a request for evidence to the BND.
A fresh check of the selectors supplied by the NSA showed that 40,000 of them identified western European and German targets.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's office, to which the BND is directly responsible, was not informed about the spying on friendly targets until after that parliamentary question was asked, in March 2015.
Chancellery Minister Peter Altmaier informed the members of the Parliamentary Oversight Committee, which is supposed to keep a leash on the intelligence services, on Wednesday evening, as well as the members of the NSA Inquiry Committee.
BND director Gerhard Schindler was excluded from the meeting and may be asked to retire.
So it took 7 years from the BND noticing that some of their activities are not covered by their mandate and then informing the government about it. The German articles say that BND was possibly afraid to get cut off from NSA intel if they didn't follow through on requests.
Not surprised. I hope there is a way to make at least our own intelligence services obey the law again. If these institutions get a free reign outside of meaningful legislative control they become a threat instead of providing the security they are meant for.
Quote from: Syt on April 23, 2015, 02:43:15 PM
...
So it took 7 years from the BND noticing that some of their activities are not covered by their mandate and then informing the government about it. The German articles say that BND was possibly afraid to get cut off from NSA intel if they didn't follow through on requests.
That's an understandable fear, but it is a political decision, not an intelligence one, and the BND should have referred it to their political masters.
Doesn't go as far as I'd like, but it's a move in the right direction.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/28/usa_freedom_act_update_to_patriot_act_has_bipartisan_cosponsors_would_end.html
QuoteBipartisan Bill Would Curtail NSA Data Collection
by Beth Ethier
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate agree: The NSA's surveillance powers are ready for a haircut.
A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate on Tuesday would end the bulk collection of Americans' telephone records by the National Security Agency under provisions in the original Patriot Act. The "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring" (USA FREEDOM) Act of 2015 is co-sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and eight other members and is designed to address the "sunset" date of June 1 on some of the most controversial surveillance programs enacted after the 9/11 attacks.
The bill would require the NSA to seek phone records on individuals from their service providers rather than compiling the information in bulk, and would free up companies that receive requests to disclose at least the volume of records they turn over to the government. It would also "provide for an advocate for the public's privacy rights at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which generally hears only the government's side of an argument," according to the Washington Post. The FISC approves government requests for information in more than 99 percent of the cases it hears.
The Leahy-Lee bill comes on the heels of a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to extend the data collection program in its current form until the year 2020. But with the exception of Intelligence Committe Chairman Richard Burr, McConnell's "straight reauthorization" idea hasn't caught on with the Senate GOP. Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz is one of five Republicans who have already signed on to the Leahy-Lee bill. In a statement sent to Slate by email, Sen. Cruz said that "Americans deserve nothing less" than reforms to keep them safe from terrorism while safeguarding their privacy.
The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 strikes the right balance by ending the National Security Agency's unfettered data collection program and implementing other surveillance reforms, while at the same time preserving the government's ability to obtain information to track down terrorists when it has sufficient justification and support for doing so.
The Washington Post reports that an identical bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. A similar measure passed the House by a wide margin in 2013.
A different bill was introducted in the House back in March to address the issue but has been languishing in committee. Even if it gets to a floor vote, it's not clear what the chances of passage are for the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which takes the straightforward approach of simply "repeal[ing] the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2014, 07:03:12 PM
For those interested, the oral argument to the Second Circuit (federal appeals court) in the ACLU challenge was televised by CSPAN: http://www.c-span.org/video/?321163-1/aclu-v-clapper-oral-argument-phone-record-surveillance
Judge Gerald Lynch was on the panel - he is very sharp and was quite active asking questions of the litigants.
If Timmy had watched this then he wouldn't have been surprised today.
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring" (USA FREEDOM)
:bleeding:
And you hate freedom because?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 08, 2015, 07:10:16 AM
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring" (USA FREEDOM)
:bleeding:
Congress and its branding needs. I swear everything in this country is an advertisement. But I guess that has been true for 200 years.
House votes overwhelmingly to end bulk collection of phone data.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-advances-bill-end-nsas-bulk-collection-phone-records-n358541
Looks like the House and the Senate are so far apart the whole law might be allowed to lapse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-house-will-vote-to-reform-nsa-phone-spying-what-will-the-senate-do/2015/05/13/31be97aa-f97f-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html
Quote
The Washington Post
Politics
House approves measure ending NSA bulk phone data collection program
A bill that would end the National Security Agency's mass collection of phone records won broad support in the U.S. House on Wednesday, but key Republican leaders in the Senate remain unconvinced of the need for reform as a crucial deadline approaches.
The House approved the USA Freedom Act, which would keep vast troves of phone "metadata" out of government hands as well as make other revisions to the federal government's surveillance practices, on a 338-to-88 afternoon vote. Similar legislation was adopted last year in the House before stalling in the Senate.
Ahead of the vote Wednesday, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bill would "protect our foreign intelligence capabilities" and called on the Senate to follow suit.
"All I know is, these programs expire at the end of this month. They are critically important to keep Americans safe," he said. "The House is going to act, and I would hope the Senate would act soon as well."
But Republican Senate leaders want the agency to maintain its ability to gather the records in the hopes of preventing a terrorist attack. On the other extreme are lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a presidential candidate, who want the law underpinning the NSA program to expire altogether.
Congress must act by June 1 or the NSA's existing authority, under Section 215 of the 2001 Patriot Act, lapses, and along with it not only the phone records program but also other intelligence authorities that the government says are crucial to detecting and preventing terrorist attacks.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he plans to move forward with a renewal of the NSA's existing authority. A federal appeals court in New York ruled last week that that law did not provide sufficient legal authority for the phone records program, but key backers of the program say they believe no changes to the law are necessary.
McConnell's top leadership deputy, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), took to the Senate floor Wednesday morning to defend the current surveillance programs and accuse their critics of overstating the risks to civil liberties.
"I believe if we allow these provisions to expire, our homeland security will be at a much greater risk," Cornyn said. "It's not enough to say to the American people, 'Well, we will deploy all of the tools available to law enforcement to prosecute the person that murders innocent people.' We need to keep the commitment to protect them from that innocent slaughter in the first place, and the only way we do that is by using legitimate tools of intelligence, like this program."
Democrats and a significant bloc of Republicans in the Senate are backing the overhauls set out in the House bill, as is President Obama. A White House statement issued Tuesday offered support for the bill, and Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. sent a letter to congressional leaders calling it "a reasonable compromise that preserves vital national security authorities, enhances privacy and civil liberties and codifies requirements for increased transparency."
House members of both parties spoke up for the legislation Wednesday on the floor. Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.), a former CIA officer, said the bill "strikes the right balance between privacy and security."
"I've seen firsthand the value these programs bring," he said, "but I also know if Americans don't feel they can trust their own government, we're losing the battle right here at home."
"This is a strong bill and should advance with such an overwhelming majority that it compels the Senate to act," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Across the Capitol, Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), a leading Republican backer of surveillance revisions, spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday calling for adoption of the House bill, which is rooted in bipartisan negotiations among members of the House and Senate.
"This is a compromise, an important compromise that will enable us to protect Americans' privacy while giving the government the tools it needs to keep us safe," Lee said. "It is a bill, I think, we should take up and pass as soon as they have voted."
Under the current program, the NSA collects millions of Americans' phone records daily from U.S. phone companies, stores them in a database and, with a judge's permission, searches on numbers that analysts reasonably suspect are linked to a foreign terrorist group. The mass collection, which began after the 2001 terrorist attacks, was revealed in June 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
The resulting outcry moved Obama to call for an end to the government's gathering of the records, but he wanted Congress to find a way to preserve the agency's ability to gain access to records of suspected terrorists.
Under the USA Freedom Act, the phone metadata — that is, records of phone numbers, call dates, times and durations — would be retained by telecommunications companies, not by the government. Those records could still be searched by the NSA under a court order specifying a "selection term" that identifies a particular person, account or address — not an entire phone or Internet company, or a broad geographic region, such as a state, city or even Zip code.
Lee said that approach offers the right balance between security and civil liberties: "The proper American response to government overreach involves setting clear limits — limits that will allow the people to hold the government accountable."
But his Republican colleagues have serious doubts. Cornyn, for instance, cited objections lodged by former attorney general Michael Mukasey, who called the record-search procedures established by the USA Freedom Act and backed by Obama a "Rube Goldberg procedure" in a Wednesday op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he saw little difference between letting the current program expire and passing the House bill.
"When you do away with bulk storage, you basically have an unworkable system in real time, and part of this program's design is that it works in real time. We're ahead of a threat. We don't want to be behind a threat."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the prominent Republican critics of bulk surveillance — who include Lee and Paul, who has threatened to filibuster an extension of current law — don't represent the views of most Senate Republicans. "They're the outliers here," he said.
The House bill also would end bulk collection of business records not only under Section 215, but under other national security authorities as well. It would require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret, to declassify significant legal decisions. It would provide for an advocate for the public's privacy rights at the court, which generally hears only the government's side of an argument. And it would grant technology companies more leeway to report on the scale of national security data requests.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that if the Senate passes a simple extension of the current law — for any length of time — it would go "absolutely nowhere" in the House.
"The fact of the matter is, most of the people who voted against the bill [in the House] want to go even further on the civil liberties side," he said in an interview. "It's not a question of whether there are people here that want to do a clean reauthorization like Senator McConnell."
Boehner declined to comment on the wrangling across the Capitol on Wednesday: "The House is going to do its job. We'll let the Senate do their job."