Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims

[ProSense]

Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims

by Reggid

By now, we are all familiar with the big splash which resulted and continues to ripple from the fantastical claims made by Edward Snowden and his mouthpiece, Glenn Greenwald, about the ease with which the NSA's surveillance programs can be and are abused in order to eavesdrop on all of us, all the time, without a warrant, without authorization, and without consequence.

“I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.”

“All they have to do is enter an e-mail address or an IP address, and it does two things, searches the database and lets them listen to the calls or read the e-mails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories and Google search terms.”

“It’s done with no need to go to court, no need to get approval . . . But it allows them to listen to whatever e-mails they want, telephone calls, browsing history, Microsoft Word documents.”

Despite these astonishing claims, Snowden and Greenwald have yet to provide any evidence of any actual, current abuses or illegalities, much less any abuses that are as easy and common as they suggested.

Now, a new report on the NSA programs casts doubt on the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's claims. Indeed, the report suggests that their claims are completely false -- that in fact, Snowden did not ever and would not ever have had either the authority for or access to the NSA database at all, much less to eavesdrop, as Snowden and Greenwald claimed.

In a report addressing the NSA’s surveillance programs, Dana Priest of the Washington Post tries to cut through the confusion, conflation, and hyperbole surrounding the programs, and in so doing, ends up piercing the central claim made by Geenwald and Snowden. (emphasis mine) :

(T)o begin a particular search, analysts must submit a request to their superiors showing why there is a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the number belongs to a member of a recognized terrorist organization.

*

The analysts’ (Section) 215 requests go to one of the 22 people at the NSA who are permitted to approve them — the chief or the deputy chief of the Homeland Security Analysis Center or one of 20 authorized Homeland Security mission coordinators within the Signals Intelligence directorate’s analysis and production directorate.

Once a request is approved, it is given to one of the Signal Intelligence directorate’s 33 counterterrorism analysts who are authorized to access the U.S. phone metadata collection.

When one of the analysts attempts to log into the database, the computer verifies whether the analyst has permission to do so. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who leaked details of the program, would not have had such authority.

Each NSA database search is audited afterward by compliance officials at the agency. How many phone numbers are searched is reported every 30 days to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Every 90 days, a small team from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence spends a day at NSA looking over (Section) 215 documents and questioning analysts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html

So, contrary to the entire premise of Snowden and Greenwald's central claims, Snowden was not authorized to do what he claimed, and never would have been.

Further, even if he had been eligible for such authorization, he still could not have accessed the database without:

(a) demonstrating a specific “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the target of the inquiry belongs to a member of a recognized terrorist organization;

(b) submitting a specific request to his superiors based on that demonstration;

(c) getting the specific approval of one of just 22 persons at NSA;

(d) being recognized and verified by the system as having such approval at the time of logging in; and

(e) being subjected to numerous, repeated audits and reviews of his activity by NSA compliance officers, by the DOJ, by the DNI, and by the FISC.

Note also, from the report, that in ALL OF 2012, there were a TOTAL of only 300 such database queries -- LESS THAN ONE PER DAY.

It is no wonder, then, that Snowden and Greenwald have never been able simply to provide any evidence that Snowden actually did, or could actually do, what they claimed he could, much less to provide any evidence of current wrongdoing/illegalities that are as easy, common, and sanctioned as they claimed. Based on the foregoing, it is now apparent that they have not been able to provide any such evidence of their central claims, because their central claims -- the claims that started and still spur this whole debacle -- are complete, total bullshit. Snowden never could do what he and Greenwald claimed, and would have been caught if he tried.

Coupled with all of the other hyperbole, conflation, gross exaggeration, and outright dishonesty through omission of critical, material facts and context in his reports and comments on these programs and the administration's conduct, it has now become apparent, based on the actual procedure for obtaining authority to access the NSA's databases, that Greenwald's reporting is not only completely slanted and unreliable, it is also based on an entirely false premise. Based on the foregoing report, the fantastical claims of Snowden and Greenwald are simply not possible. In other words, the entire basis of this story -- hell, the only reason there ever WAS a story in the first place -- just blew up their faces. Sadly, their bullshit-based claims have already caused overwrought rhetoric and over-reaction in almost all corners. But that's what happens when hysteria-and-agenda-driven narrative trumps completeness and accuracy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/09/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[MannyGoldstein]

1. So you're using the claims of a team of admitted fantastical liars, who even lied to Congress,

to rebut the claims of Snowden who's been proven right so often and never proven wrong?

Not the strongest of arguments.

And why aren't these liars on the street looking for new jobs while awaiting indictments, like the ex head of the IRS who had zero to do with the Outrageous! Outrageous! fake scandal?

[ProSense]

3. Feel free to posts Greenwald/Snowden's evidence

that they promised but never delivered.

Straw men are "not the strongest of arguments."

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Can you link to a quote re: what they promised?

Thanks.

And why aren't the Spy-On-Everyone leaders on the streets, or under indictment? They admittedly lied to Congress and allowed Snowden to walk off with all kinds of stuff.

[ProSense]

10. Here

"Can you link to a quote re: what they promised?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033003#post8

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023033916


Now, can you link to Greenwald/Snowden's evidence?

[MannyGoldstein]

19. He promises nothing specific in either piece you linked to

This game grows tiring.

In the absence of a specific promise that has gone unmet, you got nothing. And at this point, while in Russia, Snowden appears to have no control over what gets released by Greenwald. And he may have no proof, but that doesn't mean it's a lie. I can't prove that I brushed my teeth last night. You can choose to believe it or not.

[ProSense]

33. So you're dismissing what he promised to prove that he didn't make a false claim

He promises nothing specific in either piece you linked to

"This game grows tiring."

In the absence of a specific promise that has gone unmet, you got nothing. And at this point, while in Russia, Snowden appears to have no control over what gets released by Greenwald. And he may have no proof, but that doesn't mean it's a lie. I can't prove that I brushed my teeth last night. You can choose to believe it or not.

...that he can't prove? What the hell does Snowden's "control" over what is "released by Greenwald" have to do with the OP? And the comment about your "teeth" seems to imply that Greenwald/Snowden don't have to prove their claims.

You think this is a "game"?

[MannyGoldstein]

41. What, specifically, did he promise?

In one or two sentences, thanks.

[ProSense]

53. You can read.

I'm not Cliff Notes.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. Seems like one of us *can't* read nt

[ProSense]

83. You don't appear to have a point. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

121. THIS^^^^^^

No specifics forthcoming. Same chit, different day.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

131. x2

[bobduca]

9. "Not the strongest of arguments"

never seems to stop you from using them...

[ProSense]

13. Good to see

"Not the strongest of arguments" never seems to stop you from using them...

...you agree the posters dismissal is "not the strongest of arguments."

[randome]

43. No one is cheering on liars here. That includes Snowden & Greenwald.

Although I will give them some leeway. Snowden is an isolated loner who walked away from his fiance and family without a backward glance and who had no friends. Greenwald is a narcissist.

Those two personalities in collusion has made for very unsubstantiated claims.

The fact that Snowden did not obtain any personal data to support his claims is, in fact, evidence that he could not have done so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Mojorabbit]

105. This is the second time I have seen you

Make up a personality profile for Snowden. None of us have any idea what is in his head other than the couple of interviews he has done. His father supports and is proud of him. He had a lovely SO. He may be grieving terribly over his loses for all we know.
There is apparently thousands of pieces of information yet unpublished so obviously you have no idea what is in those documents. Your post therefore, is entirely made up out of thin air.

[randome]

112. I am convinced I have described him accurately. I have nothing but my opinion on that.

It 'rings true' to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

238. LOL

Game.

[AverageJoe90]

259. I see them in a slightly different light.

Greenwald is a bit stubborn at times, but he seems to be a well-intentioned guy. TBH, though, I've come to see Snowden as the real narcissistic asshole of the two; his hypocrisy regarding what should happen to leakers is just the tip of the fucking iceberg as far as I can see.

[washnwmn]

156. Why were we surprised to hear about spying?

Why were we surprised to hear about spying? When Snowden's so called revalations hit the news, I was not surprised at all. I'm generally not some kind of paranoid, but with traffic cameras and such all over, with story after story of police raiding someone's E-Mail, why would we be suprised? The proofs have been in front of us for a while now.

The important thing that Snowden did was bring it to the forefront, and get not just the US, but countries world-wide having a major discussion about it. We need to keep discussing it and work on rules, on rights, or on no tresspassing software. We all blindly jump on to the internet and well know we can chit chat with folks from all over the world about nearly anything. The web is used for everykind of good and ill. So why be surprised. Snoopers will keep snooping.

The new internet heroes now will be those who can create the best privacy programs available. Those who can make the best of world conversation and embrace the diversity of peoples from all around this planet. Those who promote world peace through simple kindness and courtesy. Those who choose to better the world as a grand community we all share.

[grasswire]

239. welcome to DU

Good post.

[newfie11]

2. So I should believe the NSA now

I don't think so.

[ProSense]

5. What a great rebuttal.

No one else can verify the information. Dana Priest is not the NSA. Greenwald/Snowden can just say evidence-free shit, and it's magically true.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Can you produce one provable Snowden lie?

Just one. Provable, not "NSA said so".

[ProSense]

11. See the OP. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Nope, that's based on the statements of proven liars. nt

[ProSense]

16. Can you prove that? Dismissing the OP in this way is simply deflection. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Did Priest get this info from the NSA? One would assume so.

And they are admitted wholesale liars.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. So that means you just believe anybody that says something disparaging against the NSA?

Okay here we go....The NSA now have a space station on the moon.....they use it to spy on the space aliens that the government is not telling you are living among you here on earth...The NSA are assholes because they won't tell you that there really are UFO's flying over the Goldstein house every night.

Am I a hero now because I just "ratted" on the NSA? You have as much proof as GG and Snowden gave you!

[randome]

56. 'Direct access', while not a lie, was certainly a whopper of deliberate misdirection.

Although, again, I'm willing to give S&G the benefit of a doubt. They weren't very smart and didn't know what they were talking about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

20. Kind of sad isn't it

To think that people refuse to believe anything against these two, and yet Greenwald and Snowden don't have to "prove" what they say is factual, their dedicated followers simply accept what they say, no questions asked. Sound a lot like the mindless Paulbots who worship Ron and Rand no matter how much they the two of them lie!

Thanks for information. Maybe some will start to see through the BS Greenwald and Snowden have been spewing if enough facts are posted.

[DontTreadOnMe]

45. Yes, it has become a major flaw here on DU -- people become unhinged and just make up facts.

The NSA is spying on us.

OK, show me the proof. Snowden says so... just take his word for it.

"The evil government" paranoia is very contagious. I am surprised so many fall for it. Yes, I am concerned about "spying" and privacy rights. But I am not going to fall into a Republican sink hole of talking points not based on evidence. If someone can show me FACTS about illegal spying, then I will join you in the fight to stop it. Until then, stop blowing bullshit bubbles.

WHERE IS SNOWDEN'S EVIDENCE?

People who are critical thinkers should be ashamed to post opinions with no facts to back it up. It really has grown tiresome and has been to the detriment of DU. The paranoia on DU is out of control.

[Andy823]

154. I agree

I have said from day one that "if" there is abuse in the NSA programs then something needs to be done. There should be an investigation, and congress should then "change" things since they are the ones who can do that, not the president.

As for the paranoia, your are right, it has gotten way out of hand. I have seen it in the past, but never to the extent it's at now. I think part of the reason it's gotten so bad are the trolls the have taken up residence here, and who only want to keep the board divided, and cause problems. The continually post crap with no facts, kick threads that push everything else of the front page, and sadly they have a lot of DU members who fall for their BS.
We can't even have a real debate because as one Greenwald Snowden groupie put it, if you don't admit "I" am right on this point there is no use to debate. So I guess if you aren't a Greenwald, Snowden groupie you are just plain WRONG, no matter what the facts say, or no matter that their idols really don't have any facts to back up what they are saying.

[Fuddnik]

181. We didn't really need Snowden to tell us.

As someone who has been reading James Bamfords books and articles since 1983, I've kept up with some of their capabilities for a long time. Bamfords works were based on 10's of thousands of FOIA requests and lawsuits. He's widely recognized as THE expert on the NSA.

All Snowden did was provide us with a real time update to what's been going on.

We've also over the last few years, had Army Intelligence analysts tell us of intercepting soldier and civilians conversations from Iraq and Afghanistan. Listening in on soldiers sex talk with with their spouses back home. Intercepting reporters conversations.

There has been evidence of these programs trickling out for years now.

Now, what was your crack about critical thinking? There are plenty of facts to back up their claims. They just didn't gain traction before. So I suggest you take your head out of the sand, and look up the facts, instead of swallowing propaganda wholesale.

You are being lied to.....again by your government.

[Life Long Dem]

129. They may say it's not about Obama

But the sky has been falling from day one on this admin according to emoprogs and they think they have something that will stick. Slowly this is backfiring like all the other sky is falling bullshit scandals.

[Andy823]

207. How true

I think the Snowden thing has really cooled off, except for here on DU that is. In the real world the facts seem to mean something, and even though there may be abuse in the NSA, it's pretty much been known for years what has been going on. Of course the idea that the NSA is reading "very phone call, and reading every email" seems to be still a big right wing talking point, or maybe it's a Paulbot talking point, here on DU.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Never trust anyone under 30

Especially when they support Ron Paul.

[OnyxCollie]

21. Trust the govt agency that outsources to Carlyle Group-owned, PNAC-led, Booz Allen Hamilton instead.

[Jamaal510]

266. I am under 30

and I don't condone Snowden's actions whatsoever.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. If all his claims are false, why are they pursuing him?

If what he released was harmless, why was it being kept secret?

[BeyondGeography]

12. Key claims, not all

I'm sure we did hack Chinese targets, as he claimed, e.g. You don't really have to ask why that might piss off the government, right? The question I have is why he went there at all.

[ProSense]

15. Greenwald said Snowden took documents that if released could "harm" the U.S.

He recently said Snowden gave him tens of thousands of documents.

US reporter says he has huge cache of Snowden files
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023415993

[Warren Stupidity]

17. but the documents are a bunch of lies or stuff we already know.

or something.

Spin like a top.

[ProSense]

18. So why do you believe them? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Because Snowden's documents have forced the NSA to admit that they've lied, lied, lied

And that, as Snowden says, they are spying on all of us.

[ProSense]

37. Where is Greenwald/Snowden's evidence of the claim, and

"Because Snowden's documents have forced the NSA to admit that they've lied, lied, lied"

...you apparenlty believe some of the documents that the NSA released.

[DontTreadOnMe]

55. Major logic fail Manny

Calling out something as a lie needs to have proof.. where is your facts that they lied. You going is circles saying we should just believe you.

Very poor reporting of a story we don't have all the details on.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. what I don't believe is just about anything you have to say on the subject.

All you do is regurgitate the latest spin from the Authoritarian Party.

[ProSense]

39. Fine, and I didn't write the WaPo piece. Yet you're dismissing it and attempting to deflect. n/t

[L0oniX]

217. +1

[grasswire]

25. as one of your defacto employers

(taxpayer money funded through some circuitous route via PAC or government agency or subcontractor?) I hereby grant you the weekend off. You're welcome.

[ProSense]

58. Clearly, implying that someone is a paid shill is a good argument for Greenwald/Snowden fans, but

"as one of your defacto employers (taxpayer money funded through some circuitous route via PAC or government agency or subcontractor?) I hereby grant you the weekend off. You're welcome."

...here a tip: Don't hold your breathe hoping that I'll stop posting.

"You're welcome."

[Whisp]

85. Well, we know for a fact that Greenwald is a paid shill...

That money rolling into his account by his request. We do know that for a fact and yet you get accused of that every third post here of DU when they can't come up with anything close to a reasonable argument or rebuttal.

The more they give the more outrageous he will become and then the more the marks will give again! Got to keep feeding them is how Glenn looks at it, make them excited and confused, but not so confused they don't remember their credit card number.

Vicious Circle Enterprises Inc. Board: Greenwald, Fuck Ron Paul and Eddie 'the hack' Snowden = SCAM

[grasswire]

88. Greenwald is a shill for whom?

nt

[Whisp]

93. for himself. against Obama. for the Pauls.

any or all of the above.

He is using his 'journalism' *ahem, cough, credentials to fatten up his finances. The teaparty has proven these last few years you can lie about anything, make shit up all you want, and chances are you will go unchallenged because people are easily fooled.

Greenwald is The New Libertarian Evangelist. He might even put out some money for those late night infomercials!

[blackspade]

137. Talk about conspiracy theory....

You forgot the kitchen sink....

[Whisp]

218. He is getting paid, he is a Libertarian and agrees with Paul with many things, and he is anti-Obama.

How is this conspiracy?

Keep slapping your forehead tho.

[grasswire]

229. oh noes!!

A lawyer making a living working as a journalist!!

What is this capitalist society coming to next??

People moonlighting as Internet persona?

[Whisp]

231. he is no longer a lawyer, his license is suspended.

His way of getting paid is a bit strange. Maybe that's how most bloggers do it these days but to have your own Donation Drive instead of being paid for by the paper he uses as his place of employ... just too weird that your salary would depend on how much attention and shit you can stir up and not on how good a job you can do as a reporter.

I would like to see a graph of his money intake related to the latest recycled non story to get his base jumping up and down - I would like to see that graph. Bet there is a correlation between his 'Obama is looking in your undie drawer!! omg!!' to how much he rakes in.

[grasswire]

236. So -- if it's OK for NSA to snoop, it's OK for NSA supporters...

....to want to see a private citizen's financial records just for personal curiosity?!

Now we see how the trend toward surveillance slops over from NSA to just plain NOSY people.

And, by the way, it's time to come up to speed with funding sources in the 21st century. Myriad entities provide paths for crowd sourcing for many kinds of enterprises and individuals. It isn't strange at all. It is the way of the world now.

[Whisp]

241. there are jerks in the IRS that look at movie star taxes

there are jerks in every type of employ, of every race, colour and gender. I'm surprised this is news to you.

[grasswire]

243. It's only surprising that you want to see...

....the personal financial statements of journalists you disagree with. That's pretty creepy.

[Whisp]

244. creepier than having Fuck Ron Paul sympathies, like Greeny does?

If you think I have the authority to look into the Greenwad's financial, or know someone who does, then I will let you believe that.

So sorry if my curiosity got your hair ablaze.

[ronnie624]

263. His law license was not suspended.

To call this claim a total falsehood is to be generous. Put simply, I have never been sanctioned or disciplined by any court, judge, bar association or anyone else for any work I've ever done as a lawyer. Indeed, in more than 10 years of practice in the very acrimonious world of Manhattan litigation, I never even had a disciplinary complaint filed against me with any bar association.

I allowed my New York law license to lapse in 2007 when I ceased practicing simply because - due to my full-time work writing about politics - I no longer intended to practice and thus did not continue to renew it. But the law license is fully valid, and I can easily reinstate it at any time simply by paying the requisite fees and completing whatever continuing legal education requirements apply.

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.-- Mark Twain

[grasswire]

87. machts nichts to me

I just think there are better uses of DU bandwidth
than perpetual disruption.

[ProSense]

89. Right, you don't care, but

"I just think there are better uses of DU bandwidth than perpetual disruption."

...you think implying that people are paid is a "better uses of DU bandwidth" and not a "perpetual disruption"?

[Cha]

258. I think Skinner says it best when he refers to "This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt.."

Skinner (57,880 posts)

1. This whole who-is-the-paid-shill witch hunt is disruptive nonsense.

It betrays an utter lack of creativity on the part of the people making the accusation. They are so convinced that they are right that they cannot imagine someone else might hold a different point of view in good faith. Either that or they are incapable of advocating for their own point of view on the merits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592697#post1

[Recursion]

24. His claims of which Chinese computers we have spied on is probably true

Also, the documents he did release (which contradict his claims) are in fact classified.

[whttevrr]

22. XKeyscore?

You do know what http is, right?

[Recursion]

26. Do you?

That doesn't make nearly the point you seem to think it does.

[whttevrr]

35. Yes, as a matter of fact I do:

Http is an IP protocol that is the foundation of internet traffic. Almost everything travels over http.

Are you saying this slide is not real?

No one claims that; do you?

[ProSense]

48. You should

"Are you saying this slide is not real? "

...gather all your images of slides and start an OP because they have absolutely nothing to do with this one.

[whttevrr]

51. what?

[ProSense]

60. Who? n /t

[baldguy]

152. Third base!

[Recursion]

75. Several things

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a an application layer protocol available over many carrier protocols, not just IP. Last I checked it's not even the plurality of Internet traffic, let alone "most", and you haven't said what you think that slide means the NSA is doing.

[whttevrr]

90. If HTTP is not a plurality it is probably because FTP and TFTP outweigh it due to downloads

And, is probably being weighted downward by VOIP.

But I do not have a breakdown of protocols weighted by traffic... do you?

How do you know it is not even a plurality?

[Recursion]

172. Because I've run routers at datacenters

More importantly, what is it you think that slide is saying that the NSA is doing? All I see is that they're "interested in" HTTP. Well hell, I'm "interested in" HTTP.

[Rex]

180. Some interesting stats from 2012.

http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/

[jeff47]

63. What about it?

XKeyscore, according to all the information released about it so far, is used on non-US persons.

Which makes it legal.

Using it on US persons would be unconstitutional, but no one has released any evidence that it has been used on US persons.

[whttevrr]

97. 3 hops out actually...

one person
+ everyone they contact
+ everyone they contact
______________________
= 3hopPool

3hopPool x (all traffic outside US) = many millions of Americans in the words of Clapper "unwittingly"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/james-clapper-unwitting.html

“So,” Wyden says, “what I wanted to see is, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper does not look happy. He rubs his bald pate, looks down at the table. He glances up furtively, not quite meeting Wyden’s eyes.

“No, sir,” he replies.

Wyden seems surprised. “It does not?”

Now Clapper looks thoroughly miserable. He rubs his head harder. “Not wittingly,” he finally says. “There are cases where they could in—inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not, not wittingly.”

[jeff47]

133. Nope, you're still going beyond the evidence released.

Again, the documents released include a process to not capture data on US persons. Including those "3 hops out".

The "Not wittingly" comment is because it's possible to mis-identify someone. Turns out "John Smith" living in Rome, Italy was born in Rome, NY, for example.

[whttevrr]

139. And Clappers clarification that it was the least lie?

Wyden asked if millions of US citizens were spied on.

Clapper equivocated.

And then admitted he lied when he said 'no'.

What other evidence do you need than the guy in charge admitting that millions are spied upon?

I'm done here, this thread is trash. The technological naivete is disconcerting enough. But the outright refusal to accept reality is just too vexing to tolerate.

I've got no more time for you.

Please proceed...

[jeff47]

164. Yet again, evidence.

Evidence. Not conjecture.

Wyden was attempting to entrap Clapper. If Clapper said anything other than "no", he goes to jail for leaking classified information. Wyden knows this. Yet he still asked the question in public testimony instead of closed session, when Clapper could actually answer the question.

You think that perhaps sitting there trying to not go to prison for leaking classified and not go to prison for perjury before Congress might have influenced Clapper's answers and mannerisms?

What other evidence do you need than the guy in charge admitting that millions are spied upon?

How 'bout something that isn't based on your interpretation of someone else's actions?

For example, Snowden claimed he could have spied on anyone. So why didn't he spy on himself and release that record? It would be fantastic evidence to back up his claims.

Instead, you're attempting to turn your interpretation of sub-text into evidence.

I'm done here, this thread is trash.

Yeah, isn't it terrible when you have to back up your assertions with actual evidence?

[JaneyVee]

23. Hilarious how the "don't shoot the messenger" crowds first response to this OP is

To shoot the messenger.

[Recursion]

31. Remember this post

I guarantee you that in a few weeks the neo DU line will be "without Snowden's creative storytelling we never would have had this fruitful national conversation; he should get an NEH grant!"

[kelliekat44]

199. You noticed! nt

[bowens43]

228. the OP isn't a messanger the OP is a spinner

[NCTraveler]

28. From Dana Priest:

[Has Top Secret America changed under the Obama administration?]

"And on top of that, you could argue that it’s worse, because this administration has gone after so-called leakers, the leak investigations, in a larger way than the Bush administration [did]. There’s an unprecedented number of indictments and investigations of subjects accused or thought to have released classified information to, usually, reporters. So they are actively trying to stop the flow of that information and using the courts to do that, which the Bush administration, although it criticized reporters, did not do.

In addition, the only things that Obama stopped was the secret sites … and the enhanced interrogation techniques. … So those were two things that were created as secrets; then they were outed; then they were debated. And many people rejected them, so it was pretty safe to disband them.

His administration did a review of all covert actions, and my reporting says that they kept just about everything that has been going on since 9/11. They have taken the previous administration’s drone war and run with it. They’ve increased the number of lethal drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan manyfold. They’ve adopted the targeted killings approach, both on the ground and from the air. The number of organizations working on terrorism has increased. The number of companies working on it has increased.

So as far as Top Secret America goes and the structure that’s now firmly in place to do all this, this administration has only furthered that. They’ve done nothing to roll it back. They’ve done very little to look inside of it, to say: “What is it that works? What doesn’t work? What do we really need? And in this time of economic hardship, what don’t we need?”"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/dana-priest-top-secret-america-is-here-to-stay/


Her thoughts from Sept 2011



Very good read. Mainly deals with the Bush administration and the build up of secrecy. Makes me wonder where her new found trust has come from.

[Enrique]

29. omg it's a debunking!

the government denies something so it means it's been debunked.

[laundry_queen]

189. It's scary that people really, truly think so. nt

[Aerows]

34. I don't take the NSA's word for anything anymore

Clapper and Alexander straight up lied before Congress - do you think they would hesitate to lie to the American people? So far, we've had hard evidence of some fairly far reaching surveillance, and I'm not about to take the word of people that tell the "least untruthful answer".

[jeff47]

68. Do you take Snowden's or Greenwald's word?

Personally, I'm a fan of people releasing evidence before believing them.

So far, we've had hard evidence of some fairly far reaching surveillance,

On non-US persons.

So far, we have no evidence of such far reaching surveillance on US persons. So far, only the phone metadata program has involved US persons. It's difficult to call that far-reaching, or an invasion of privacy, when the information doesn't belong to us.

[Aerows]

81. I'll believe someone

that I don't know has lied to me yet over someone that I know has lied to me.

[jeff47]

94. Ok, Greenwald has lied to you.

He's said that under the Obama administration whistleblowers are serving 20+ year sentences in SuperMax prisons, or in danger of doing so.

That claim is false. Also known as lying.

The longest sentence to date for a whistleblower under the Obama administration is about to start. It's 30 months in minimum security.

There are zero whistleblowers in a SuperMax prison, and there are zero in danger of going to one for their whistleblowing. For example, Manning won't be sent to one, he'll be going to the military prison in Leavenworth, KS.

If Snowden returns to the US, and is tried and convicted, he'd go to a "regular" federal prison. Most likely minimum security just as every other civilian who has been convicted of leaking classified information was sent to minimum security in the last couple decades.

[Aerows]

102. You don't consider Leavenworth Military

a Supermax prison?

If it isn't technically a "Supermax" a mouse would starve on the difference between it and one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Disciplinary_Barracks

[Dr Hobbitstein]

144. Leavenworth is a Military Prison...

Manning is in the Military, arrested by the Military, and tried by the Military. They don't send him to a prison for civilians. He goes to a Military prison, per the UCMJ.
Remember: if you join the Military, you WILLINGLY forfeit SOME of your rights as a citizen of the US.
For some reason, this is hard for some people to understand.

[Aerows]

168. It is

and when you get put in jail under UCMJ, it's not pleasant.

[jeff47]

158. It has facilities with a variety of security

The worst of it is the same as a supermax.

The best of it is minimum security.

[Aerows]

167. According to the rules

he won't be in the best of it, since I sincerely doubt he serves less than a 10 year sentence and is enlisted.

So I'm interested in the "lies".

[jeff47]

175. It's not binary

It's not either SuperMax or minimum security. There's a variety of facilities. They'll put him in whatever they think they need to contain him. Since he has not committed a violent act against other prisoners, nor is he a major escape risk, they're not going to bother with "SuperMax".

So I'm interested in the "lies".

They're still up there. Greenwald's claiming there's whistleblowers serving decades in SuperMax. And that Snowden would be sent there if he came back to the US.

[Aerows]

178. Uh-huh

None of them are serving in SuperMax prisons. That was your assertion. I proved your assertion to be illegitimate.

Now we move on to something else.

[jeff47]

183. No, actually you haven't proven squat.

Manning hasn't been sentenced. Kinda hard to claim he's serving a sentence in a SuperMax when he hasn't been sentenced yet.

So, which whistleblower is currently serving a decades-long sentence in a SuperMax, as Greenwald claimed?

But hey, it fits with your story, so it must be true.

[Aerows]

186. Nor have you

and you can continue down this line of "I demand proof" from people that you THINK and want to BELIEVE lied to you, when there is documented proof of people that did lie to you in the NSA.

I know which horse I'll hitch my wagon to, and it won't be people that I know lied to Congress.

[jeff47]

193. So you're insisting I prove a negative?

I'm saying there's zero whistleblowers in SuperMax. Greenwald says there's "many". You are insisting I prove it's zero, while he doesn't have to point to even one?

and you can continue down this line of "I demand proof" from people that you THINK and want to BELIEVE lied to you, when there is documented proof of people that did lie to you in the NSA.

Again, it's not so binary. Both groups can be lying. In fact, I believe both of them are lying. That's why I want to see actual evidence when someone makes a claim.

But it's not possible to prove a negative, so on this issue the burden of proof falls on Snowden and Greenwald. And they've yet to provide evidence to back up their claims. The evidence they have provided proves spying, but they have released no evidence of spying on US persons.

[Aerows]

198. No different than you insisted

and I actually have proof because the man (Clapper) admitted he told the least untruthful answer.

Between the two of us, I have actual evidence. You have speculation.

[jeff47]

205. Again, you're insisting that this is a binary choice.

As I said, I believe both sides are lying. You are insisting that one is lying and one is telling the truth.

[Aerows]

208. I said nothing of the sort

I said that I KNOW one is lying. I'm not sure about Greenwald and Snowden.

[jeff47]

212. Then why are you spending so much time arguing that you trust them? (nt)

[Aerows]

215. Here's the punchline of my post

I'll trust someone that I'm not sure if they are lying to me, over someone that I already know has lied to me.

It's common sense, really. You are the one that keeps trying to drag things into this as absolutes, and that's where you argument is going to wither and fail - because Clapper and Alexander lied before Congress. Not just to an American or two, but to all of us, and Congress.

The NSA personnel have the motivation - they want to keep the fat paychecks rolling in. Snowden is exiled in freaking Russia. I think I'd choose a fat paycheck and power over being stuck in Russia.

And they lied before Congress.

[Th1onein]

184. Parsing at it's finest.

Are we really going to enter into an argument that the whistleblowers didn't get, or face, twenty, thirty or whatever years? REALLY?

Look, the fact that we're sending ANY whistleblower to prison, for even a day, is disgraceful. These people do a service for Americans and for America. You ought to be ashamed for suggesting that what is important is the number of years, instead of the imprisonment, in the first place.

And, by the way, ever heard of a PLEA BARGAIN? I don't know the details, but some of these people plea bargained down to a lower sentence, but they WERE facing many more years in prison had they not pled out.

[jeff47]

203. If absolute truth is the metric at hand, then yes.

Are we really going to enter into an argument that the whistleblowers didn't get, or face, twenty, thirty or whatever years? REALLY?

Point me to the ones that have under the Obama administration. I'll wait.

Look, the fact that we're sending ANY whistleblower to prison, for even a day, is disgraceful. These people do a service for Americans and for America.

If their claims are true.

So far, Greenwald and Snowden have not backed up their claims of spying on US persons. They've shown evidence of spying, but their own documents show processes to prevent that spying from targeting US persons. They need to show those processes don't work or are not actually applied.

but they WERE facing many more years in prison had they not pled out.

List one. That was facing time in a SuperMax.

[Th1onein]

220. But it's NOT the metric that should be applied here, is it?

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Ever read a story about a scientific breakthrough? These are written by people who are NOT scientists, but journalists. Often, they contain mistakes; but they are small, and they are honest ones. The same is going to be true of something like this--not everyone is as familiar with the systems that Snowden exposed.

LIST ONE? Hahahaha! Okay. How about Thomas Drake. I'm pretty sure that the sentence that he was facing was over 30 years: http://www.whistleblower.org/press/press-release-archive/2011/1187-drake-accepts-misdemeanor-plea-no-jail-time-or-fine

[Th1onein]

188. This sounds more and more like a birther argument.

What evidence, you ask? Go forth, educate thyself.

[jeff47]

197. Feel free to point it out.

If it's so readily available, surely you can provide a single link.

[Th1onein]

253. I'm sure you'd like to waste my time like that, but you won't.

Go educate yourself. Read the Guardian. Until you do, don't bother arguing; it just makes you look ignorant.

[Whisp]

36. It's sad that SnowGlenn snowed so many.

I mean really, his initial claim of him hacking into the president's phone or email is like working for DeBeers and they letting you roam around with big pockets and no checkpoints.

unfortunately, enough people are dimwitted enough to believe this.

I still want to know who the hefties are behind this that SnowGlenn are working for becuase this was another concerted plan to undermine the administration.

[whttevrr]

40. I think you forgot the sarcasm tag?

It's almost mandatory on this subject these days.

[AgingAmerican]

130. If none of it is true

then why is the US government trying to capture Snowden?

[jeff47]

179. Because he released information beyond these programs

For example, he announced an NSA program spying on a Chinese university.

[Whisp]

222. Because he is a theif and released information he agreed not to.

He purposely and admittedly got the job at Booz to steal shit.

Why is that so difficult to understand, that he broke the law and is a wanted man now?

[AgingAmerican]

232. But if what he released isn't true

Then he didn't release anything he agreed not to. Right?

[Whisp]

240. What are you talking about?

i don't see anyone saying that in those thousands of documents - that nothing in them is true. Snowden's veiled threats included he having a list of all NSA agents - that can be true. The falsehoods are mostly coming from Snowden and Glenn's yaps when they generalize their little act to get people frothy and looking under their beds at night for NSA bugs.

[Th1onein]

194. Hey, do you also demand Obama's birth certificate?

Lol, these arguments are getting really bad. First, attack the messenger, then outright denial, then demanding evidence that's already been given, NOW you really expect us to believe the people who lied to us in the first place. Wahahahaha!

[GoneFishin]

256. The arguments reek of desperation. Pathetic.

[Th1onein]

264. Yep. Now they're denying that there was any evidence, whatsoever.

Despite the fact that the Obama administration is hot after Snowden, to the point, even, of forcing another head of state's plane down!

None are so blind as those who will NOT see.

[grasswire]

242. There you go again... nt

[whttevrr]

38. Is this slide a lie?

[ProSense]

44. What? n/t

[whttevrr]

47. who?

[randome]

49. Yes, the NSA uses software in the course of their jobs. Who could have foreseen that?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[whttevrr]

61. And with that software it takes almost no effort to see in real time what is passing through

the internet.

Do you know what http is?

[randome]

69. Unless someone has evidence that software is used on domestic data, you are assuming too much.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

70. Do you have any evidence that software was used against US persons?

There's an awful lot of Internet users who aren't US persons. And there's an awful lot of the Internet that isn't in the US.

But you're such a techy geek, you know that, right?

[whttevrr]

109. Actually yes...

If not this exact software, some software was alluded to by General Clapper himself when answering Wyden in testimony I witnessed with my own eyes. Here it is presented in quotes:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/james-clapper-unwitting.html

“So,” Wyden says, “what I wanted to see is, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper does not look happy. He rubs his bald pate, looks down at the table. He glances up furtively, not quite meeting Wyden’s eyes.

“No, sir,” he replies.

Wyden seems surprised. “It does not?”

Now Clapper looks thoroughly miserable. He rubs his head harder. “Not wittingly,” he finally says. “There are cases where they could in—inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not, not wittingly.”

[jeff47]

135. Sorry, but that isn't evidence.

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

He's talking about the possibility of a misidentification. Which is possible - it is impossible to identify someone with absolute certainty. But it being possible doesn't mean it has happened.

Evidence would be something like Snowden releasing his own NSA "file". Or a document saying "we used XKeyscore on these US persons".

[Marr]

42. LOL, let me get this straight. So the NSA has stopped denying that they're conducting blanket

surveillance, but they insist they're really, really responsible while doing it.

And that proves that Snowden was... wrong.

Ok...

[ProSense]

52. LOL! Where is Greenwald/Snowden's evidence for the claim in the OP? n/t

[whttevrr]

54. That would be XKeyscore n/t

[ProSense]

59. That would be nonsense. n/t

[whttevrr]

67. Do you know how the internet works?

[ProSense]

71. Do you? Your posts have nothing to do with the OP. n/t

[whttevrr]

79. Can someone else tell me if this is what is called "Cognitive dissonance"?

[ProSense]

84. No, but I'm sensing FAIL. n/t

[whttevrr]

92. The fail you sense comes from within your own psyche.

You are actively disassociating from the information that is presented to you

[ProSense]

99. No relevant comments, only personal attacks. Pure FAIL. n/t

[whttevrr]

115. wow...

Pot?

Meet kettle.

[OnyxCollie]

95. It's called a "waste of time."

You're arguing with a party apparatchik who is an institution at DU.

Since you're a relative newbie, the entity known as ProSense is even more curt in replying to you. (Not that it ever gets less annoying in time.)

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

[ProSense]

98. "You're arguing with a party apparatchik who is an institution at DU."

You're posting drivel, a "waste of time."

[whttevrr]

103. I don't think it is salary in a monetary sense. I think it is a salary of psyche.

It seems there is a psychological need to be right about what should be true instead of what is. The payoff is the restructuring of reality to ensure that truth, that appears inconsolable with what is revealed, can be maintained as what truth should be.

[OnyxCollie]

116. There are all sorts of incentives.

Objective monetary incentives being most obvious, but people do things for all kinds of reasons.

[nolabels]

126. Yea, sounds of sort of like a coach or a overzealous boss

They never want to acknowledge the thoughts you put into their heads but only they path they want you to keep thinking about. The thing that intrigues me most about habitual liars is how it gets so interwoven into the fabric of who they really are. It is more frightening than any kind of chemical addiction as far as i can see because the brain its self is making these chemicals telling itself that everything is alright, just a little more lying and everything will be alright

[OnyxCollie]

140. I've got to wonder

how someone who is always snide, rude, and condescending on DU reacts in real-life relationships.

Never answering a direct question; always bringing up past incidents of little relevance.

Probably leads a miserable life, which pushes one harder into work as an escape.

The post-Bush efforts are pathetic, a sad display of what used to be decent research.

[Le Taz Hot]

206. It's called blind loyalty

to Das Party and to the President. Requires no thinking but lots of contortions and cheerleading.

[jeff47]

78. And the documents released about that

Don't show that it was used on US persons. In fact, it shows a process to explicitly exclude US persons.

[Marr]

57. Say... as of today, are Snowden's documents officially Old News™, Completely False™, or

Totally Legal and Sound Policy™?

I haven't been following it for the last couple of days, and I know how fast the fashion changes.

[jeff47]

77. Could you point to the document showing these tools were used on US persons?

Thanks in advance.

[Life Long Dem]

46. More character assassination

Here's more character assassination. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023410358

[ProSense]

62. LOL! n/t

[millennialmax]

64. I await an apology from Greenwald and a retraction by The Guardian.

Or will they lose all credibility by doubling down?

[DontTreadOnMe]

65. Let's Summarize

The NSA has a surveillance program.

Some people, rightfully so, say it goes too far, and is an invasion of our privacy rights. And that it might be a crime.

Now we are awaiting for evidence. No one hear on DU has real evidence, the "evidence" is top secret and can only be released by the government... so we have to wait until it gets released to know the truth... but there are many here on DU that say they have the evidence, but can't post it for some reason.

[jeff47]

82. No, there's been evidence

Snowden has released evidence.

The problem is that evidence shows the programs in question were not targeted at US persons. In fact, the documents show that ominous programs like XKeyscore had explicit processes in place to exclude US persons.

So far, the only program that Snowden has documented that targeted US persons is the phone metadata program. Problem there is the data doesn't belong to us US persons. It belongs to the phone company under a 1979 SCOTUS decision, and the phone companies have been selling the metadata for years. That makes it kinda hard to argue that the metadata program is a violation of privacy rights under current law.

But that doesn't fit with the "NSA is spying on all of us" narrative that Greenwald and others are trying to sell.

[JoePhilly]

111. +1000

[Th1onein]

200. ROFLMAO

So, they're just going after Snowden for kicks and giggles?

You've got evidence, but you refuse to see it. Go figure.

[DontTreadOnMe]

213. Show it to me, show me what I have been missing.

Show me the crime.

[Th1onein]

216. Go forth, educate thyself.

They shalt not waste my time.

Hint: Look at the Guardian articles. Also Reuters.

[woo me with science]

66. More absurd, deflecting, spinning horseshit, right on schedule.

One hop, two hops, three hops. It's all absurd, and the story changes constantly as new smoking guns are revealed.

They are sweeping up and storing everything they possibly can even *before* they defensively howl about and point to all these manufactured lies and excuses. They are hoovering it all up in defiance of our Constitution, in defiance of the fact that they are supposed to have a warrant and probable cause for every piece of information *before* they put it into their filthy database. They are sucking up information on every single American, treating every single one of us as a criminal suspect. The rationalizations are *still* garbage. They are *still* horseshit. Spying on their own citizens is what authoritarian states do, and the incessant, lying propaganda in defense of the indefensible is what authoritarian states do, too.

Don't entertain this garbage. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981567

*************************************

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.

**************************************

Here's the upshot of their philosophy, glaringly clear even through the incessant lying, shit flinging, and obfuscation. The motto is: "Collect it all." (and store it)

Former AF intelligence agent and whistleblower, Tice, has already said they are collecting and storing it all, including telephone, computer, and email content.

"NSA, today, is collecting everything -- including content -- of every digital communication in this country, both computer and phone, and that information is being stored indefinitely," Tice said. "And that's something that they're lying about."

So has former counterterrorism agent, Clemente:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

"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.""

Dianne Feinstein has already let slip that they can access content after the fact.

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 that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."

More here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

"The Washington Post disclosed Saturday that the existence of a top-secret NSA program called NUCLEON, which "intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words" to a database. Top intelligence officials in the Obama administration, the Post said, "have resolutely refused to offer an estimate of the number of Americans whose calls or e-mails have thus made their way into content databases such as ­NUCLEON."

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.

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.

We are LIED to, brazenly and incessantly. The upshot is:

"Collect it all."

The Crux of the NSA Story in One Phrase: 'Collect It All'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023261311

[ProSense]

73. What the hell does that have to do with the OP? n/t

[whttevrr]

125. It seems extremely on point

It clearly dovetails with the OP to propose an opposing viewpoint. Just because it comes to a different conclusion, that does not make it off topic. Post 66 is extremely relevant to your OP.

Why do you not understand that?

[AppleBottom]

72. The author is confused libetarian whacko bird that supported the war!

No but seriously.

The article is talking about the phone records collection only.

Reggid is completely wrong when he says that this debunks Snowden's claims. He's conflating two different programs that don't have much to do with each other.

[ProSense]

76. No,

"Reggid is completely wrong when he says that this debunks Snowden's claims. He's conflating two different programs that don't have much to do with each other."

...the OP has nothing to do "conflating two different programs." It is about a specific claim related who has access at the NSA.

[AppleBottom]

249. I don't think you've done a thorough enough background check of this blogger.

He's not to be trusted.
I hear he has a cousin that voted for Shrub and that he thought Saddam might have had WMD's at some point. Everything he has ever said must be disregarded. Obey.

[randome]

80. How much do you want to bet that Greenwald has documents that explain this very process...

...that will never see his byline next to them?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

86. More like the totalitarian PIRATES in the GOV did

And continue to.

[kentuck]

91. It all depends on who you believe....

Obviously, the information possessed by Snowden and Greenwald is so trivial, one wonders why some folks are so possessed with seeing them punished??

[dkf]

96. OMG you and the Kos poster are completely clueless about what Snowden means by "authorities".

He isn't talking about the legal authority to do anything, he is talking about the computer authorities that restrict what you can do and where you can go...the "compartment" setup that restricts what a person can see.

Obviously he wasn't supposed to have full reign to look and take everything he did. The thumb drives were supposed to be disabled!

His point is they never put the time into safekeeping their data to make sure it was impossible to misuse. And this audit by looking at the use of NSA programs is so stupid...that is not how Snowden would have pulled up this data. He would have WRITTEN HIS OWN QUERY to search the raw sigint. Don't you ever watch criminal minds? What do you think Penelope is doing all the time?

Lame lame lame.

[ProSense]

100. OMG

"Obviously he wasn't supposed to have full reign to look and take everything he did. The thumb drives were supposed to be disabled!"

...he hacked the system, which means his claim was bullshit. From the OP.

“I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.”

Report: Snowden Stored Documents On Thumb Drive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023010060

[dkf]

113. Do you know what he means by "authorities" when it comes to computers? Obviously not.

Special Authorities

Special authorities ( *Allobj, *Secadm, *Splctl, *Iosyscfg, *Audit, *Jobctl, *Service, *Savsys) are special authorizations or “super user” like capabilities granted to user profiles to allow security-sensitive functions to be performed for specific reasons, such as program development, system administration, or system operation, for example. These rights are powerful and should be reserved only for trusted and knowledgeable IT professionals.

Auditors check for the abuse of special authorities as part of any standard audit of the System i. Even those auditors who are not very familiar with OS/400 are aware of this issue from their work on other platforms.

In a presentation at the Gartner IT security summit in 2004, Ernst and Young noted that two of their top 10 concerns in audit reviews of IT systems were

Large number of users with access to “super user” transactions in production”

“Development Staff can run business transactions in production”.

http://www.powertech.com/guides/compliance/special_authorities.htm

[DontTreadOnMe]

120. So you are claiming that the NSA either has very lax security allowing "any" Super User

...like the part-time employee Snowden to get into the system, or he hacked his way in. Which is it?

I seriously doubt the NSA had such poor security, as Snowden claims. And there is NO EVIDENCE from Snowden to back-up any of his claims of how he actually got the documents... AND he even made a statement as noted above in a previous post, that "anyone" could get this access in the system. So who is telling the lies?

[dkf]

124. He knows better than I having navigated the system under different job titles.

And he wasn't a part time employee. He was an infrastructure analyst aka government hacker.

[BumRushDaShow]

148. He worked for BAH for less than 3 months

It would have taken almost half that time for them to get him his GFE and accounts.

[dkf]

151. He worked for Dell as an NSA contractor prior.

CIA prior to that. His entire job history is a continuum of alphabet agencies.

[BumRushDaShow]

163. But not as some sort of analyst

more of a security configuration tech.

And as a sidenote, folks might remember back during the 2008 primaries, some staffers, including contractors, were nabbed "peaking" into the passport database files.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23736254/ns/politics-decision_08/t/passport-files-candidates-breached/#.UgUqOLZ5mSM

If something as "benign" (when compared to the NSA) as the DOS has an audit trail (and all sensitive/secret systems require audit logs), then folks know where and what he thinks he accessed and for all we know, they are laughing their asses off.

[dkf]

192. No as a systems administrator who also gets access above the normal.

Do you understand how databases work?

The form we are typing in now isn't where the data resides. It acts to input and retrieve data from the raw data tables.

The Government is saying they do the equivalent of tracking how this form is used and by whom. But say I went straight to the data itself bypassing this form. Would they then have an audit trail if their audit depends on using the form?

Honestly I'm no expert on databases or system administration. I don't even know how to program! This is more basic than basic.

[BumRushDaShow]

204. Um, yes, I am in the field and work for the goverment

Because of the very presence of hacking dangers, if you think that he can somehow casually bypass secure encrypted data (the data itself can be encrypted - to whatever bit code they are using there.. I think they are up to something like 2048 bit now) without triggering an audit log entry then there is that bridge that everyone talks about that you will apparently buy.

[dkf]

230. So you are saying there is an audit log that no one was reviewing?

We don't know exactly what failed but the fact that they are cutting 90% of SysAds says something to me.

[BumRushDaShow]

247. Well now that's the whole question here

isn't it?

I.e., did he actually "get" any "data" at all? He may have copies of documents that describe how the data is stored (and even descriptions of the complex algorithms used to sort the data to look for a "signal" vs "noise&quot and perhaps he has info on what is being stored, but actually accessing any of that data would most likely also require encryption key exchanges - probably via some sort of key card and/or biometric access device, the use of such generally leaving an audit trail.

I wouldn't be surprised that BAH would dump staff. Contractors are a dime a dozen for them.

[dkf]

248. Well as a hacker isn't it his job to test the vulnerabilities?

From descriptions they honed their skills internally and externally.

That isn't a normal job so what restrictions they would have developed I have no idea. I doubt they will even disclose how many "infrastructure analysts" they have. They are still hiding under the "Snowden was a lowly Sysadmin" shtick.

[ProSense]

149. What a nonsensical response. He hacked the system is not "certainly had the authorities to wiretap"

Post more definitions.

[dkf]

155. Do you understand different levels of access?

Lets say the guys that run this site hire a programmer. He isn't supposed to snoop on anyone in particular, but they haven't restricted his abilities. So he goes to the raw data of this site, gets your real name as a contributor and looks at all your posts for the purpose of who knows what.

He has the computer authority to do so but was not given the authority by Skinner et al.

Do you get the difference now?

You as a user can't see what this programmer type can see if he can create queries based on the raw data.

[ProSense]

159. "He isn't talking about the legal authority to do anything"

You posted that in your first comment.

Snowden's claim is bullshit.

Your attempt at condescension is deflection.

[SomethingFishy]

174. Forget it. You have come across something

that Prosense cannot understand. Therefore it's all "silly nonsense".

Honestly I thought you did a good job of making it understandable for the layman but apparently when you start talking about raw data, network access, authorities, permissions, administrators and the like, to some, all they hear is Charlie Brown's teacher.

[randome]

177. Why didn't Snowden steal something to support his claims, then?

Instead of internal NSA documents. We would not be having this debate if he stole someone's personal data -say, a public figure- and presented it to us as evidence of how unguarded the system is.

But he didn't because, presumably, he couldn't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[SomethingFishy]

195. We would not be having this debate...

Bullshit. We would be having this debate no matter what Snowden released. There are many who think that this administration can do no wrong.

I do like how you used the word "presumably". Which means you are just guessing. Maybe he didn't want to steal someones data, who knows. Maybe he's sitting on a mound of data. You don't know, and I don't know, but I do know that what DKF wrote about authorities is 100% correct. Which is what my comment to him was about.

[randome]

201. Then Snowden should not have made claims that he could spy on anyone.

Without evidence, it's just talk. Why should I believe him?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

202. Thanks for telling me that.

I don't know how else to explain it better.

[jeff47]

171. You're assuming the documents are on the same systems as the programs

He probably downloaded the documents from JWICS.

The documents themselves are classified and well protected by JWICS, but access to the documents about a program is not the same as access to the systems within that program.

The systems within that program would be configured to enforce that "legal authority" you describe.

His point is they never put the time into safekeeping their data to make sure it was impossible to misuse.

Then he did a terrible job showing that. Because he's released exactly zero data. He's released powerpoint briefings and other documents. Those aren't going to be on the same systems.

He would have WRITTEN HIS OWN QUERY to search the raw sigint.

Then why didn't he? It would be fantastic evidence to back up his claims. Instead, he released briefings.

Don't you ever watch criminal minds? What do you think Penelope is doing all the time?

What she's doing is what some scriptwriter thinks "computer geeks" do. It has absolutely no bearing on reality. Her actions are to advance the plot on a TV show.

Guess what? There isn't a guy time traveling in a phone booth either, despite what they show on "Doctor Who". And I hate to break it to you, but you really can't get a tornado full of sharks.

[BumRushDaShow]

185. "you really can't get a tornado full of sharks"

Buh buh buh... it was real!!!! They showed it on teevee!!!11!!11!

[DontTreadOnMe]

214. "Hair on Fire" = "Tornado Full of Sharks" lol.. I think we have a new label

The Snowden "evidence" is as clear as that tornado full of sharks!!!11!1!!!

[randome]

196. Take that BACK about The Doctor!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[heaven05]

101. claims

by the Washington Post? True, huh?

[randome]

108. It's another datapoint to consider.

Along with the one where Snowden was not able to get at personal data. And the one where he intimated that 'direct access' meant the NSA could watch 'our thoughts form as we type'. Along with the one where he said "I am not here to hide from justice."

It's all information to file away and chart a course of believability.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[heaven05]

119. as

a Rand Paul supporter, personally I can't stand Snowden's politics. Rand paul is a racist, teabagger pig. So association makes snowden very suspect when it comes to his 'true' purpose in all the sudden 'coming out' on this administration. But at least we know how far the government wants to go in spying on it's citizens. Made people aware of just how pervasive the Patriot act, Bush-Cheney act is, and how it has metastasized. It's not going to make a real difference to the PTB that we know now, the State spying apparatus in place now will NEVER be stopped, the citizenry be damned.

[randome]

128. I think we'll get some changes from all this.

It was, indeed, important information in a generalized way. It's too bad Snowden threw away his life and loved ones and ran to Russia to hide in order to make his point.

He could have written anonymously or, if he was truly talented, obtained personal information to prove his point. But he didn't because, presumably, he couldn't.

Still, there will be changes. More transparency and less secrecy. Let's hope it's enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[heaven05]

132. yeah

hope is not dead, yet.

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. Still not convinced you are correct.

In your honor...

[ProSense]

107. Well, I'm not impressed. "In your honor...":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676

[Vinnie From Indy]

118. And there it sits....the dreaded blue linkie!

Cheers!

[OnyxCollie]

141. Drink!

[ProSense]

161. It's "in your honor"

"dreaded blue linkie!"

Fear them.

[Le Taz Hot]

209. Hey! We should start a drinking game!

For every blue linkie that linkies back to another linkie by the OP and on and on. Whaddya think?

[Vinnie From Indy]

250. lol!

Cheers!

[Le Taz Hot]

251. Skol!

[Octafish]

106. KOS, the CIA guy?

http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/2007/08/11/more-on-the-daily-kos-cia-connection/

[ProSense]

110. OMG!

Are you serious?

[leveymg]

122. It's not Kos, it's just a diary by one of thousands of DK members. Post has no particular

authority beyond the source it cited, and frankly, Dana Priest has this one wrong.

[stevenleser]

114. I knew this was coming. nt

[AgingAmerican]

117. NSA domestic spying is STILL wrong

Especially under a Democratic president.

[Waiting For Everyman]

123. Obvious denial is obvious.

This is not an official report of any kind, as you're clearly trying to pass it off to be. It's a run-of-the-mill story by a run-of-the-mill reporter at the WaPo, recycled from a denier at Kos no different from the deniers we have here.

Tsk, tsk, shame on you, for trying to foist a deception on us.

But in any event, just to be clear on this one point -- for this time and the rest of the times you keep trying to do this... I don't give a flying rat's ass if Snowden AND Greenwald both lied ten ways from Sunday. What I do care about is getting definitive answers from the NSA to the Congress, and via them to us, about NSA's activities that S&G and other reporters have exposed.

If NSA wants to clear this up, it can start by answering all the inquiries of Congressmen and Senators they have stonewalled up to now, and without the bs "plausible deniability" weasel clauses. Secondly, its little partner in crime, the FISA court, can get busy and release all those top secret opinions and decisions it has issued at NSA's demand. And from the FBI and whoever else is issuing them, we need a validity check on all the 200,000 National Security Letters that have been sent out to date (97% with accompanying unlimited gag orders attached). Until then, NSA is full of crap. And so is whoever defends its practices. And so is a lame so-called "report" like this, because NSA is capable of speaking for itself the way its supposed to: on the record, under oath.

[HardTimes99]

143. +Infinity! I say we suspend all funding for the NSA in toto until it complies with your quite

reasonable demands. I will be contacting Maxine Waters by phone on Monday to recommend same, having already communicated my power of the purse suggestion by email and not having received a reply.

Time to do some serious auditing of the National Security State boondoggle and apply some austerity to it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

225. That would be an entirely appropriate response.

I'm actually shocked that the NSA is so flagrant about flatly refusing to give Congress the information they ask for to do their job. It shows a total disrespect for the Congress as an institution. They should not have to beg NSA to answer their questions.

It would be inspiring to see, if Congress would stand together and withhold funding until they get their answers. I've seen Maxine Waters have some very good moments in other hearings over the years, I do hope she'll look into this and get involved.

[blackspade]

127. The Daily Kos story is garbage.

The Kos headline is misleading in that there is no 'report.'
It uses as it's basis a Dana Priest story that is based on no verifiable facts except for one; the NSA collects all us citizens' metadata.
Dana Priest's 'report' quotes no sources and presents data that this totally unverified.
The 215 order that she relies on so heavily doesn't say what her 'sources' or she thinks it does according to the Patriot act's author.
Furthermore, the story should constitute a 'leak' because it reveals data sources and methodologies.
So where is the dragnet for the leaker? chirp, chirp.....

The only kernel that seems to hold up is the fact that the NSA is sweeping up all metadata of US citizens, a gross violation of the Constitution's 4th Amendment.

As for the rest of the Kos story, it consists of hyperbole and strawmen and should be an embarrassment to its author.

Based on the foregoing report, the fantastical claims of Snowden and Greenwald are simply not possible. In other words, the entire basis of this story -- hell, the only reason there ever WAS a story in the first place -- just blew up their faces. Sadly, their bullshit-based claims have already caused overwrought rhetoric and over-reaction in almost all corners.

Bullshit indeed, just like this analysis, since Reggid presents no verifiable facts to back up his/her claims that Greenwald is lying.
It's pretty fucking sad.

[ProSense]

146. "Dana Priest's 'report' quotes no sources and presents data that this totally unverified. "

Where is Greenwald/Snowden's evidence?

[blackspade]

160. Your point is what?

That reporters/commemorators don't present evidence?
That no reporter/commentator should be listened to unless they present it?
What is it?
If you want 'evidence' from Greenwald, maybe you should contact him and ask.
Then perhaps you can do some research yourself to debunk it rather than relying on others with dubious sources to do it for you.

[ProSense]

162. "If you want 'evidence' from Greenwald, maybe you should contact him and ask. "

Well, at least you admit that he hasn't provided any evidence.

[blackspade]

169. That is not such an admission at all.

I was suggesting to you that if you are unsatisfied with his analysis of his documentation, then you should ask to see the originals.
I do it all the time in my line of work.
Original sourcing is always better if you are interested in fostering a valid counter-argument.
And you still haven't answered my question.

[Maedhros]

147. What if ProSense and Reggid are the same person? [n/t]

We know from painful experience that ProSense likes to post recursive links to her previous posts (with recursive links to previous posts, ad infinitum). Maybe she's raised her game by posting links to previous posts on another site.

Brilliant!

(Disclaimer: I have no proof of this, but it's kinda' funny to consider).

[ProSense]

157. What if people constantly attacking me are Republicans? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

223. That's like 2/3 or more of DU

[Cha]

260. And, or Libertarians.. whomever is personally attacking you.. you can be

sure of one thing. they want the news you bring to be stifled and think their distactions are working. lol

[Cha]

261. Yeah, like ProSense is only one who sees through snowden/greenwald

bullshit.

[randome]

150. It's true there is not much in the way of attribution in these stories.

We should bombard both the WP and DailyKos with emails asking for that.

But it does match up with what was revealed in the PowerPoint slides and what Carl Bernstein said seems like a robust system to prevent abuse of the system.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

166. My problem with all of this is that I don't take the government's

reassurances at face value. I have no reason to do so based on the history of the NSA, FBI, etc.
Without transparency, Greenwald's account of the surveillance activities are just as plausible as the government's.
The fact that several Senators have come out saying that these programs are problematic and likely unconstitutional, Congress has been lied to, and that the government has hidden behind 'national security' claims in the face of multiple lawsuits strengthens Grennwald's analysis. Until the government comes clean, their credibility is much lower than Greenwald's in my opinion.

[randome]

173. I don't blame anyone for being suspicious. Secrecy breeds it.

We need more transparency and less secrecy. But I don't trust Snowden or Greenwald, either. And Congress could have been doing its job all along but they chose to take the approach "The less I know, the more blameless I can be."

There are many factions at fault here, including the NSA, but I don't think they are as omniscient as some believe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

182. I choose to err on the side of my civil liberties.

Greenwald hasn't presented anything that has been proven false to me so far.
Some of the details may be off a bit, which is to be expected due to the complexity of the material.
If it comes out that he was making all this shit up (which I highly doubt) then I will happily admit that I was wrong to accept his analysis and look at whatever evidence is presented in a new light.
But that is a pretty high bar right now considering how the government is dealing with this matter.

[randome]

187. Fair enough.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

210. The fact that he has released nothing showing spying on US persons

is not a mere detail. It's the core of his claims.

[Maedhros]

233. This talking point has been refuted multiple times.

The NSA collects data on persons two degrees removed from the target.

Say that jeff47 is the target of an investigation because he sent an email to an old college buddy who got a contract in Dubai. The NSA will collect all data on anyone who corresponds with jeff47, and also on anyone who corresponds with any of those people, regardless of country of residence.

That's potentially a whole lot of innocent Americans being spied on by the government.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

134. If the claims are untrue, why was Clapper willing to commit a felony and lie to the Senate?

[BumRushDaShow]

138. Gotta bamboozle an audience to get the future book sales. nt

[Th1onein]

211. Dang, I forgot someone on my Ignore list.

I'll take care of that immediately. Enjoy your stay!

[Maedhros]

234. Good catch! Me too [n/t]

[cantbeserious]

142. Ever More Character Assassination - Pro Active And Sensible - Government Approved - IMHO

eom

[baldguy]

145. Anyone who's been paying attention knew this already.

[Maedhros]

235. Why would that in any way be a reason to approve of it? [n/t]

[baldguy]

254. I approve of the dissemination & acceptance of the truth. As any reasonable, rational person should.

Snowden, Greenwald and their sycophants are opposed to this.

[glowing]

153. If Snowden was to tell exactly how the NSA types of

data mining types of procedures and codes and directives, that would really make his whistle blowing go from letting people know the NSA and private contractors have the capabilities of extracting info from people's personal accounts, to dangerous information being leaked on the exact how to of the programs that are operating.

It doesn't make sense to me to release the specifics of the programming code and protocols used for other people to create similar systems that are foreign Govt's or terrorist hackers (not that they probably don't have similar shit going on anyway).

The reality is that this really shouldn't be news to anyone. The Patriot act and the NDAA basically insulated the govt from being prosecuted against the 4 th amendment. The fact that this came out under and Obama admin and the right wing crazies who have been scared by the Fox News types, think its awful that Obama could read their emails and come for their guns. There are quite a few republicans who were trying to kick this shit storm under the bus since they had really begun doing this type of stuff since forever. Now one really wants the American people to question the "black books", the CIA, NSA and the rest of the alphabet soup. They don't really want Americans to wake up to what is going on in the world and here in America.

God forbid those rabid tea party freaks, libertards, and progressive liberals actually came together on the idea that the police-state/ spying on Americans type of shut has to go... And anyone supporting this shit has got to go. But the people in power who lord over their subjects have always wanted to know what is going on to make sure they can remain in control. A fair, democratic republic, was instituted and from the inception, those who want the power and control have tried to figure out how to manipulate and break the idea behind a free, fair, and just society.

It's harder and harder for them to hide behind their classified BS and security measures because the Internet and almost everyone with a smart phone/ camera of some type can instantly show everyone what's going on. A decade ago, we would have to take written word witness to the women in TX being subjected to a roadside probing... However, the police authorities own dash cams caught them in the act of going above and beyond what is necessary... And most of this is to instill fear in the people to rise up and take ownership of this country and for other people's around the world to join together in a unified voice to say this shit is wrong and there is no reason for the world to be operating like it is. There is no reason to have slave labor or military used for multinational companies to exploit resources... Or that there is a real need for all of the spying on people that is occurring. Or that police forces are no longer a part of the community serving as peace officers, but rather used more like a thuggish brute force against people where everyone is suspect.

[BrainDrain]

165. ohhhhh pulllleeezzeee......

If you HALF as much time actually trying to understand the REAL evidence as presented by Snowden as you do trying to tear him and his revelations down, you just might pause a moment and come to the realization that there is a very high probability that you are wrong and that all you are doing now is the work of those that thrive on secrets and lying in order to maintain their hold over the rest of us.

Dude, seriously, open your eyes and get a good strong pot of coffee. You truly need it.

[ProSense]

170. First,

ohhhhh pulllleeezzeee......

If you HALF as much time actually trying to understand the REAL evidence as presented by Snowden as you do trying to tear him and his revelations down, you just might pause a moment and come to the realization that there is a very high probability that you are wrong and that all you are doing now is the work of those that thrive on secrets and lying in order to maintain their hold over the rest of us.

Dude, seriously, open your eyes and get a good strong pot of coffee. You truly need it.

...I'm not a "dude." Second, Greenwald/Snowden made the bullshit claim about access and provided no evidence to support it.

You go get coffee. Maybe it'll wake you up to that reality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

176. If you are serious, post links to the "REAL evidence". "Dude, seriously". nt

[Life Long Dem]

191. "the REAL evidence"?

Please tell me the real evidence, because I see nothing but legal activity presented within NSA. Show me something to get me in an uproar like all the chicken little's running around with their hair on fire spewing bullshit.

Do you think I give a shit about my phone number stored in a database? About as much as I care about my phone number in a phone book.

[DontTreadOnMe]

219. REAL evidence.. please show us all

We are waiting, please post it here.

We will make plenty of pots of coffee waiting.... inform us Mr. Evidence Explainer.

[hootinholler]

190. I wish my FWB would felate me the way Dana felates the NSA

There is no there in there. Dana seems to share your desire to put the genie back into the bottle. Rather than piercing the confusion, Dana raises more issues and clearly doesn't understand how big systems work.

The main issue is if there are only 33 people in the entire NSA authorized to use the system, then why does a powerpoint training deck even exist? That is a small enough pool of people that I question how Snowden would have even found out about it, let alone get copies of the training materials.

Where did the DEA get its tap of this stuff from?

[Puzzledtraveller]

221. lawl

[Union Scribe]

224. Anyone swayed from one side to the other by this latest attempt? Hands? nt

[bowens43]

226. LOL!! Still at at it!!!! You're a hoot!!!

[Civilization2]

227. Cool blog post dude,.. nice you found another partisan over democracy hack,.

You keep trying, but you just don't get it. The truth is out, you can not stuff it back in.

All your contortions to maintain denial of reality are interesting to watch, but in the end the corporate-military and their big-intel buddies have been exposed and people are starting to follow the money. Good luck keeping the secret budgets from the light of day now.

[ProSense]

237. Here's another

Greenwald release shows NSA foreign program prohibits targeting Americans, considering rule change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023434559

[sgtbenobo]

245. nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls

Thank you Prosense. Now that you've shone everyone here how stupid and clueless we are I can finally go back to my kitten and porn quest. Now would you please just kindly saunter back to FreeRepublic so the rest of us can move on.

//snip//

Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, has obliquely warned for months that the NSA's retention of Americans' communications incidentally collected and its ability to search through it has been far more extensive than intelligence officials have stated publicly. Speaking this week, Wyden told the Guardian it amounts to a "backdoor search" through Americans' communications data.

"Section 702 was intended to give the government new authorities to collect the communications of individuals believed to be foreigners outside the US, but the intelligence community has been unable to tell Congress how many Americans have had their communications swept up in that collection," he said

//snip//

Just keep telling yourself that everyone's wrong but you.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls


Carry on.

[ProSense]

246. Um

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023434559

Still, what does that have to do with the OP?

[sgtbenobo]

252. Exactly as much as you do.

No matter what anyone says or does you just get all Pseudo-pithy and muck up the conversation. In essence you are the losing hockey team in the 3rd period. Brother please check your meds.


Carry on.

[Civilization2]

255. lolz,. right on point! endless delusional posts and non-responses is all ps offers,.

Sad and more than a little pathetic.

[Cha]

262. "Democracy".. yeah, that ol "democracy" loving snowden..

"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations."

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

snowden and greenwald are a couple of opportunistic liars.. and that has nothing to do with our Democracy. they like to make others think it does but they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

[Cha]

257. snowden and greenwald lie?!! Shocking claim!!!!!

Only the NSA "lies".. snowden and fooking greenwald are pure as the driven snow. And, greenwald has a book he wants to sell in 2014.. why would he lie?!!

“I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail.”

snowden could wiretap the President but PBO is the scary one who ruined his fucking ron paul loving civil rights life..so he ended up in Russia where the fucking Irony is staggering.

thanks for this, PS!

[Scurrilous]

265. Boink.

[RetroLounge]

267. And this has been our daily snowden-hate puke post

RL

[stevenleser]

268. Might be a bit harsh

I think the stuff in the OP is harsh in that I think that Snowden was too junior and too removed from actual decisionmaking, policymaking and the "do-ers" at the NSA in general to know whether the documents he read reflected actual regular policy, what happened in certain contingencies, etc.

In other words, I don't know if he necessarily "lied" (although I'm willing to see proof otherwise), I think he either grossly misinterpreted what he read in the documents he took, or otherwise didn't understand them. He didnt work for the NSA, he worked for a third party contractor. He had no idea what actual NSA policy was. There are all kinds of documents at large organizations. If you are not in the groups that the documents talk about, you have no idea whether the documents reflect actual policy, the procedures in them are used in special situations, etc.

[SidDithers]

269. Kick...

'cause I love watching the sputtering Snowden worshippers.



Sid