General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
3 Shocking Revelations from NSA's Most Terrifying Program Yet
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/3-shocking-revelations-nsas-most-terrifying-program-yet
NSA Director General Keith Alexander testifies before the House Select Intelligence Committee in Washington, June 18, 2013. Inspired by how close they came to burying the NSA's widespread surveillance of Americans, lawmakers vowed Thursday to renew their
***SNIP
1. Internet privacy is dead. Snowden famously said, “I, sitting at my desk, could wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email” address. XKeyscore explains how this can be done. Obviously, the government cannot collect billions of electronic messages and transactions with no smart way to sift through them, including examining them at the most detailed level. XKeyscore is the sifting and storage system for doing so. But technical capacities aside, the bottom line is online privacy is completely dead. The government now can collect dossiers on anyone down to the most intimate details of their lives. In contrast, Wednesday's White House release only concerned the NSA's narrower telephone dragnet.
2. The security state has trumped the Constitution. Snowden’s latest revelation begins by saying that any government contractor working for spy agencies can access and use this system. They don’t need a search warrant. There is no judicial process to push back. And Congress has enabled that shadow government to grow without checks and balances, which directly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment banning illegal searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights enshrined the quartet of police search warrants, protection against self-incrimination, trial by jury and the credo of innocent until proven guilty in response to Great Britain’s 18th-century abuses of this nature. XKeyscore completely upends those constitutional protections.
3. The security state’s defenders won’t stop lying. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told the Guardian that Snowden is “lying. It’s impossible for him to do what he’s saying he could do.” But the Guardian’s latest article is filled with screenshots from the program that show how to search “within bodies of emails, webpages and documents.” It also mentions another NSA tool, DNI Presenter, that not only can read stored emails, but also “the content of Facebook chats or private messages.” The agency had to create software tools like this, the Guardian explained, quoting a retired NSA employee, because without them it would be left with mountains of data and no way to parse it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)1. XKeyscore is to be used on foreign suspects only.
2. If Snowden was able to get at personal data, why didn't he do so to prove his claims? The only documents he was able to steal were internal NSA office documents so that, in itself, points to the idea that personal data is well restricted.
3. Again, 'blaming' the NSA for using software tools. Again, there is no evidence they are using such tools in an illegal or abusive manner. Greenwald wants us to think that because it gives him the attention he craves but he has shown nothing to date that supports illegal or abusive practices.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
bl968
(360 posts)This is all a word game to make it seem more mundane than it actually is.
They are gathering everything, but they don't officially "collect it" until someone at the NSA actually looks at it. Collect it is the word they are using to hide the fact that they are indeed gathering every communication they can get their fingers on both foreign and domestic.
This detailed gathering of information can be turned around and used against someone the NSA or the Government wishes to target
A foreign leader is opposing a request for U.S. Forces to pass through his country. All the NSA has to do is dig through however much information they have been gathering and find embarrassing or illegal information that can then be used to secure their compliance. If he doesn't play ball they simply leak enough information to the opposition party to topple his government leading to a new leader who will know that he better play ball.
A intelligence contractor with access to this tool decides it would be a great way to keep an eye on what their competitors are up to, so they start targeting their communications through the government's own system. This leads to the failure of that company as their competitor somehow always manages to undercut their bids.
A critical vote to expand the national security state is coming up in Congress and Congressman so and so is opposing the legislation. All the NSA has to do is dig through however much information they have been gathering and find embarrassing or illegal information that can then be used to secure their compliance.
A journalist is on to a story which would be embarrassing to our government, and the government wants to put a stop to it. All the NSA has to do is dig through however much information they have been gathering and find embarrassing or illegal information that can then be used to secure their compliance. They don't even have to target the reporter, they can go after members of the the board of directors of the corporation. Put a stop to that story, or we put you in jail for that income tax evasion.
A protest movement has started in the United States which is non-violent and so is perfectly legal. They want to go after Wall Street and the big banks, so the security state decides that action must be taken. All the NSA has to do is dig through however much information they have been gathering and find embarrassing or illegal information that can then be used to secure their compliance.
A whistle blower has leaked information to the media, the journalist won't review their source. Well you simply bypass the journalist and look at every record you have on him until you identify the point of contact and thus his source.
The danger isn't that the government wants to catch foreign terrorists, but that our government or the private intelligence contractors will turn the tools of the security state against our own people. Looking at the nationally coordinated campaign to shut down the Occupy Wall Street movement, I would say those fears are certainly justified.
Thank you.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)People need to wake up and stop thinking our government can always be trusted.
It is run by humans who are being bought by the highest bidder.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is no evidence of that. If there is, let's see it and let the chips fall where they may. You're just taking Greenwald's word for that? I need more than that.
You have no idea if the NSA has information about Occupy they would consider using. None. That's just your unwarranted fears that it could be done.
Every single law enforcement agency in the world has the capability of abusing their authority. Most of us don't stay up late at night wondering about that unless we see evidence that it's happening.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Civilization2
(649 posts)
Yes of course, progressives are not targeted by the NSA's corporate-military mercenaries, of course not. Why would the 1% want to stifle dissent, there has been NO EVIDENCE that they would want to do that,. none whatsoever,.
randome
(34,845 posts)...that the NSA is engaged in illegal or abusive activities? All we know for now is that they use software to parse data. Is that data foreign communications or domestic? Where is the answer to this question?
Civilization2
(649 posts)provides your answer. With each release your requirements for "evidence" moves further along,. first it was all lies,. now you concede that it is going on. Only now you claim it is all "legal" and "nothing to worry about" because the corporate-military mercenaries paid to administer the 'skynet' will never use it for nefarious reasons. Sorry, but that is simply childish denialism of reality that in no way deals with history or actual human behaviour.
It is not good enough to give assurances that the big gun they are holding to the head of the populous is never going to be used, we want the big gun dismantled, and those that built it dealt with.
randome
(34,845 posts)Let's see the evidence that the NSA is doing that. I'm all for it.
Civilization2
(649 posts)first you told us the NSA was not doing anything,. and Snowden was alier and a bad pole-dancer or something,. now that it is clear they have built skynet, you propose we wait till we can prove that this SECRET operation have been misused? What we are saying is the very existence of this operation is an abuse, and is wholly unacceptable in a free and open society.
If someone is pointing a gun at your family you must wait till they pull the trigger to have evidence of their intent? That is broken logic and just bad thinking.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that are collecting OUR data in violation of their Privacy Agreement, and making it available to the Government without our knowledge. Too bad that the President has verified that they are doing so. I guess you don't believe the President either.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)It's everybody
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the leaks that Verizon is doing it. Including from the President himself who verified the spying in an effort to try to defend it.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts).
randome
(34,845 posts)Why would you expect otherwise?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What wrongdoing was I suspected of and what judge thought that the probable cause of that wrongdoing was enough to get a warrant to invade my privacy//
I've been trying to find out, no one seems to know. You seem to feel you know all about these things. Could you tell me where I can see the warrant that pertains to me? A whole lot of Americans are looking for those warrants.
JEB
(4,748 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If you think they should be your property, I can understand that. But as it stands now, there is nothing against the law for the NSA to obtain business records.
They do so with a warrant because no business wants its customers to react the way you did. They at least want a legal justification for handing it over.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ridiculous contention, that we do not own our own records, is what she is running around claiming in a feeble attempt to defend Bush's Spying on Americans program. She is not being taken very seriously as she is not known for her brilliant mind, or her personal ethics.
How many times have I advised you to find better sources?
Verizon disagrees with you and Bachman. Verizon conceded that I OWN MY RECORDS, I pay for them and I control them. I have removed them from Verizon who forgot who owned them when they passed the on to the Government. Now they can no longer that, but I have retrieved MY records from someone I entrusted them with and discovered they had abused that trust.
The ONLY reason we sign up with these Corporations is because they PROMISE, in their Privacy Agreement to protect our privacy.
If my records did not belong to me then phone access should be free.
This is a very dangerous concept, but I'm seeing it a lot since Michelle Bachman, a fool if ever there was one, and not particularly ethical, began running around thinking this to be a brilliant defense of Bush's policies.
I OWN my records. I OWN my medical, financial, phone and every record I pay for.
And it is an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment of the US for the Government to spy on those records.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)there was any warrant or any spying on my phone. They claimed that 'people shouldn't believe everything they see on the news'. So, they have no warrant to collect, store and/or share my phone records with the Government and yet, we know they did so.
Just wanted to address that. There is no such thing as a warrant without probable cause. And there is no such thing as tens of millions of people all committing a crime that would justify a single warrant, at the same time. That would would be the equivalent of one of the Seven Wonders of the World. You are failing miserably to defend the indefensible. I would rething defending the Bush's Surveillance State, it is about to be deconstructed, all over the world.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)nods head
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Nice. The NSA with all its money, power, and secrecy vs the average citizen. I personally have more trust and faith in Snowdens information than your words, and believe the NSA and its power grab quite frankly are an unacceptable intrusion in Americans lives.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)and congress have both admitted it is happening,,,now the premise is we have no "smoking gun" of abuse,when the "haystack " is abuse by itself
RC
(25,592 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)Thanks for the levity. 
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of "all call detail records or 'telephony metadata' created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls".
Then you have
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation
randome
(34,845 posts)If we need to change the law to forbid business records from being gathered, I'm fine with that.
The other is a software tool. Am I supposed to get upset that the NSA uses software in their jobs? If the software is being used on domestic individuals, I would be against that but there is no evidence this is being done.
RC
(25,592 posts)On DU2, there was a place called the Dungeon. And in this dungeon were people that pushed the government's line about 9/11. They would come up with ridicules, convoluted 'logic' and outright twists and denial to explain away the obvious, to make it fit the government's version of what happened.
Your posts keep reminding me of that place. 
randome
(34,845 posts)Where is the evidence of illegality or abuse? Other than the FISA court reining in the NSA in one instance.
If there is 'mountains of it' as you say, kindly point to one.
RC
(25,592 posts)But you don't want to look there for fear of what you might find.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)They aren't doing it. It's legal. Pick one.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)They aren't looking into the contents of emails without a warrant.
Looking at the "outside the envelope" of email metadata is legal.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Nice strawman.
What folks are saying is that a warrant isn't required first, BEFORE peeking.
What folks are saying is that a warrant is automatically issued AFTER peeking.
This is what Snowden has claimed, this is what the law allows, and AFAICT this is how the policy has been implemented.
No one is saying this is being done without a warrant, they are saying that the warrant is automatically issued by the FISA court after the fact.
randome
(34,845 posts)Are they 'monitoring all communications' as some want to believe? Maybe. Let's see the evidence of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
reusrename
(1,716 posts)So let's talk out of this side of your mouth for a second. Let's talk about what is legal.
Yes, it is legal to inadvertently capture all digital communications, including content.
Right?
It is legal to analyse all this information and incorporate into a huge database that maps all of our social networks.
Right?
It is legal to peek at communication content with a warrant.
Right?
It is legal for individual analysts to request these warrants if they have been authorized to do so by either the Director of National Security (Clapper) or the Attorney General (Holder).
Right?
The analyst merely fills out a template or request form on the computer in order to gain legal access to the content.
Right?
In real time, the software that the analyst uses automatically ensures that all of the legal requirements established by the secret courts have been complied with. All of these legal hoops are negotiated when he completes the original request form or fills out the template.
Right?
At some later point in time, the software automatically issues the request for a warrant based on the affidavit of the analyst that was filed when he completed the request form or template.
Right?
The secret FISA court automatically issues the warrant, after the fact, since all of the legal hoops must have been completed by the automatic PRISM software.
Right?
Oversight basically consists of audits which are done periodically to assure that this automatic software is working flawlessly.
Right?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"Randome" is not someone who is open to any radical ideas regarding the NSA revelations. He only asks for more information, a half dozen times a day, at least, to torment people.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)No amount of evidence, no amount of proof will satisfy him because his job is to deny, deny, deny in order to keep catapulting the propaganda.
Civilization2
(649 posts)mindless repetition, zero logic or reason, no debate at all, ignores all info's given,. could very well be a simple script running in a machine somewhere.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)oh yea yea yea , the sky is falling , again . You people just are not happy until you find something to be "scared " about
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Pholus
(4,062 posts)1. Despite all those assurances, it *is* content. In 2008, three days. It's five years later. I know how much better my PC has become.
1 (b). It is domestic stuff too. If it were limited in any way, you wouldn't have to create the "reason" you're looking at a "furriner" from the oh-so-check-and-balancy pulldown list.
2. What, so you could demand even more charges against him? Guess the guy had some morals. The "internal NSA office documents" show the procedure. It is not impressive.
3. So what. What makes me happy is that *NEVER AGAIN* can you tell me "it's just metadata" that "belongs to the telcoms" cause it isn't. And we know where the credibility on that assertion now sits.
randome
(34,845 posts)You still have no evidence that the NSA is collecting domestic communications except in the course of monitoring a foreign individual. There is no evidence of that unless you want to count metadata phone records, which courts have ruled for a long time are not our personal property.
The internal NSA documents show 4 levels of approval before an analyst can even look at domestic information. Carl Bernstein said that looks pretty robust and I agree.
And yes, I can imagine the NSA has quite a collection of data on foreign individuals so your supposition that they don't need software to look through it doesn't make sense to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Good. You're one up on the NSA.
Now, let's go a bit farther into your post. Yes, the NSA says it is does not collect domestic communications "except in the course of monitoring a foreign individual."
So, what is YOUR definition of the word collect?
Is it when any data stored to the hard drive, when software looks at stored data, or when a human looks at stored data?
That is the rather critical point. Most of those oh-so-secret judicial rulings and the prevarications in front of congress depend deeply on what words mean.
randome
(34,845 posts)Same with email. You obtain a foreign suspect's email and it includes responses from an American citizen. That's just how these things work.
As someone pointed out a month or so ago, 'collect' does have a different meaning to security officials. They don't consider it 'collecting' unless they intend to view the data in the course of an investigation. So I believe the NSA thinks that actually viewing the data and assembling it into a profile is 'collecting'.
I understand someone might have a different opinion on that. I don't have a problem with the canceling the metadata program completely but I would like to know more details about whether or not it actually useful. We've only heard vague assurances so far.
And if the NSA is actually vacuuming up everyone's data in case it might be used, I would be against that. But I don't think that's happening.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Civilization2
(649 posts)see how much water that holds?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
masoncharest
(13 posts)This is the nice post, thanks for sharing it among us.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)hueymahl
(2,447 posts)randome misinformation, randome attacks on our civil liberties. Our government is unfortunately full of randome impostors acting like they care about democracy.
randome
(34,845 posts)
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Civilization2
(649 posts)Wow when will you let go of this line of BS?
The fact that they have collected this data and built the system to mine into the data and organize the results nicely with updates on individuals does not mean they have used it? REALLY? Grow up.
randome
(34,845 posts)If there is evidence the rules and regulations are being subverted, let's see it.
bl968
(360 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Still vague claims without evidence to back anything up. Do you think one room in AT&T is 'vacuuming up' the world's communications? I kind of doubt it.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)"But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can 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." Just as Snowden said.
Ever make a call to another country, even Canada? Then ALL your information has been hovered up and you're in the database
Ever receive a call from another country, even accidently? Then ALL your information has been hivered up and you're in the database
Ever travel to another country, even say popping over the Mexican boader for a weekend? Ditto
You can deny reality as much as you'd like; no one with a lick of common sense believes your nonsense.
randome
(34,845 posts)If there is evidence the NSA is using it on domestic individuals, I would be against that but let's see the evidence.
Otherwise, I don't get excited about NSA employees using software as part of their jobs.
You are being very dishonest here and that is a shame. You say that only foreign individuals are being targeted and a warrant is needed for citizens. But you also say that yes, Americans information will be picked up if conversing with a foreign national, you can't unhear that. Once a citizens information is picked up, even if it isn't the primary target, Constitutional rights come into play. It is dishonest to say that because a citizen is collateral damage, they don't have legal or constitutional rights. If I talk with my cousin in Italy and my information is swept up along with hers and no warrant is needed, that is wrong, illegal.
I don't give up my rights in exchange for talking with my cousin. Can you understand this?
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't know what happens to domestic information gathered during the course of a foreign investigation. If your cousin, to use your example, is a foreign suspect, how would the NSA know ahead of time that you are American unless they first find that out?
And even if they do find that out, I don't think that means your rights are undermined.
I am not saying you would be 'collateral damage' but how do you think a LE agency should proceed in a case like this? They are investigating your cousin and they find out she called you. Can they 'un-find' that out?
I would expect that if they decide to investigate you next, they would need a warrant.
disidoro01
(302 posts)"you expect"? Come on, you are the first one to call bull on what you think is speculation and here you go.
There has been no evidence that warrants are asked for when one person in a conversation is American. In fact it appears that they follow your lead and just say "hey, we can't unread it or unhear it." Tuck it away for future use, no harm no foul. The problem is though that it undermines our system, our democracy.
You don't think my rights are undermined? why is that and how do we know as everything is so secret?
"If your cousin, to use your example, is a foreign suspect, how would the NSA know ahead of time that you are American unless they first find that out?"
A couple of problems here, it isn't about foreign suspects, it is about foreign communications. All foreign communication metadata is collected, not "suspects"
Secondly as soon as they find out the other person is American, why would they continue to record or collect? Stop and get a warrant. How hard is that. No evidence that is happening at all, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
randome
(34,845 posts)"Why would they continue to record or collect"? Seriously. If your cousin is a suspected terrorist they should just shake their heads, throw their hands up and say, 'I guess we can't do anything. Her cousin is an American.'
What happens when local law enforcement gets a wire tap on a phone? They are confronted with the same situation. One person is a suspect. Every person that person calls is not. How do you think they should handle that situation?
What if that person makes fifty calls a day? Get 50 warrants for those other people?
disidoro01
(302 posts)"If your cousin is a suspected terrorist they should just shake their heads, throw their hands up and say, 'I guess we can't do anything. Her cousin is an American.' "
We are not all suspects, what is wrong with you? Do you believe we are all suspects? They collect all of this information, not some. Not on "suspects", on everyone. Do you believe all those who are not American are suspects?
Yes, they get warrants, the onus is on them. You consider rights as frivolous but they are not, they need to be protected and the effort needs to be expended by those that want to infringe on those rights.
I do not agree with you that we should roll over every time the government says we should. Did you support Bush??
randome
(34,845 posts)I have seen no evidence to convince me of that.
Civilization2
(649 posts)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130612-nsa-utah-data-center-storage-zettabyte-snowden/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-the-nsas-utah-data-center-2013-6
It goes on and on,. you only need to open your eyes and look,. however you are hell bent on head+sand.
This facility has been operational for some time,. it is not the only one.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)As long as Obama says it isn't true.
Never mind that Obama is probably being lied to just like Congress and the rest of.
Civilization2
(649 posts)Grow up, they did not build skynet not to use it.
The crushing of every progressive movement before it get started is not happening,. of course not. COINTELPRO never happened, no one killed the Kennedys,. and America is a center-right republican. Sure.
Why would the 1% want to use the systems they built to control the population, to actually control the population? Well, I will let you figure that out, but is seems rather obvious.
randome
(34,845 posts)Grow up, indeed. If you think the Internet was designed solely to control us, then you need to remove yourself from such danger by 'opting out' of the Internet.
Civilization2
(649 posts)Read about COINTELPRO,. and on and on. It goes deep. Dissent is always repressed, so the 1% can maintain their wealth and control, but you know that right?
The Internet? No, we are talking about XKeyscore and the private-mercenary intelligence systems being grown by the NSA to "fight the war on terror", like that is an actual thing. Oh, can I opt out of XKeyscore? I was not aware that was an option, can you point me to the web-form to fill out to get that done? I'm sure that would not open another file anywhere.
randome
(34,845 posts)And why would you want to opt out of a software program that, so far as you know, is not being used on domestic data?
Of course America has history. What country doesn't? That's why we have laws and rules to rein in LE agencies.
Carl Bernstein said it seemed to him that NSA's safeguards and restrictions are good. I agree.
If something about the NSA needs to change, I have no problem with it. I just react with disdain to all the 'hair on fire' proclamations when we don't have actual evidence of illegality or abuse.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)First thing that happened was that country on the other side of the globe got their own. If history tells us anything is that there is no moral compass installed in any country or individual that always works correctly. What is being done is the checks and balances in our government are systematically being circumvented with scare tactics. It's really not all that complicated.
randome
(34,845 posts)If there is evidence the NSA is operating illegally or abusively, we need to see that evidence. So far we know the FISA court reined them in on one instance. Wow. When did courts start doing that?
You know what? That probably happens every day in America. Those are the 'checks and balances' you claim don't exist.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)With veil of secrecy they claim all and everything. The only difference between what they are doing and what gangsters do is that is being done at larger wholesale level and they get to do it because of some crappy bogus made up paperwork that says it's legal. Sort of like the manifest dynasty doctrine. It's easy to draw parallels if you clean your mind of the brainwashed dogma they want you to digest.
I think they are the ones sowing the contempt, we are just kind of reading into it. I don't get too excited about any of it, they will trip themselves up eventually
randome
(34,845 posts)...is more transparency and less secrecy. That's good all around.
RC
(25,592 posts)surfing by most everyone, for any and everything, regardless of the country the information found resides in, of course everyone with an Internet connection is in the data base. Do you really think they would filter out any information that one end of that phone call, E-mail or web search is an American in this country?
It is a known fact that our communications are routed out of this country and back in, just so they can "legally" collect it, look at it, search it, store it. There is place in Eastern Canada, set up specifically to do just that, receive the data from the US and route it back in again. You really need to start paying better attention.
randome
(34,845 posts)You said it's a fact. Forget that, point me to some evidence. It doesn't need to be proof.
RC
(25,592 posts)Haven't you noticed you are almost alone in your views here? There has to be a reason and it is not because all the rest of us are in denial.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023383902
randome
(34,845 posts)LE agencies are reined in all the time by the courts. It's how the system works.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I've tried not to, I really have...but off to ignore for you.
You have evidence and proof shoved down your throat, but every post of yours claims there is none, despite just being shown it. When asked to prove the NSA is spying on Americans, and that proof is shown, you claim it isn't done anymore. LOL
Even if Alexander sat down in your living room and showed you a demo of the system you'd repeat the same nonsense that it wasn't proof. LMAO
Buh bye
randome
(34,845 posts)They are composed of human beings. When there is over-reach, the courts are supposed to rein them in.
That's what happened in this case. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with S&G's stolen documents. It's how the system works.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)His purpose here is to try to instill reasonable doubt in people's minds. It's obvious from this thread that many people are realizing that this is his game/avocation/vocation/whatever.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)WORK FOR US. Do you think Sen Wyden is lying when he says that Snowden has exposed abuses that he knew about but couldnt reveal?
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't believe he defended Snowden, though. I think he intimated there are abuses to learn about.
Let's hear about 'em and let the chips fall where they may. I have no problem with that.
I simply think it's ridiculous to take everything Greenwald says as gosphel. Of course the NSA is using software. I do, too. The next question a good journalist would ask is...are they using it illegally or abusively?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Says "I'll have a beer please."
Bartender asks: "Foreign or domestic?"
NSA says "what's the difference."
Civilization2
(649 posts)This was one of the reasons for 9/11; to remove the restraints of declared wars and finding foreign enemies, for the corporate-military and their mercenary surveillance and murder machine to run AMOK.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)It has all been approved by the secret courts.
Really, why would you believe this is prohibited? By whom?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Intelligence agencies always build these technologically sophisticated systems, gather massive amounts of data, build the capability to mine that data, build the capability to break encrypted DNS networks -- ALL SO THEY CAN LET IT SIT ON THE SHELF UNUSED.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Or maybe a million!
Oh, hell, a billion.
Naw, really a trillion!!!
Gosh, gee, maybe a brazillion!!!!
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)Want to know your own future? Just imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)"P ressure C ooker"
P r aise A llah
Except as full words, then let us know what happens
randome
(34,845 posts)And you think it's that simple, huh?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Then you can let us know if you made the no-fly list too.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023385470
Same story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023385745
randome
(34,845 posts)Bogus.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)You were quiet enough for a while. Until it came out. Obviously you weren't sure either.
Bake
(21,977 posts)"We COULD use it, but we DON'T. Trust us."
I don't trust them. They're proven liars.
Bake
randome
(34,845 posts)The only tools we have to safeguard ourselves are rules and regulations. Making it much less likely for abuses to occur. Or at least when they do occur, the culprits are called on it quickly enough.
There is no law on the books that will prevent abuse. Laws prevent nothing. All we can do is create processes and procedures that make it more difficult to occur.
Carl Bernstein said he thought the safeguards and restrictions in place at the NSA are good. Absent evidence to the contrary, I agree.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Snowden DID prove it. Did you miss it?
So your argument is 'we don't know that they used it, we know they could, but they won't'. And nothing at all to prove these claims.
I'll go with the evidence I saw thank you. And apparently and thankfully, Congress, even before the latest revelations, feels the same way.
randome
(34,845 posts)We have rules and regulations that make it as unlikely as possible. Carl Bernstein said it looked like the NSA had good restrictions in place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
The bulk collection of domestic communications by an agency of the United States government is a clear and egregious violation of the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Lonr
(103 posts)The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
randome
(34,845 posts)Business records are not our personal property and therefore 4th Amendment protections do not apply.
It's been that way according to the courts for a very long time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Lovely.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Everyone is a suspect under this system.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I wish we had the radicated slides.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)If it was "three days of everything" in 2008, it's a lot more five years later.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)This reminds me of the end of Minority Report. The original ending basically said the overarching program saved lives. But then without it lives were lost. In which world would we prefer to live? The one with thoughtcrime but no actual crime, or the one with freedom to think but murders everywhere? Love the theme of this (I'd choose to be free thinking, btw.)
Sorry, that's a tangent. I'd still like to see those slides. Using encryption makes you a suspect, though, because they can't prove if you're talking to someone foreign or not (so the idea that you're not talking to someone foreign or that they're accounting for it is preposterous).
Eventually the entire net is just going to have to be encrypted. And we're going to have to deal with the consequences of that, too (thought of crime will be impossible to prove and acting on a crime as well).
Pholus
(4,062 posts)At this time, I'll accept Leahy's statement that their internal justifications didn't justify the program.
But now let's talk about content...
Getting all content "for three days" also allows things like "SMISC" to function
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaganda-ops/
TPTB do not want unauthorized thoughts to gain traction. Yes, they discuss it as a theater weapon in the article but we were told that about content collection as well. And remember Bush explicitly wanted it known that it was okay for the US Govt to conduct domestic propaganda programs.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I've even been accused of being an evil DARPA propaganda operator. 
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)-edit-
The security state’s defenders won’t stop lying. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told the Guardian that Snowden is “lying. It’s impossible for him to do what he’s saying he could do.” But the Guardian’s latest article is filled with screenshots from the program that show how to search “within bodies of emails, webpages and documents.” It also mentions another NSA tool, DNI Presenter, that not only can read stored emails, but also “the content of Facebook chats or private messages.” The agency had to create software tools like this, the Guardian explained, quoting a retired NSA employee, because without them it would be left with mountains of data and no way to parse it.
-edit-
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)???
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)the OP is all about what Snowden said and Greenwald echoed.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)It's just rational behavior.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...wow, a new epithet, to be used like "mouth breather" I suppose.
Well in any case, Snowden is no longer "an airport dweller", so you'll have to come up with something new here.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)if the news stories are right. Maybe Kremlin Eddie Snowden would sound better.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...displays a somewhat fevered imagination. Probably watched too much History Channel back in the day...
Tossing around names like that is childish and does not promote discussion. Disagreement is fine; I can respect the argument that he needs to stand trial because he has broken the law. I can see how people consider his stealing of information an unforgivable breach of trust.
I do not agree with those positions, but they are consistent and understandable, and are held by people of various political persuasions, as are the opposite positions.
What I cannot abide is this BS name-calling with no other content. It is manipulative and silly and adds less than nothing to the discussion here.
You know the ins and outs of Snowden's travels so far, and you are perfectly aware that he has been forced to remain in Russia not through his own choice. Again, you may be okay with that, and we can agree to disagree on that point; but calling him names really does not make or strengthen any argument you may have on the topic.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)2006 (?) NSA Security Guard
2006 CIA -- IT Security
2007 CIA agent with diplomatic cover working in Geneva Switzerland
2009 works for CIA contractor Dell Computers
February 2013 -- joins Booz Allen
June 8 -- goes to Hong Kong
June 10 fired by Booz Allen
That's 9 years of work experience but to you the most relevant part of his history is "airport dweller" ?!
Btw, for all we know Snowden is still a CIA or NSA asset -- he just got himself 1 year inside Russia. The questions they ask him will tell us a lot about what they know and don't know. This kind of thing has been done several times before -- most famously by Lee Harvey Oswald who went to the Soviet Union as a "defector" in 1959 before returning to the US in June of 1962. There are several weird parallels between Snowden and Oswald including the way they look, early discharge from military service and passing security clearances.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)Yes, seeing someone flee to avoid prosecution is a big character flaw to me.
I don't think so, I really can't believe the Russians would give a leaker access to their secrets.
BTW Oswald was a defector, he even got married in Russia.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Progressive Dog, LOL. Maybe conservative dog.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)but I guess not simple enough. Is a Libertarian position the same as Progressive? No of course not. Would someone like to pretend it was? Apparently.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the information that Snowden is revealing is true?
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)even where it conflicts with Senator Wyden. As far as Wyden, I don't believe he gave quite the ringing endorsement to Snowden that you claim he has.
I think 2006 and 2011 were before Snowden.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,291 posts)the NSA never caught on what that Ariel Castro guy was getting up to.
djean111
(14,255 posts)The NSA is not really much about prevention, it is amassing data to look at after the fact, to dig through for retribution, to track relationships, things like that. Too bad the local police never caught on to what Ariel Castro was up to.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Since my very first time using a modem I assumed that somebody somewhere might be eavesdropping.
Although I don't accept the NSA's arguments to justify their snooping, it seems simply naive to imagine that they (or some similar agency) hasn't been doing it since the beginning.
In the history of human interaction, has there ever been a surveillance technology that governments didn't use against their own citizens?
westerebus
(2,976 posts)The system is much more private, but, that's due to consumer demand to dissuade hackers from stealing you economic information. Not that they don't keep trying.
So in this area, yes, there is an expectation of privacy. As there is against spam and malware.
One would have a reasonable understanding that computers owned by business' or government's would not have the privacy that your home computer has. Granted vendors collect data of where you shop and what you buy, but, there is informed consent.
Given the rate of services that provide consumer protection to the degree available, and the updating of those services constantly as the threat morphs, I would say there is.
The argument, there are cops on the corner and they will watch you drive down the street, is the same argument that if you have nothing to hide don't concern yourself. Should the same cops pull you over and demand information, you would want to know the reason.
If the cops want to search your car and your person, you would want to know the reason.
The fourth amendment requires the cops to have a reason to stop and search.
Will we allow private contractors to search your information based on the fact you are on the internet and therefore have no right to privacy. That merely by being engaged on the internet, you are giving consent beyond a reasonable expectation?
You pose an interesting question Orrex. Do rights to privacy end when state power becomes unquestionable?
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)That's called privacy, and the internet provides both privacy and security.
Not to mention that every website you visit has a privacy policy.
And spying on everyone is UNPRECEDENTED
Sure gov have spied on their own people before but never on this scale.
matthews
(497 posts)making copies of who every one dealt with or received a Xmas Card from. I guess we had that coming as well.
**
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement
By RON NIXON
Published: July 3, 2013 715 Comments
WASHINGTON — Leslie James Pickering noticed something odd in his mail last September: a handwritten card, apparently delivered by mistake, with instructions for postal workers to pay special attention to the letters and packages sent to his home.
“Show all mail to supv” — supervisor — “for copying prior to going out on the street,” read the card. It included Mr. Pickering’s name, address and the type of mail that needed to be monitored. The word “confidential” was highlighted in green.
Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called mail covers, a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.
Together, the two programs show that postal mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency has given to telephone calls and e-mail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
on point
(2,506 posts)The government now CAN collect dossiers
This is the only part disagree with. The NSA DOES collect dossiers on everyone now. They are dancing around this fact by parsing the language to say they just don't LOOK at it unless they think there is a reason do.
The point is they collect everything in ADVANCE, store it, then sift through it and then decide later if they want to look at it.
hueymahl
(2,447 posts)with paper file cabinets and political targets. Substitute automated systems for field agents and massive computer storage for file cabinets, and it is exactly the same thing. It used to be be they would gather every piece of information that may be relevant or lead to relevant information, not knowing what they had until later. It would then be stored in paper form, and if an analyst ever had need to look at it, he could and try to find some pattern. Rarely did the field agent get involved in that kind of analysis unless he or shee actually witnessed a crime in progress or were part of a special team.
The main difference now is our great, fantastic all protective government now has the resources to deploy a (electronic) field agent to gather information on every single citizen, not just the politically scary. So if you ever become politically scary, they already have a deep dossier on you.
I feel safer already.
p.s. Do I really need the sarcasm tag?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)If they ever come after me for downloading music, I'm going to tell them to prove I ever accessed it to listen to since that's their weasely reasoning.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)When they started to talk about the act of listening being the first time something is "surveilled" only when a human's ears are applied to an audio file. then you know they are lying...
The act of "sifting" can search the machine transcripts of calls... even better(faster) than listening!
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)How do we know that there is no abuse of this capability? We do not! Where is the ability to prevent political spying?
Who is spying on the spies?
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/
Infiltration of files seen as extensive
Senate panel's GOP staff pried on Democrats
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 22, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.
From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.
The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.
With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.
link to original poster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x751864
intaglio
(8,170 posts)From the title of this nauseating OP "3 Shocking Revelations from NSA's Most Terrifying Program Yet," through the entire text
"Internet privacy is dead" - because it was never alive, what you do on the internet is not private, it never has been private. Yes, you can buy certain programs that encrypt content but eveything that happens round that content is public. You can buy into anonymizer systems but they do not hide activity and activity can be traced. You can buy masks and make-up before driving but that will not help you if you are spotted on camera speeding.
"The Security State" - another title to try and scare people.
"Trumping the Constitution" - a lie, just because the Constitution has not been tested against this type of activity does not mean that it has been ignored. Even if the Constitution has been evaded (not trumped, ffs) then it is possible to have laws and amendments that can control the activity.
"They don't need a search warrant" - another scare tactic because to examine public information you do not need a f'n search warrant. You do not need a search warrant to look at video footage.
"DNI presenter ... can not only read stored e-mails," - so can Outlook and so can any number of programs but a warrant is still required. A paper knife can open envelopes but the fact that postal inspectors possess paper knives does not mean that all mail is opened.
Essentially the conspiracy nuts and the haters of the administration using scare tactics and telling one massive lie after another and far too many people are being fooled by these snake oil salesmen.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Shows that the internet is not inherently private.
I guess your "the NSA is just like the lady looking out her windows at you as you walk down the street" analogy didn't pan out, huh?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)is only interested in trolling
No further response
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that going to the butcher to buy meat is just like the NSA collecting data.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Typical
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It is a deliberate attempt to scare people with false assertion and deceit.
maxrandb
(15,295 posts)They simply have a narrative, and then try to fit every thing into their narrative. It's the literary equivalent of mutual masturbation.
There is nothing "shocking", "appalling", "criminal", or even NEW in these latest "breath-taking" revelations, but since they already believe that President Obama and the "career" professional public servants in our security and defense department are ripping the "Constitution to shreds", no amount of reasoned response will get thru. If there is one thing we have learned over the years, it is that ignorance is not limited to "Teabaggers".
Don't ever let on that some Police Officers carry guns, or can use a computer to run your tags against a data base, because to the Snowden/Greenwald worshipers, that would mean that the cops are gonna' kill you, or compile a "secret" dossier they can use to "crush" you.
I mean, my gosh! It's perfectly sensible to believe a 29 year old who would seek asylum in such a "bastion of freedom" as Russia. He ought to try to get out of there with some of their T/S material and see what happens. I'm thinking Putin himself would "shear the little piglet".
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...hey, way to elevate the conversation there...
It is true, the internet was never private. I remember years ago when the then-CEO of Sun Microsystems, Scott McNealy, was in the papers saying (paraphrased) "There is no privacy on the internet, and everyone needs to get over it." My position has always been, he's right about everything except the "get over it" part.
But people did not care so much then about the lack of privacy on the internet, because they had not thought it through much and the internet is so useful in so many ways, so that consideration overrode any concerns about online privacy. Most people had not thought much about governmental monitoring and the openness of the packets that deliver information -- and of course there is always the comforting thought that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
So here we are. Various things have happened to make people more aware of their lack of privacy on the internet. Hearing about the NSA scooping up so much communication data, include domestic call logs and apparently an awful lot of content as well -- that has made people at long last start to grok things. It's one thing to think about things you want to keep from friends and family, for whatever reason; it's quite another thing to realize the government preemptively tracks everyone's phone calls, and a lot more besides. That brings it to another level and people are starting to get that..
Techies can be condescending about the lack of technical understanding among non-techies. But that is just ignorant. It does take awhile for people to fully understand any new technology, and how it will affect our day to day lives. Ultimately it does not require in depth technical knowledge to be a savvy and protected user. It does require a good practical understanding of how data is handled and what steps are effective in protecting it. This Snowden thing if nothing else, has shown the public in very stark terms what this new age enables in terms of data collection and analysis.
My prediction is we will see a spike in the use of encryption, use of the TOR network, vpns, etc. to try and retain a semblance of privacy. We are continuing to evolve in our relationship to this truly revolutionary technology known as the Internet.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)On other threads I have attempted conversation, at times finding common ground with the more reasonable participants with different views to myself.
This disruptive OP and its source might be designed to bleed support from the President and his party prior to the midterms. In the past I heard left wingers in my country applauding similar actions as would bring "revolution" or "a sea change" closer due to the unfettered actions of the right wing. All that actually happened was that Maggie stayed in power for 11 f'n years and we ended up with Maggie-lite, otherwise known as Antony Charles Lynton Blair.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the political risks. It is a legitimate concern.
My primary concern is the dangers of governmental overreach. Also corporate overreach, but we have to start somewhere. The Internet enables a huge amount of tracking and we all ought to have a firm grasp of what is enabled so that we can decide how best to navigate our way through this new reality that we've created, that we're all living with. Our usage of these systems, like the systems, continues to evolve. I hope our evolution includes using more tools to protect our privacy.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)In what appears to be a concerted attempt to frighten DU members, as well as the voting public, into reducing their support for the Democratic Party.
If they stopped the fright tactics and the deception, raising what I and others might be persuaded to see as real concerns then this would be more productive discussion. I'll even go so far as to say what I believe are matters to be addressed.
1) The constitution, 4A and current laws are not sufficient to protect the individual.
2) FISC needs to be reformed, given teeth and to stop acting as a rubber stamp.
3) The period over which content can be held needs to be reduced ... another poster has advised me it is 5 years.
4) Prior to this time surveillance was kept too secret, there was no deterrent effect. Don't ask me how it should be opened up, I don't know!
5) Why people are so unaware of the open nature of modern communication - though I'll admit we Brits had an education that started when it was found Diana's phones were hacked by private citizens.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)1) Why hasn't it been tested again? It's secret, huh. I remember the saying "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" and I guess the NSA did too.
2) "does not mean that it has been ignored" -- Okay, let's open this up to public scrutiny to make sure that is the case. Certainly a secret legal opinion that is still a secret isn't compelling evidence for your statement.
3) "Even if the Constitution has been evaded (not trumped, ffs)" -- Actually I kind of agree with your usage here given that it is same context as saying a criminal evades the law, not trumps the law. Point for you, even if it is simply admitting that the process has been extra-constitutional to date.
4) "then it is possible to have laws and amendments that can control the activity. " Yes, now that that horrible traitor brought all this stuff to the public's attention we can talk about that. Certainly, that wasn't happening before the whistleblower.
The only lies I seem to remember from the last month were things like....
"least untruthful answer
"It is just Metadata"
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Until that happens the ultimate test of whether the Constitution is applicable has not been met - and you know it.
What is, probably, worse for your view is that legal opinion will have been sought as to whether these actions are constitutional. It is likely that the legal consensus will have been that the agencies and the Administration are in the clear. Why will an opinion have been sought? Because civil servants and politicians like to "CYA". That the legal opinion may be worthless is possible (think John Yoo and torture) but it does provide a fig leaf of propriety.
There is also the problem that there is, as I understand it, no overarching right to privacy in the constitution. The 4A only provides protections against unwarranted searches and seizures; 1A only covers only a "chilling effect" on the right to free speech and assembly; while 14A gives only a right to privacy in familial matters.
What follows are a set of arguments, I do not think they are good for the rights of man but I can recognise that they might have some validity in law. As Bumble observed in Oliver Twist "The Law, Sir in a ass - a idiot!"
The security services will surely argue on the following lines:4A - There was no search on against particular a named person until that person's actions in the "landscape" of the internet drew attention on them and at that point a warrant was obtained. Example: A policeman can stop you if he observes what he or she classes as erratic driving and at that point some of your freedoms vanish.
1A - The quiet observation of a gathering place does not impinge upon the right of assembly or freedom of speech, traffic cameras do not have to be turned off during demonstrations or outside convention centres. Overt observation might have such a chilling effect so we kept it secret.
14A - The family and it's secrets were not observed only the actions of it's members in the public forum of the internet. If mails are going to countries of interest or persons of interest we then obtain warrants to inspect that mail further.
As to lies? "Internet privacy" is a lie, it never existed. Trumping the constitution is a lie; get it tested in law and only then can you see if the constitution has been over ruled. "They don't need a search warrant" a lie because search warrants were obtained when the information (in the view of the security services) justified it.
Then there are the deceptions to stampede the less informed into an orgy of fear or outrage. I called this OP scaremongering and I hold to that.
Oh, the warrantless part is of meta - for content (if a US citizen) they needed a warrant. Yes, the could could access content without a warrant just as the police can force entry into your house without a warrant but, in that last case and lawyers permitting, they had better have a good reason else the department will pay*.
___________________________________________________________
*It also helps if the offended party is a wealthy white male.
westerebus
(2,976 posts)A King's Writ is just as good as a warrant isn't it?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)westerebus
(2,976 posts)Gandhi.
Michael Collins.
Menachem Begin.
They all had something in common.
Their association with British rule.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The Mandate was not just UK controlled
Michael Collins was killed by terrorists called the IRA.
Ghandi was not a terrorist indeed he spent much of his life pushing "non-violence"
George Washington was not a terrorist because he ran a conventional military force and fought a conventional campaign.
Any more of history you want to get wrong?
westerebus
(2,976 posts)The point being, as you've missed it, is the desire for freedom and the rule of law to insure same.
You may know your history, you may know your facts, that doesn't make your conclusions
valid.
How you concluded I have my history wrong when what was posted was a list people and a simple statement of their association with British rule, without any other comment, to clarify the previous post leads me to believe you are:
intaglio. engraver. print maker. were by the ink applied is in recesses of the plate.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)As to conclusions.
I have facts and history, you do not - but your conclusions are correct.
Must remember that one 
westerebus
(2,976 posts)That different people can look at the assembled facts and draw different conclusions.
You MUST remember that one.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)That was exactly what Justice Goldberg said in his Griswold opinion -- the Constitution does not explictly say we do NOT have a right to privacy either.
Now of course, Robert Bork didn't like that opinion but I frankly think the world would be a bit worse off if he had been actually been placed where he could do some real damage.
And you're right, the secret memo's first line of defense is to remain secret. The second line of defense is your fig leaf. And so, despite the fact that this is simply wrong in so many ways there will be no accountability. Par for the course.
As to the concept of internet privacy never existing, that can be credited to the almighty dollar
-- yet another way the 1% sticks it to the rest of us. Certainly the web of 2002 was less consumer friendly, but more of an interesting place to be. Scott McNealy and his famous "Privacy is dead, get over it!" quote? You'd hardly expect otherwise from a person standing to make steaming piles of money from treating his users' data as a product to be bought and sold.
There are many privacy protecting laws right now: Sure you can carry a tape recorder to any meeting you want, but try to circulate the data you collected and you could face charges. Law enforcement seems very able to confiscate and destroy photographic records of their activities they don't like as well. We certainly have no problems with pursuing violations of HIPAA. It ends up being very easy to legislate privacy in that case. Data can be collected only for a particular reason, it must be destroyed as soon as practicable and it must never be transferred to a third party with no stake in the original transaction. Add some real teeth to violations (as with HIPAA) and soon people even start complaining that it is TOO hard to get information.
But some 1%'ers will lose profits, and that is simply intolerable, so privacy doesn't exist. Only tacked onto the end of that is the surveillance state's toys. They certainly would not have built their infrastructure if the Scott McNealy's hadn't done the heavy lifting for them.
Privacy ends up having a dollar value just like anything and is becoming a perquisite of the wealthy. If you are an agri-giant, you are in the process of getting laws making it illegal to photograph or video or investigate your activities by paying money to politicians. If you are a member of the 1% of the 1%, you can hire people to hide your business activities from the inspection, the public welfare be damned. You certainly have privacy if you buy an island or a remote estate, go to exclusive clubs, use exclusive purchasing services, hire others to send your messages for you and the like. Heck you can even be like Rush and send out your maid to buy your drugs for you. So privacy is still a valuable thing these days -- provided you can pay for it.
As far as the security services' arguments for their activities, it's their job to ask for that. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't and I don't begrudge that. Doesn't mean they should get what they are asking for though. Nor should they have rammed it through in secret. It was obviously controversial enough even amongst themselves.
The outrage is long past due, as is the reckoning.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of "that's how it's always been" as the logical fallacy it has always been. The Tu Quoque Fallacy is the argument of a child, and has become automatically accepted by all too many people across the spectrum today.
I find my self still surprised that people put this out as an argument in the belief that it is valid.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Do you have the right to play Justin Bieber at a volume of 11 at 2am because it is not mentioned in the Constitution?
Silly arguments like this last apart it would be good to have it rested against that, if only to see how lawyers try to wriggle round it. It will also be needed when cases stemming from remote surveillance start coming to court
BTW sorry, I did not pick up on your reference to Clapper, you're right of course. But the Brits have nothing to crow about, after all it was the British civil servant, who came out with the phrase "... economical with the truth"
Excuse me for a second:
"As you are aware the enviable clarity of discourse indulged in by some persons in the former Colonies (which lead to unwarranted hilarity and unfortunate censure) might have been avoided if such persons who, despite being favoured with a wide ranging and deeply historically founded education, had had sufficient skill to precisely delineate the boundaries of current art in the field of observational service without exposing the paucity of verity he intended to display. This lack of arcane phraseology might be aided by reference to culturally popular short duration fictions that clarified the role of the career administrator vis a vis the popularly mandated public servant." Me, channeling "Yes, Minister,"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I hope you are not naive enough to believe that the intelligence agencies might push the line or actually go over the line. After all they have essentially no oversight and an almost unlimited budget. I would hope you would at least think this needs further investigations.
I personally find it upsetting that those conservatives that built and ran the spy programs under Bush are still the same players under Pres Obama.
Do you think Sen Wyden is a conspiracy theorist?
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's the problem.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)big k&r 
Octafish
(55,745 posts)When We the People aren't in the loop, it isn't democracy.
Response to xchrom (Original post)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)LET THEM READ MILLIONS OF "F*** YOU!" MESSAGES.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and the end of blind trust unless you are an idiot who likes to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Oh sure they won't abuse this system ...yea right. We won't know until another insider with a moral conscience leaks the info. Bet me that morals are not wanted in the NSA and the DHS only blind obedience for country ...right or wrong.
Blind obedience to authority is the enemy of the truth. - Albert Einstein
My country right or wrong” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.” – G. K. Chesterton
The biggest threat to America today is it’s own federal government…. Will the Army protect anybody from the FBI? The IRS? The CIA? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?....The biggest dangers we face today don’t even need to sneak past our billion dollar defense system….they issue the contracts for them. - Frank Zappa
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Good post, and I could say that about most all of your posts.
I don't like the meme that it's the federal government that is the threat, that's what the right-wing and the corporations want us to think. To the extent that it's true, a large part of the reason it's true is the influence corporations have over our government.
I want a federal government that is fully funded and functioning, serving as a regulatory agent over corporate abuse.
Since corporations write the campaign checks of our politicians, that's who the politicians are working for.
In my opinion the biggest threat to America today is corporate control.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)has ever acknowledged the context of these revelations in relation to increasing police brutality, profiling peace and environmental activists, OWS demonstrators and medical marijuana users.
The issue of surveillance and privacy cannot be discussed myopically, as if it is happening in a vacuum. We are living in very harsh social times, with unprecedented numbers of incarceration for non violent crimes, political prisoners, and homeless people being treated like criminals.
To look at surveillance as something harmless is to turn a blind eye toward very disturbing social trends that IN COMBINATION point toward further abuse of power.
If we have the ability to create a system that can erase privacy, we CERTAINLY have the ability to create a more private system and laws to assure civil rights---all that is missing is the WILL to do this!! Gods if we can fly to the moon we can create a better virtual infrastructure.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"Searching for Sugar Man," about Detroit song writer and musician Rodriquez, and when all the characteristics of South African's fascist regime were being discussed,w e looked at each other, and said, "That is happening here!"
Only difference is no one is "segregated" so much by race as by class. If your credit sucks, you will be screened by TSA. If you are homeless, you will be mistreated by police. And most of us are spied on.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)We stumbled on it a couple of weeks ago, too.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)An absolute genius. Every other frame of the movie could have been a piece of art work.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)It was beautifully done.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)That's the worst
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- This says it all.
K&R
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I see the new talking points have been disseminated.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
polynomial
(750 posts)Military terminology and symbols like "targets" and "battlegrounds" have always been used in political campaigns.
Another giveaway, sure it’s a leap of faith, however these target cross hairs are the composition of sophisticated data mining tools. When assembled together with complex number crunching with Venn diagrams will produce extremely important decision capabilities. Especially for politics national or local, moreover if collected secretly, for political goals.
A simple white noise Gaussian trail could trace such Meta data corruption via online software. So sweet so easy, time is closing in on the corporate congress types. Even the regular internet-er can view white noise. Wouldn’t that be a hoot! The American public can watch Congress, check their emails for the Booz Allen Hamilton Gaussian white noise signature, we should, might be fun.