PDA

View Full Version : More NSA Spying on Citizens



Pages : [1] 2

Chris
06-07-2013, 09:34 AM
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison

http://i.snag.gy/eCwvE.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/Sc62z.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/13iOp.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/xti3e.jpg


@ NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/)

Ravi
06-07-2013, 11:26 AM
I thought passing around Top Secret information was a crime.

Mainecoons
06-07-2013, 11:37 AM
The crime against your privacy and freedom is being committed by your government. Clearly, this has been outed by a patriot.

Your government is becoming criminal. How would you feel about that if the party label was "Republican?" Why do I think you'd be screaming bloody murder?

Ravi
06-07-2013, 11:39 AM
The crime against your privacy and freedom is being committed by your government. Clearly, this has been outed by a patriot.

Your government is becoming criminal. How would you feel about that if the party label was "Republican?" Why do I think you'd be screaming bloody murder?
The Patriot Act authorized them to do it so it isn't criminal. I have always been against the Patriot Act.

But you didn't answer my question.

Chris
06-07-2013, 11:39 AM
I thought passing around Top Secret information was a crime.

What If Government Officials Broke the Laws We Hired Them to Enforce? (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/06/what-if-government-officials-broke-the-l)

Mainecoons
06-07-2013, 11:42 AM
Outing government criminals is patriotism. "If this be treason, let us make the most of it."

Ravi
06-07-2013, 11:45 AM
In other words, you don't have an answer to the question.

Mainecoons
06-07-2013, 11:49 AM
Yes, that's my answer. Do you need help reading it?

Chris
06-07-2013, 02:49 PM
Is This Who Runs Prism? (http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/is_this_who_runs_prism.php?ref=fpblg)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gUX0hxlrVXc

Chris
06-07-2013, 03:00 PM
NSA: All up in your privacy junk since 1952 (http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-all-up-in-your-privacy-junk-since-1952-7000016512/) discusses Prism:


Since 2007, it has apparently been collecting and is capable of analyzing in real time every kind of private user data that you can possibly think of, from all of the biggest companies providing public cloud-based end-user services: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.

This comes on the heels of another story, where apparently the NSA is vacuuming up all sorts of customer and call telemetry from Verizon (only Verizon? O RLY?)

According to UK newspaper The Guardian, which originally broke the story, PRISM monitoring was allegedly installed with the full knowledge of the companies "participating," and the project costs a mere $20 million per year to operate. Oy, what a bargain!

(By the way, by my own and others' estimations, $20 million per year would barely cover three to six months of the storage costs alone of such an endeavor, so I suspect that this is a far more expensive undertaking than we are meant to believe, if it is real. We're talking about an organization that gets all of its funding primarily from "Black Projects," has its own semiconductor manufacturing facilities for making specialized cryptoanalysis chips, and owns and operates more supercomputing equipment than probably any other single entity on this planet.)

In short, PRISM's revelation has made all other big data projects look like child's play.

By the way, I say "allegedly" because all of the companies (listed as "Providers" in the leaked documents, so this could also mean the upstream Tier-1 ISP providing bandwidth to these companies) on record have denied the existence of PRISM or cooperation with the NSA.

And until we hear otherwise from official sources within the US government, we have no idea whether PRISM is some elaborate hoax foisted on The Guardian and The Washington Post, who have provided the smoking gun PowerPoints.

Oh my God, we should be appalled that our privacy is being invaded, right? How can we trust our government ever again?

Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.


It also refutes a claim often posted about how "we" liberals caught Bush at it first. It goes back to the Cold War and Truman, FDR's successor:


Let's take a step back. No, let's step back over 50 years. To 1952. When the flux capacitor hits 1.21 gigawatts, and the Delorean hits 88 miles per hour... oh, never mind.

In June 1952, President Harry Truman (that would be president number 33, the same guy who authorized the only nuclear weapons releases during wartime) signed a secret order that formed the National Security Agency, which in and of itself was an outgrowth of the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), formed in 1949, which was to coordinate the communications and electronic intelligence activities of all the US military intelligence units.

The formation of the NSA took this a step even further to a national level, and extended its reach beyond the armed forces.

The mission of the NSA, by US law, is limited to monitoring foreign communications, whether it is electronic intelligence (ELINT) or signal intelligence (SIGINT). The CIA, by comparison, mainly acts on human intelligence gathering (HUMINT), and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) primarily uses satellite space imaging as their main assets.

Monitoring of domestic communications has traditionally been the purview of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

What is critical to understand here is that until 9/11, these organizations did not share information freely with each other, and the events of that day were a wake-up call for this country's anti-terrorism initiative, because the tragedy almost certainly could have been averted had the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI been working more closely.

So, while the NSA's legal charter limits them to foreign communications, in reality, foreign combatants (terrorist organizations and state-sponsored entities) will have used US-based systems to conduct their operations. The US Patriot Act has made NSA wiretapping on US soil something of a gray area, particularly now that the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI freely exchange information with each other in the interests of national security.

Monitoring telephone and data communications of the agents of hostile entities extends even further from the NSA into a program known as ECHELON, which has been rumored to exist since at least the early 1960s, in the formative years of the Cold War, and is a shared system with the commonwealth nations of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

....

Ravi
06-07-2013, 05:00 PM
Is This Who Runs Prism? (http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/is_this_who_runs_prism.php?ref=fpblg)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gUX0hxlrVXc
Not according to them.

Chris
06-07-2013, 05:03 PM
Not according to them.

Not according to them what?

Ravi
06-07-2013, 05:05 PM
George Washington had spies.

Ravi
06-07-2013, 05:06 PM
Not according to them what?

I didn't play your video, but if it is what I think it is, the company that has been fingered for running PRISM is not who is running Prism.

Chris
06-07-2013, 05:07 PM
Not according to them George Washington had spies?

I'd love to discuss whatever it is you're trying to say if you'd just come out an say it.

Chris
06-07-2013, 05:08 PM
I didn't play your video, but if it is what I think it is, the company that has been fingered for running PRISM is not who is running Prism.

Oh? Do you have some facts for that? Would love to see them.

GrassrootsConservative
06-07-2013, 05:08 PM
George Washington had spies.

Anything to justify it, eh?

Ravi
06-08-2013, 06:27 AM
Anything to justify it, eh?
You must have me confused with someone else. I've been against this ever since the Patriot Act was a gleam in the government's eye. I simply laugh at the sudden outrage at something that has been going on all along.

Ravi
06-08-2013, 06:27 AM
Oh? Do you have some facts for that? Would love to see them.
They issued a statement. Google is your friend.

patrickt
06-08-2013, 06:48 AM
Gee, Marie Archer, I didn't read what you wrote but if you're saying what I think you're saying then....

That is rather stupid, isn't it?

Chris
06-08-2013, 07:10 AM
They issued a statement. Google is your friend.

You made the claim.

Chris
06-08-2013, 07:12 AM
You must have me confused with someone else. I've been against this ever since the Patriot Act was a gleam in the government's eye. I simply laugh at the sudden outrage at something that has been going on all along.

Then why didn't you laugh at the outrage over the Patriot Act as well? This sort of spying goes back to Truman.

zelmo1234
06-08-2013, 07:44 AM
This might be the only good thing about the coming insolvency? All fo the programs like this will be defunded!

And the government will be left with only enough to be doing what it should have been in the first place

sedan
06-08-2013, 08:17 AM
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison

http://i.snag.gy/eCwvE.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/Sc62z.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/13iOp.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/xti3e.jpg


@ NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/)


Or ... maybe not (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/):



The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned.

Recent reports in the Washington Post and the Guardian claimed a classified program called PRISM grants "intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers" and that "from inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes."

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

No evidence of NSA's 'direct access' to tech companies (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/)

Chris
06-08-2013, 08:35 AM
Or ... maybe not (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/):



The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned.

Recent reports in the Washington Post and the Guardian claimed a classified program called PRISM grants "intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers" and that "from inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes."

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

No evidence of NSA's 'direct access' to tech companies (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/)

And yet those leaked slides are NSA slides. QUibbling about whether NSA has direct or indirect access doesn't change that.

Ravi
06-08-2013, 09:57 AM
You have to wonder how such a vast network only costs 20 million per year. You also have to wonder why the "top secret" release posted in the op directs the viewer to go to the FAA website for complete details....a publicly accessible web page at that from 2010.

http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/pia-prism

Ravi
06-08-2013, 06:21 PM
crickets are pretty interesting.

sedan
06-08-2013, 07:19 PM
You have to wonder how such a vast network only costs 20 million per year. You also have to wonder why the "top secret" release posted in the op directs the viewer to go to the FAA website for complete details....a publicly accessible web page at that from 2010.

http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/pia-prism

From the 'quibbling' link I posted upthread:



Marc Ambinder, author of "Deep State: Inside The Government Secrecy Industry," wrote (http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism) this evening that PRISM is an unclassified "data processing tool" used by many NSA components. It's not, he said, the name of a secret surveillance program.

PRISM is also the name of a data processing tool used for other intelligence purposes, meaning it may be the same utility. It stands for "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management," and it's long been in common military use. An Air Force-commissioned report that predates the FISA Amendments, for instance, describes PRISM (PDF (http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR434.pdf)) as "Web-based collection management software." It's not unusual to see PRISM experience required in job postings (http://prescientedge.hrmdirect.com/employment/job-opening.php?req=112831&&) at government contractors as well.

Stewart Baker, the NSA's general counsel in the 1990s and now an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson, said he was not familiar with PRISM or similar government activity, but the leaked Powerpoint presentation sounds "flaky," as do the initial reports.

"The Powerpoint is suffused with a kind of hype that makes it sound more like a marketing pitch than a briefing -- we don't know what its provenance is and we don't know the full context," Baker said. He added, referring to the Post's coverage: "It looks rushed and it looks wrong."

Chris
06-08-2013, 08:53 PM
You have to wonder how such a vast network only costs 20 million per year. You also have to wonder why the "top secret" release posted in the op directs the viewer to go to the FAA website for complete details....a publicly accessible web page at that from 2010.

http://www.dot.gov/individuals/privacy/pia-prism

Watch the video of the PRISM founder. They work for all sorts of agencies and companies. It is unsurprising that they also work for DOT. What was your point. I thought you had proof somewhere it was not PRISM.

And if it's not PRISM, uh, so? It's still NSA spying on US citizens.

Chris
06-08-2013, 08:55 PM
crickets are pretty interesting.

You wait for 4 minutes and start posting about crickets? I've waited for 24 hours for you to provide an answer: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13553-More-NSA-Spying-on-Citizens?p=302969&viewfull=1#post302969.

Crickets? I hear bullfrogs.

Chris
06-08-2013, 08:57 PM
From the 'quibbling' link I posted upthread:



Marc Ambinder, author of "Deep State: Inside The Government Secrecy Industry," wrote (http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism) this evening that PRISM is an unclassified "data processing tool" used by many NSA components. It's not, he said, the name of a secret surveillance program.

PRISM is also the name of a data processing tool used for other intelligence purposes, meaning it may be the same utility. It stands for "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management," and it's long been in common military use. An Air Force-commissioned report that predates the FISA Amendments, for instance, describes PRISM (PDF (http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR434.pdf)) as "Web-based collection management software." It's not unusual to see PRISM experience required in job postings (http://prescientedge.hrmdirect.com/employment/job-opening.php?req=112831&&) at government contractors as well.

Stewart Baker, the NSA's general counsel in the 1990s and now an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson, said he was not familiar with PRISM or similar government activity, but the leaked Powerpoint presentation sounds "flaky," as do the initial reports.

"The Powerpoint is suffused with a kind of hype that makes it sound more like a marketing pitch than a briefing -- we don't know what its provenance is and we don't know the full context," Baker said. He added, referring to the Post's coverage: "It looks rushed and it looks wrong."


Marc Ambinder, author of "Deep State: Inside The Government Secrecy Industry," wrote this evening that PRISM is an unclassified "data processing tool" used by many NSA components.

Take that up with Marie, she says it's not. The slides say you're right.

Mr Happy
06-08-2013, 09:20 PM
Outing government criminals is patriotism. "If this be treason, let us make the most of it."

So you're a supporter of Private Manning and Julian Assange, too? Same here...who says we don't have something in common...

Mainecoons
06-09-2013, 07:55 AM
Yes I am, absolutely. The U.S. Federal government is out of control and outing it is serious patriotism IMO.

Common
06-09-2013, 08:47 AM
So you're a supporter of Private Manning and Julian Assange, too? Same here...who says we don't have something in common...

Only because its a democrat president, if it were bush he would hate them and be utterly outraged.

Chris
06-09-2013, 09:32 AM
Only because its a democrat president, if it were bush he would hate them and be utterly outraged.

Absolutely incorrect on two accounts. One, maine criticized Bush throughout his terms. Two, I don't think maine feels emotional hate as much as rational disdain for, well, as he said, and you ignore, "The U.S. Federal government is out of control and outing it is serious patriotism IMO."

Chris
06-09-2013, 10:44 AM
Today's NYT--see video from Palantir Tech (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13553-More-NSA-Spying-on-Citizens?p=302917#post302917):


...The partnership between the intelligence community and Palantir Technologies, a Palo Alto, Calif., company founded by a group of inventors from PayPal, is just one of many that the National Security Agency and other agencies have forged as they have rushed to unlock the secrets of “Big Data.”

Today, a revolution in software technology that allows for the highly automated and instantaneous analysis of enormous volumes of digital information has transformed the N.S.A., turning it into the virtual landlord of the digital assets of Americans and foreigners alike. The new technology has, for the first time, given America’s spies the ability to track the activities and movements of people almost anywhere in the world without actually watching them or listening to their conversations.

New disclosures that the N.S.A. has secretly acquired the phone records of millions of Americans and access to e-mails, videos and other data of foreigners from nine United States Internet companies have provided a rare glimpse into the growing reach of the nation’s largest spy agency. They have also alarmed the government: on Saturday night, Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, said that “a crimes report has been filed by the N.S.A.”

<snip a long history>

@ How the U.S. Uses Technology to Mine More Data More Quickly (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-agencys-wider-reach.html?_r=0)

sedan
06-09-2013, 11:27 AM
today's nyt--see video from palantir tech (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13553-more-nsa-spying-on-citizens?p=302917#post302917):



@ how the u.s. Uses technology to mine more data more quickly (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/revelations-give-look-at-spy-agencys-wider-reach.html?_r=0)

And once again ... maybe not: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/tech-company-says-its-prism-platform-isnt-related?ref=fpb):



Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley company that offers software for "integrating, visualizing and analyzing the world's information," told TPM on Friday that its Prism platform is not related to the government PRISM program, which was revealed in press reports this week.

"Palantir's Prism platform is completely unrelated to any US government program of the same name," Matt Long, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email to TPM. "Prism is Palantir's name for a data integration technology used in the Palantir Metropolis platform (formerly branded as Palantir Finance). This software has been licensed to banks and hedge funds for quantitative analysis and research."

TPM followed up to ask if, beyond the company's Prism platform, Palantir had ever worked on or with the government's PRISM program. But Long said, one way or the other, company policy is to not comment on any government customers.

Tech Company Says Its Prism Platform Isn’t Related To Government’s PRISM (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/tech-company-says-its-prism-platform-isnt-related?ref=fpb)

Chris
06-09-2013, 11:38 AM
And once again ... maybe not: (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/tech-company-says-its-prism-platform-isnt-related?ref=fpb):



Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley company that offers software for "integrating, visualizing and analyzing the world's information," told TPM on Friday that its Prism platform is not related to the government PRISM program, which was revealed in press reports this week.

"Palantir's Prism platform is completely unrelated to any US government program of the same name," Matt Long, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email to TPM. "Prism is Palantir's name for a data integration technology used in the Palantir Metropolis platform (formerly branded as Palantir Finance). This software has been licensed to banks and hedge funds for quantitative analysis and research."

TPM followed up to ask if, beyond the company's Prism platform, Palantir had ever worked on or with the government's PRISM program. But Long said, one way or the other, company policy is to not comment on any government customers.

Tech Company Says Its Prism Platform Isn’t Related To Government’s PRISM (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/tech-company-says-its-prism-platform-isnt-related?ref=fpb)

And once again, round and round you go.

And once again, maybe.

And once again, if not Palantir, perhaps Boundless Informant? What's it matter, the government is doing this--that is the point is it not?

Any deflection in the storm I suppose.

Mainecoons
06-09-2013, 11:51 AM
OK but his point was that Prism A is not Prism B. What's wrong about that?

And yes, the government sure as hell is doing this. I hope you are not OK with it, Sedan.

The ACLU sure isn't I see.

Peter1469
06-09-2013, 12:00 PM
The breadth of this program is unknown. It seems to me that it is essentially a general search authorization for all electronic communications. If that is what it is, it is certainly unconstitutional. I know that the government is defending this program by saying the data is only stored and not searched without a specific search authorization, but that is a distinction without a different IMO.

The administration has already conceded that program affects civil liberties- they just say that it is worth it to keep us safe. I find that admission to be chilling.

Chris
06-09-2013, 12:04 PM
OK but his point was that Prism A is not Prism B. What's wrong about that?

And yes, the government sure as hell is doing this. I hope you are not OK with it, Sedan.

The ACLU sure isn't I see.

That it might not be, not really sure why the company, Internet providers, or the government would admit this.

And yes, it's not to the point.

My problem with it is this, sedan had already posted the quibble post #24 and I already addressed it post #25.

Peter1469
06-09-2013, 12:07 PM
From what I understand a whistle blower inside Verizon leaked the existence of the program. I could be wrong. Too lazy to look it up right now.

Chris
06-09-2013, 12:15 PM
From what I understand a whistle blower inside Verizon leaked the existence of the program. I could be wrong. Too lazy to look it up right now.

Two Dem Senators may have been involved:


There are two notable exception to this rule are Senator Ron Wyden, from Oregon, and Sen. Mark Udall from Colorado, who had seemed to be fighting a largely lonely, frustrating battle against Obama’s national security state.

As Mark Udall told the Denver Post yesterday: “[I] did everything short of leaking classified information” to stop it.

His ally in Oregon, Ron Wyden, was one of the first to seize on the Guardian’s news break: “I will tell you from a policy standpoint, when a law-abiding citizen makes a call, they expect that who they call, when they call and where they call from will be kept private,” Wyden said to Politico, noting “there’s going to be a big debate about this.” The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, admitted he’d mislead Senator Wyden at a hearing earlier this year, revising his statement yesterday to state that the NSA didn’t do “voyerustic” surveillance.

The state of affairs, in other words, is so grave that two sitting Senators went as close as they could to violating their unconstitutional security oaths in order to warn the country of information that otherwise would not have been declassified until April of 2038, according to the Verizon court order obtained by Greenwald.

Now, we’re about to see if the Obama administration’s version of the national security state will begin to eat itself.

@ Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/why-democrats-love-to-spy-on-americans)

Peter1469
06-09-2013, 12:20 PM
Two Dem Senators may have been involved:



@ Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/why-democrats-love-to-spy-on-americans)

The way Congress provides oversight on the intelligence community (IC) is broken. The Constitution requires that the executive branch notify Congress about all programs. But in the IC they only notify members of the House and Senate Intel committees, and they can't talk about what they hear- that doesn't seem to satisfy the Constitutional requirement.

Of course we all know that those that support the system would counter that we can't trust classified info to the full congress. And they are likely correct. But that still leaves the Constitutional question unresolved.

Chris
06-09-2013, 02:58 PM
Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old system administrator and former undercover CIA employee, unmasked himself Sunday as the principal source of recent Washington Post and Guardian disclosures about top-secret NSA programs, denouncing what he described as systematic surveillance of innocent citizens and saying in an interview, “it’s important to send a message to government that people will not be intimidated.”

Director of NationalIntelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said Saturday that the NSA had initiated a Justice Department investigation into who leaked the information.

Snowden, whose full name is Edward Joseph Snowden, said he understands the risks of disclosing the information, but that he felt it was the right thing to do.

“I intend to ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy,” Snowden told the Post. The Guardian was the first to publicly identify Snowden. Both media organizations made his name public with his consent.

“I’m not going to hide,” Snowden said Sunday afternoon. “Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest.”

Asked whether he believed his disclosures would change anything, he said: “I think they already have. Everyone, everywhere now understands how bad things have gotten— and they’re talking about it. They have to power to decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state.”

...

Read more and watch video @ Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intelligence-leaders-push-back-on-leakers-media/2013/06/09/fff80160-d122-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html)

Mainecoons
06-09-2013, 03:56 PM
I am in awe of this guy. Started a thread on this, a really big story.

You'll notice he didn't waste his time telling it to the ObamaMedia.

All of them should be hanging their heads in shame but they have none.

Ransom
06-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Now close your eyes for one moment......imagine if you would an obviously rum amok and corrupt IRS with the audacity to actually plead the fifth when queried not by any court of law mind you, but We the People of these United States.....imagine a department of justice explaining to a federal judge that a reporter was a co-conspirator and thus a warrant needed to spy on said reporter......imagine a UN Ambassador lying bold faced to not only We the People, but numerous media outlets repeatedly concerning four dead Americans in a far away US Embassy, imagine further that lie earns that UN Ambassador praise and promotion to NSA Director that office in charge of this data mining requiring so much secrecy and thus trust.....imagine this data mining issue re-appear to the American public and we realize our phone traffic, internet traffic, etraffic of any kind really.....is being looked at or data mined by the Federal Government......but most importantly imagine all of this happens with an (R) in the Oval Office!

Chris
06-09-2013, 04:58 PM
but most importantly imagine all of this happens with an (R) in the Oval Office

It has and it will again. Starting with truman it's only been getting worse.

Mainecoons
06-09-2013, 05:03 PM
Now close your eyes for one moment......imagine if you would an obviously rum amok and corrupt IRS with the audacity to actually plead the fifth when queried not by any court of law mind you, but We the People of these United States.....imagine a department of justice explaining to a federal judge that a reporter was a co-conspirator and thus a warrant needed to spy on said reporter......imagine a UN Ambassador lying bold faced to not only We the People, but numerous media outlets repeatedly concerning four dead Americans in a far away US Embassy, imagine further that lie earns that UN Ambassador praise and promotion to NSA Director that office in charge of this data mining requiring so much secrecy and thus trust.....imagine this data mining issue re-appear to the American public and we realize our phone traffic, internet traffic, etraffic of any kind really.....is being looked at or data mined by the Federal Government......but most importantly imagine all of this happens with an (R) in the Oval Office!

But it didn't, did it? Had it done so, how long do you think it would have taken the drive by media to out it?

Ransom
06-09-2013, 05:23 PM
But it didn't, did it? Had it done so, how long do you think it would have taken the drive by media to out it?

How long? My best estimate of how long it would take the NBCs, CBSs, CNNs, MSNBCs, ABCs, Washington Posts, NYTimes, LATimes, Democrat Senate, George Soros Financiers, Planned Parenthooders, NEAs, NAACPs, and the left leaning herd of grazing sheeple in this political forum to 'out' this nonsense? I say within 1.7 seconds followed by a groundswell for impeachment and criminal charges. Instead......deafening silence.

Chris
06-09-2013, 06:43 PM
Paul wants to lead Supreme Court challenge to fed's tracking of Americans' calls, emails (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/#ixzz2VlVqCOlX)


Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday he wants to mount a Supreme Court challenge to the federal government logging Americans’ phone calls and Internet activities.

Paul, R-Ky., a leading voice in the Libertarian movement, told “Fox News Sunday” he wants to get enough signatures to file a class-action lawsuit before the high court and will appeal to younger Americans, who appear to be advancing the cause of less government and civil liberties.

“I’m going to be asking all the Internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit,” he said. “If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington.”

Paul, a first-term senator and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said he disagrees with President Obama’s argument that the National Security Agency collecting 3 billion calls daily and other information is a modest invasion of privacy.

“That doesn’t look like a modest invasion of privacy,” he told Fox. “I have no problem if you have probable cause … but we’re talking about trolling through a billion phone records a day.”

...

Washington officials have acknowledged all branches of the federal government – Congress, the White House and federal courts – knew about the collection of data under the Patriot Act.

Paul also said the government should be using a specific warrant, not a general warrant, to get the data, arguing the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure.

“The Founding Fathers didn’t want that,” he said. “I think the American people are with me. Young people who use computers are with me.”

...

Peter1469
06-09-2013, 08:03 PM
It will be interesting to see how that turns out. Although he is going to have to start in federal district court and work his way up.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 08:48 AM
From the 'quibbling' link I posted upthread:


Marc Ambinder, author of "Deep State: Inside The Government Secrecy Industry," wrote (http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism) this evening that PRISM is an unclassified "data processing tool" used by many NSA components. It's not, he said, the name of a secret surveillance program.

PRISM is also the name of a data processing tool used for other intelligence purposes, meaning it may be the same utility. It stands for "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management," and it's long been in common military use. An Air Force-commissioned report that predates the FISA Amendments, for instance, describes PRISM (PDF (http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR434.pdf)) as "Web-based collection management software." It's not unusual to see PRISM experience required in job postings (http://prescientedge.hrmdirect.com/employment/job-opening.php?req=112831&&) at government contractors as well.

Stewart Baker, the NSA's general counsel in the 1990s and now an attorney at Steptoe and Johnson, said he was not familiar with PRISM or similar government activity, but the leaked Powerpoint presentation sounds "flaky," as do the initial reports.

"The Powerpoint is suffused with a kind of hype that makes it sound more like a marketing pitch than a briefing -- we don't know what its provenance is and we don't know the full context," Baker said. He added, referring to the Post's coverage: "It looks rushed and it looks wrong."


I'm beginning to think this whole thing is bullshit. We know two things: the authorities monitor telephones to detect patterns, something the authorities (including your average police department) has been doing for years.

We also know that the authorities have been monitoring foreigners for specific activities.

Big fucking deal.

The guy that leaked the information sounds like a total dbag with delusions of grandeur.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 08:49 AM
You wait for 4 minutes and start posting about crickets? I've waited for 24 hours for you to provide an answer: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13553-More-NSA-Spying-on-Citizens?p=302969&viewfull=1#post302969.

Crickets? I hear bullfrogs.
I told you to google it. If people ask me things with a shitty attitude I'm not inclined to help them out.

Chris
06-10-2013, 08:53 AM
I'm beginning to think this whole thing is bullshit. We know two things: the authorities monitor telephones to detect patterns, something the authorities (including your average police department) has been doing for years.

We also know that the authorities have been monitoring foreigners for specific activities.

Big fucking deal.

The guy that leaked the information sounds like a total dbag with delusions of grandeur.

Except this is not about the Verizon leak, Marie. It's about the PRISM program monitoring out emails and Internet usage.

Chris
06-10-2013, 08:54 AM
I told you to google it. If people ask me things with a shitty attitude I'm not inclined to help them out.

Talk about a shitty attitude. You made the claim, you can't back it up, you blame me. Why am I responsible to supporting your claim?

Ravi
06-10-2013, 08:55 AM
Except this is not about the Verizon leak, Marie. It's about the PRISM program monitoring out emails and Internet usage.
From what has been said they are monitoring foreigners not Americans.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 08:55 AM
Talk about a shitty attitude. You made the claim, you can't back it up, you blame me. Why am I responsible to supporting your claim?

Some one else posted it for you and you couldn't even admit you were wrong. Priceless.

Chris
06-10-2013, 08:59 AM
From what has been said they are monitoring foreigners not Americans.

Where do you see that? Substantiate your opinions for once. --Of course, you don't have to, but then they're just mere opinions.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:00 AM
Some one else posted it for you and you couldn't even admit you were wrong. Priceless.

Where? Why the vagueness? Are you referring to sedan? He didn't substantiate your claim, his post was addressed twice already.

Mainecoons
06-10-2013, 09:06 AM
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=9988C0C07C1CF71E9ADE598760F70DA2

Courage. Honor. Sacrifice.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 09:09 AM
Where do you see that? Substantiate your opinions for once. --Of course, you don't have to, but then they're just mere opinions.
Here's a tip for you, Chris. Get your news from more than one source then you'll be able to discuss things rationally. Several people have reported that PRISM is targeting foreigners and not Americans.

Mainecoons
06-10-2013, 09:13 AM
Sources?

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:17 AM
Here's a tip for you, Chris. Get your news from more than one source then you'll be able to discuss things rationally. Several people have reported that PRISM is targeting foreigners and not Americans.

I get my news from many sources. I obviously get none from you, just opinions.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:17 AM
Sources?

Government? :shocked:

Mainecoons
06-10-2013, 09:19 AM
Probably.

:rofl:

Ravi
06-10-2013, 09:20 AM
I get my news from many sources. I obviously get none from you, just opinions.
You certainly haven't shown a source that backs up your retarded claim that the government is using this program to spy on Americans.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:22 AM
You certainly haven't shown a source that backs up your retarded claim that the government is using this program to spy on Americans.

Is that another example of shitty attitude, marie?

See the OP and other posts.

Mainecoons
06-10-2013, 09:28 AM
You certainly haven't shown a source that backs up your retarded claim that the government is using this program to spy on Americans.

And your sources are?

We're still waiting.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 09:34 AM
Is that another example of shitty attitude, marie?

See the OP and other posts.I did. There's nothing in the OP that backs up your claim.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 09:35 AM
And your sources are?

We're still waiting.
It's up to you to prove your allegations, dope. You believe the American government has been doing X then you must prove it true. I know rumors are fun and all but you people get more ridiculous by the day.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:39 AM
I did. There's nothing in the OP that backs up your claim.

What's my claim, marie?

My claim is the evidence admits to the possibility NSA is spying on us. The OP supports that. I don't know that they are, just as you don't know they're not. From this I say the American people deserve to know about this and to decide what to do about it.

Ravi
06-10-2013, 09:40 AM
What's my claim, marie?

My claim is the evidence admits to the possibility NSA is spying on us. The OP supports that. I don't know that they are, just as you don't know they're not. From this I say the American people deserve to know about this and to decide what to do about it.
Evidence admits the possibility that the NSA is spying on us. How droll.

I haven't even seen THAT evidence. Nor have you.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:41 AM
It's up to you to prove your allegations, dope. You believe the American government has been doing X then you must prove it true. I know rumors are fun and all but you people get more ridiculous by the day.

Ah, more of that shitty attitude, marie? Stop calling names and insulting. And don't you think you should practice what you preach and "prove" your claims?

Mister D
06-10-2013, 09:45 AM
Here's a tip for you, Chris. Get your news from more than one source then you'll be able to discuss things rationally. Several people have reported that PRISM is targeting foreigners and not Americans.

What are your sources?

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:55 AM
...The information included a secret court order directing Verizon Communications Inc to turn over all its calling records for a three-month period, and details about an NSA program code-named PRISM, which collected emails, chat logs and other types of data from Internet companies. These included Google Inc, Facebook Inc, Microsoft Corp, Yahoo Inc, AOL Inc and Apple Inc.

Snowden cast himself as a whistleblower alarmed about overreaching by the U.S. intelligence establishment, which was given broad powers after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and can take now take advantage of the huge growth in digital data.

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have vigorously defended the NSA's efforts as both legal and necessary. U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper took the rare step of responding in detail to stories about PRISM.

...Intelligence officials and the technology companies say PRISM is much less invasive than initially suggested by stories in the Guardian and the Post. Several people familiar with negotiations between the Silicon Valley giants and intelligence officials said the NSA could not rummage at will through company servers and that requests for data had to be about specific accounts believed to be overseas.

Still, the revelations alarmed civil liberties advocates and some lawmakers who had supported the Patriot Act, which gave intelligence agencies new powers after 9/11, and another law granting telecommunication carriers immunity for eavesdropping at the request of the government.

"This is the law, but the way the law is being interpreted has really concerned me," Democratic Senator Mark Udall said on ABC on Sunday. "It's just to me a violation of our privacy, particularly if it's done in ways that we don't know about."

Of primary concern for Udall and others was that millions of Americans have had their phone habits and other records perused by computer programs and analysts hunting for connections to terrorists or foreign governments - even though the NSA is generally barred from spying on U.S. citizens.

One former high-ranking NSA official told Reuters that such broad assembly of records was essential to investigations.....

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-usa-security-summary-idUSBRE95902X20130610

Mister D
06-10-2013, 09:57 AM
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-usa-security-summary-idUSBRE95902X20130610

And I seriously doubt it's just Verizon.

Chris
06-10-2013, 09:59 AM
All the major service providers. From an NSA slide:

http://i.snag.gy/13iOp.jpg

Mister D
06-10-2013, 10:07 AM
I'm somewhat less alarmed if only because I suspect this is hardly new.

Chris
06-10-2013, 10:08 AM
Love this one: NSA: Trust us, we're spying legally (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20130610_NSA__Trust_us__we_re_spying_legally.html)


The agency with the power and legal authority to gather electronic communications worldwide to hunt U.S. adversaries says it has the technical know-how to ensure it's not illegally spying on Americans.

But mistakes do happen in data-sifting conducted mostly by machines, not humans. Sometimes, former intelligence officials say, that means intelligence agencies destroy material they should not have seen, passed to them by the Fort Meade, Md.-based National Security Agency....

"Through software, you can search for key words and key phrases linking a communication to a particular group or individual that would fire it off to individual agencies that have interest in it," just like Amazon or Google scans millions of emails and purchases to track consumer preferences, explained Marks.

Like "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or--damn, that was a different agency and different scandal.

I develop software applications for a living and I can tell you key word search is pretty damned primitive. Don't believe me, search for something with google or bing, much more highly sophisticated search algorithms, and look at all the "junk" you get back in results.

Mister D
06-10-2013, 10:10 AM
For the life of me I don't understand how anyone could be so naive as to trust the state not to use this information for whatever it wants.

Chris
06-10-2013, 10:44 AM
http://i.snag.gy/YGJHu.jpg

Mainecoons
06-10-2013, 10:53 AM
:rofl:

Chris
06-10-2013, 08:40 PM
From http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/this-might-be-the-girlfriend-edward-snowden-left-behind

http://i.snag.gy/LbEUx.jpg

(Some other pics mildly graphic, so be warned.)



My God, Edward Snowden has got to be an idiot nutter!

Chris
06-10-2013, 08:45 PM
In other news, Sales of George Orwell’s ’1984′ up 69 percent on Amazon (http://washingtonexaminer.com/sales-of-orwells-1984-up-69-percent-on-amazon-list/article/2531503).

Chris
06-11-2013, 06:08 AM
...These activities violate the Fourth Amendment, which says warrants must be specific—"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And what is the government doing with these records? The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?

No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.

What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation. Americans should trust the National Security Agency as much as they do the IRS and Justice Department....

@ Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578537720921466776.html)

Mainecoons
06-11-2013, 08:19 AM
They are perfectly happy with being watched, apparently.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

The sheeple have become so dumbed down they can't connect the IRS, using government to target those with beliefs that government bureaucrats don't like, with the almost certain eventuality that other bureaucrats will use this spying to target those with beliefs the government doesn't like.

America is toast.

Ransom
06-11-2013, 09:10 AM
For the life of me I don't understand how anyone could be so naive as to trust the state not to use this information for whatever it wants.

Mister D. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't see this coming. We have an entitlement mentality in this country. Many of us believe jobs are created in Washington DC. That the government is the answer to every question, the solution to each and every problem. Cradle to grave social programs. This new Obamacare much the same, our medical records and that of our familiy's now wide open to government scrutiny and decisions. Government expansion and extension into nearly every fabric of our society with a particular political Party currently in power....calling for even more expansion and extension. We trust the IRS not to be corrupt, we trust the Department of Justice to act within the law. We trust Obama, look to any poll or any of the sheepish writings on these pages, look at how many people slobber all over and trust the President to make decisions for them.

jillian
06-11-2013, 02:46 PM
Mister D. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't see this coming. We have an entitlement mentality in this country. Many of us believe jobs are created in Washington DC. That the government is the answer to every question, the solution to each and every problem. Cradle to grave social programs. This new Obamacare much the same, our medical records and that of our familiy's now wide open to government scrutiny and decisions. Government expansion and extension into nearly every fabric of our society with a particular political Party currently in power....calling for even more expansion and extension. We trust the IRS not to be corrupt, we trust the Department of Justice to act within the law. We trust Obama, look to any poll or any of the sheepish writings on these pages, look at how many people slobber all over and trust the President to make decisions for them.

this has nothing to do with "entitlements" it has to do with post 9/11 fear and the passage and renewal of the patriot act and everything that encompasses.

Mainecoons
06-11-2013, 02:56 PM
And the apparent abuse of bad legislation by an out of control fourth estate.

Russ Feingold was clairvoyant on this one.


One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone - perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That's it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/17083023397/unfortunate-that-russ-feingold-got-swept-out-office-2010-as-his-predictions-have-come-true.shtml

Ransom
06-11-2013, 04:50 PM
this has nothing to do with "entitlements" it has to do with post 9/11 fear and the passage and renewal of the patriot act and everything that encompasses.

But it does have mush to do with an entitlement mentality. Many believe government is here to care for you, as Mister D says, they're naive enough to believe the government has their best interest at heart. It's why many people will trust the government with these phone and surveillance records...the public already sold on it being a good thing to hand their health care over to the government. Look through the trees Jillian...there is a forest there.

Chris
06-11-2013, 07:31 PM
this has nothing to do with "entitlements" it has to do with post 9/11 fear and the passage and renewal of the patriot act and everything that encompasses.

Right, to express concern about those issues. Our government has for some long time now gone too far.

Chris
06-12-2013, 11:17 AM
Edward Snowden To South China Morning Post: Let Hong Kong 'Decide My Fate' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/edward-snowden-south-china-morning-post_n_3428057.html)


Edward Snowden spoke out for the first time since revealing his identity as the source of information about the National Security Agency's secret surveillance programs, telling the South China Morning Post on Wednesday that he plans to stay in Hong Kong until he is "asked to leave."

The newspaper published its exclusive interview with Snowden on Wednesday night local time. He told Post reporter Lana Lam, "I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American."

...Snowden addressed why he fled to Hong Kong during the interview. “People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions," Snowden told the Post. "I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality." He added that he had "faith" in Hong Kong's justice system, and that his "intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide [his] fate."

Snowden has previously said that he sought refuge in Hong Kong for its "spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent." The revelation sparked spirited debate about whether it was a wise choice, with some experts arguing that Hong Kong would likely extradite Snowden to the United States given the treaty between the two governments. Other legal experts, however, said that he could remain in Hong Kong for years if he fights extradition attempts in court.

...

The interview: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden tells SCMP: 'Let Hong Kong people decide my fate' (http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259422/edward-snowden-let-hong-kong-people-decide-my-fate).

Chris
06-12-2013, 11:20 AM
Interesting commentary: Establishment renders harsh verdict on Edward Snowden (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-washington-reaction-92614.html)


He is the toast of the libertarian left and the libertarian right. But for most of the political establishment, across the ideological spectrum, it has taken only a few days to conclude that Edward Snowden is nothing less than a dangerous villain.
If any part of Snowden hoped for a Pentagon Papers-style response to his leaks – a round of applause across Washington and New York at the daring revelation of secret national security information – this week certainly shattered any such illusion.

Ask nearly anyone in a position of authority in Washington and you will get a similar judgment on Snowden, the 29-year-old former defense contractor who exposed a vast National Security Agency surveillance program in multiple newspapers last week....

Emphasis mine.

Ravi
06-12-2013, 11:25 AM
Libertarians always put themselves before everyone else, why is this noteworthy?

Chris
06-12-2013, 11:31 AM
Libertarians always put themselves before everyone else, why is this noteworthy?

Where do you get that nonsense from, Marie? Just make it up or repeating some straw man you heard somewhere?

Chris
06-12-2013, 11:31 AM
http://i.snag.gy/5Pfsi.jpg

Chris
06-13-2013, 09:08 AM
We discussed metadata some yesterday. Here's what metadata is from A Guardian guide to your metadata (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-is-metadata-nsa-surveillance?CMP=twt_gu#meta=1111111).

Content:

http://i.snag.gy/7cy3O.jpg

Form:

http://i.snag.gy/W6YPR.jpg

Case:

http://i.snag.gy/w3gkx.jpg

Peter1469
06-13-2013, 09:12 AM
Petraeus sure has a big smile in that pic.

Ravi
06-13-2013, 09:35 AM
I think the Guardian is being a little far fetched. Unless you've plugged your name into your camera how would anyone determine the photographers name? Ditto with email, unless you've signed up for your email account with your real name.

The FBI had warrents re Patraeus so that's a stupid case to bring up.

Most of the other meta data is easily gotten by anyone. In a way, the NSA would have to be stupid NOT to look at it if their goal is catching terrorists.

Chris
06-13-2013, 09:47 AM
I think the Guardian is being a little far fetched. Unless you've plugged your name into your camera how would anyone determine the photographers name? Ditto with email, unless you've signed up for your email account with your real name.

The FBI had warrents re Patraeus so that's a stupid case to bring up.

Most of the other meta data is easily gotten by anyone. In a way, the NSA would have to be stupid NOT to look at it if their goal is catching terrorists.

The point was an explanation of what metadata is, how it's culled from content, and how it's used. The point was not about whether it's appropriate or not, marie.

So, based on your comments, you would support a big brother-like police state?

Ravi
06-13-2013, 10:01 AM
Oh, damn, I forgot to read the title of the thread!

Chris
06-13-2013, 10:43 AM
Oh, damn, I forgot to read the title of the thread!

And look at the post you commented on apparently.

It's OK, seems to be a common practice around here.

junie
06-13-2013, 10:47 AM
Or ... maybe not (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/):


The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned.

Recent reports in the Washington Post and the Guardian claimed a classified program called PRISM grants "intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers" and that "from inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes."

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

No evidence of NSA's 'direct access' to tech companies (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/)





exactly...

Chris
06-13-2013, 10:53 AM
exactly...

That's been addressed three times already, junie, repeat much?

Ravi
06-13-2013, 10:54 AM
And look at the post you commented on apparently.

It's OK, seems to be a common practice around here.
That one flew right over your head.

Chris
06-13-2013, 10:56 AM
That one flew right over your head.

Thanks for the insult. Kind of early in the day for that.

Chris
06-13-2013, 11:00 AM
Opinions on all this...


Yesterday, the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center released a joint poll that purportedly showed that “a large majority of Americans” believe the federal government should focus on “investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy is compromised.”

But a careful look at the poll shows citizens are far less sanguine about surrendering their privacy rights, as the facts continue to be revealed.

Pollsters faced a difficult challenge—to accurately capture public opinion during a complex and evolving story. Recall, on Wednesday of last week, the story was about the NSA tracking Verizon phone records. So the pollsters drew up a perfectly reasonable and balanced question:


As you may know, it has been reported that the National Security Agency has been getting secret court orders to track telephone call records of MILLIONS of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism. Would you consider this access to telephone call records an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?

Fifty-six percent found this “acceptable.” Thus, the “majority of Americans” lead in the Washington Post.

However, on Thursday, the Washington Post revealed explosive details about the massive data-collection program PRISM—and the public was alerted that the NSA was not just collecting phone records, but email, Facebook, and other online records. So the pollsters quickly drew up a new question, asked starting Friday, from June 7-9:


Do you think the U.S. government should be able to monitor everyone’s email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks?

Fifty-two percent—a majority—said “no.” So Americans feel differently about the story based on the facts on Wednesday, when the story was about tracking “telephone calls,” and facts on Thursday, when the story was about motoring all “email and other online activity.”

The Washington Post could have fairly gone with a story that a majority of Americans do not agree that the federal government should monitor everyone’s email and online communication, even if it might prevent future terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, that’s not the story that the Washington Post went with. Subsequent media coverage of the Post-Pew poll has neglected this nuance and cemented this misinterpretation of what “majority of Americans” believe.

A more reasonable interpretation of the Post-Pew poll is that citizens’ views seem to be changing as more details are revealed about the massive extent of the NSA snooping program. Indeed, most citizens have not been following this story as closely with only 48 percent report following thing “very closely” or “fairly closely.”

I’ll be watching eagerly to see what the next polls find out about that ever elusive “majority of Americans.”

@ NSA Snooping: a Majority of Americans Believe What? (http://www.cato.org/blog/nsa-snooping-majority-americans-believe-what)

junie
06-13-2013, 11:34 AM
I think the Guardian is being a little far fetched. Unless you've plugged your name into your camera how would anyone determine the photographers name? Ditto with email, unless you've signed up for your email account with your real name.

The FBI had warrants re Patraeus so that's a stupid case to bring up.

Most of the other meta data is easily gotten by anyone. In a way, the NSA would have to be stupid NOT to look at it if their goal is catching terrorists.



most of the people who are so freaked-out by metadata are the same type who are too afraid of government to fill out a census form...

junie
06-13-2013, 11:34 AM
...a government program called PRISM, which allegedly allows the NSA and FBI to have back-door access to information from some of the world’s leading internet companies, we have seen leaders from both Facebook and Apple come out to deny that they have any knowledge of such a program. But what about Google? Any chance they have joined this super secret PRISM program and are handing over your life to the government?

According to CEO Larry Page and CLO David Drummond, that is not the case at all. In fact, in a post through the official Google blog that went up moments ago, Larry Page started off the conversation with, “What the…?”

The two make it clear that they “have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government direct access” to their servers. Like most of the world, they had not heard of PRISM until yesterday. Again, there is no direct access or back-door into their data centers.


Second, they only provide user data to governments in accordance with the law. But even when information is requested, they still review each and every request, and “frequently” push back when requests are “overly broad.”


http://www.droid-life.com/2013/06/07/googles-larry-page-responds-with-what-the-to-reports-of-government-prism-program/






At the moment, there is a gap in the facts between what the PowerPoint slides leaked by Snowden appear to depict – and Google's flat denials; in particular, the company insists that its senior executives, at least, never heard of Prism before it splashed into global headlines last week.

Even so, Google disclosed today that it did hand over consumer data to the feds, but only using rudimentary technologies.


Google's corporate spokesman, Chris Gaither, issued this statement: "We refuse to participate in any program — for national security or other reasons — that requires us to provide governments with access to our systems or to install their equipment on our networks. When required to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the US government--generally through secure FTP transfers and in person. The US government does not have the ability to pull that data directly from our servers or network."


Claudia Rast, a privacy attorney at Butzel Long, says the company's assertions that it resorted to use of simple File Transfer Protocal, or FTP, data transferring technology, and even simpler hand deliveries, to honor very narrow data requests from the feds rings true.


By contrast, the PowerPoint slides published by The Guardian clearly identify the tech companies as supplying data to Prism. Yet the slide graphics really don't specify the technology used, nor the frequency of the requests, nor the scope of the data transferred.


Rast said it would be just plain good legal sense for Google and the other tech companies to treat data requests from the feds very conservatively.
"Legally, a company's not going to allow wide open access to their data," Rast says. "They're going to want specific time frame and scope of the search."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/cybertruth/2013/06/12/analysis-why-google-can-flatly-deny-knowledge-of-prism/2417085/

Chris
06-13-2013, 11:43 AM
most of the people who are so freaked-out by metadata are the same type who are too afraid of government to fill out a census form...


...

Do you think that by using larger fonts and bolding you're making some point that has not already been addressed?

Discussion ought to proceed by argument and counterargument in a chain each commenting on the previous comment.

Not by merely circling back and repeating the same point again and again ad nauseum. You know what they say about repeating actions expecting different results.

junie
06-13-2013, 11:49 AM
A 1979 ruling over a small-scale collection of calling “metadata,” Smith v. Maryland, held that such records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment since people have revealed such information to phone companies and so have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

...


In other lawsuits against national security policies, the government has often persuaded courts to dismiss them without ruling on the merits by arguing that litigation would reveal state secrets (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html) or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html) and so lacked standing in court.


This case may be different. The government has now declassified (http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized-disclosures-of-classified-information) the existence of the program. And the A.C.L.U. is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services — the recipient of a leaked secret court order for all its domestic calling records — which it says gives it standing.


The call logging program keeps a record of “metadata” from domestic phone calls, including which numbers were dialed and received, from which location, and the time and duration.


The effort began as part of the Bush administration’s post-Sept. 11 programs of surveillance without court approval (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA), which has continued since 2006 with the blessing of a national security court. The court has secretly ruled that bulk surveillance is authorized by a section of the Patriot Act that allows the F.B.I. to obtain “business records” relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.

...James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said that officials may access the database only if they can meet a legal justification — “reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.” Queries are audited under the oversight of the national security court.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html

Chris
06-13-2013, 11:52 AM
Politics is not about what is but what ought to be. Legal positivism is a poor argument indeed.

junie
06-13-2013, 12:10 PM
Politics is not about what is but what ought to be. Legal positivism is a poor argument indeed.


it may be super comfy for you and your ilk to live in la la land where every ideal is so easy peasy to just think of and find comfort in grasping the concept of, but then there's the real world where our law makers have to balance and solve real-life complex problems... despite all the libertarian histrionics, most rational people have no problem with the government being able to connect the metadata dots to solve crimes on a case by case basis. our government ought not handcuff itself from protecting our citizenry from avowed terrorists just to appease unreasonable fear of government harming innocent people with metadata information which is already easily obtained...


officials may access the database only if they can meet a legal justification — “reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.” Queries are audited under the oversight of the national security court.

Chris
06-13-2013, 12:32 PM
it may be super comfy for you and your ilk to live in la la land where every ideal is so easy peasy to just think of and find comfort in grasping the concept of, but then there's the real world where our law makers have to balance and solve real-life complex problems... despite all the libertarian histrionics, most rational people have no problem with the government being able to connect the metadata dots to solve crimes on a case by case basis. our government ought not handcuff itself from protecting our citizenry from avowed terrorists just to appease unreasonable fear of government harming innocent people with metadata information which is already easily obtained...

Thanks for the continuing personal insults, junie, but they do nothing for your argument.

Again, your legal positivism argument is a poor one.





3 Reasons the ‘Nothing to Hide’ Crowd Should Be Worried About Government Surveillance (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd):


Responding to a popular reaction to news of the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, blogger Daniel Sieradski started a Twitter feed called “Nothing to Hide.” He has retweeted hundreds of people who have declared in one form or another that they are not concerned that the federal government may spy on them. They say they have done nothing wrong, so they have nothing to hide. If it helps the government fight terrorists, go ahead, take their civil liberties away.

In his blog, a frustrated Sieradski listed many of the abuses of power our federal government is known for; he is not happy with the "nothing to hide" crowd.

There are many, many reasons to be concerned about the rise of the surveillance state, even if you have nothing to hide. Or rather, even if you think you have nothing to hide. For those confronted by such simplistic arguments, here are a three counterarguments that perhaps might get these people thinking about what they’re actually giving up.

1. Every American Is Probably a Criminal, Really...

2. The Federal Government Has Abused its Surveillance Powers Before...

3. Government Is Made of People, and Some People Are Creepy, Petty, Incompetent, or Dangerous...


2 other counterarguments.

One, we voluntarily give Verizon and Google and other companies our private information because they make privacy agreements with us.

Two, if all the government is doing is obtaining readily available private information, then why is it being so secretive about it and was revealing it a crime?

Chris
06-13-2013, 12:47 PM
The Sum of All Fears: The IRS audits and NSA surveillance flow into the same national anxieties (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578541503659850678.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)


Here is Barack Obama commenting last Friday on the National Security Agency's antiterrorist surveillance programs: "We've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. And if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here."

Uh-huh.

Herewith a partial list of political groups that said they were subjected to over-the-top audits by the Internal Revenue Service:

Greenwich Tea Party Patriots, Greater Phoenix Tea PartyPatriots, Laurens County Tea Party, Northeast Tarrant Tea Party, Myrtle Beach Tea Party, Albuquerque Tea Party, San Antonio Tea Party, Richmond Tea Party, Manassas Tea Party, Honolulu Tea Party, Waco Tea Party, Chattanooga Tea Party and American Patriots Against Government Excess.

What that target list shows is there was never one "tea party." It was collections of citizens spontaneously gathering all over the country under one easy-to-remember name. Their purpose was to do politics. For that, their government hit them hard.

In January the pollsters at the Pew Research Center reported that for the first time a majority of Americans—53%—now agree that "the federal government threatens your own personal rights and freedoms."

This is far beyond concerns about the size of government. A majority of people now see the government of Madison, Jefferson and Franklin as a direct, personal threat.

So yes, we have "some problems" here.

(emphasis mine)

Ravi
06-13-2013, 01:02 PM
It is no surprise at all that a majority fear the government since for the last several years the meme has been changed from the government will protect you from terrorism (under Bush) to Obama is a muslim negroe commmie fucker that's coming to take your guns.

There is a sucker born every minute.

Mister D
06-13-2013, 01:06 PM
The only suckers are those who genuinely believe this government has their best interest in mind.

Chris
06-13-2013, 01:21 PM
It is no surprise at all that a majority fear the government since for the last several years the meme has been changed from the government will protect you from terrorism (under Bush) to Obama is a muslim negroe commmie fucker that's coming to take your guns.

There is a sucker born every minute.

Similar could be said of Democrats.

Partisans are such an odd lot of hypocrites.

Chris
06-13-2013, 03:09 PM
http://i.snag.gy/IrNeT.jpg

Ravi
06-13-2013, 03:16 PM
Only 30,000. I thought it was millions or hundreds of millions.

Ransom
06-13-2013, 04:13 PM
It is no surprise at all that a majority fear the government since for the last several years the meme has been changed from the government will protect you from terrorism (under Bush) to Obama is a muslim negroe commmie fucker that's coming to take your guns.

There is a sucker born every minute.

Obama was the junior Senator from Illinois, the city he claimed for his own has the highest gun violence in America. He couldn't even keep guns from criminals in his own city, who would think he'd be smart enough to come get our guns. This moron isn't qualified to do the Bush family laundry but yet was elected President. Sucker born every 30 seconds, huh Marie?

Cannot make this shit up..

sedan
06-13-2013, 04:18 PM
Discussion ought to proceed by argument and counterargument in a chain each commenting on the previous comment.

Not by merely circling back and repeating the same point again and again ad nauseum. You know what they say about repeating actions expecting different results.

OMFG the irony!!!!

Dude -- "circling back and repeating the same point again and again ad nauseum" describes the majority of your posts to a tee.

Ad hom! Ad hom! Ad hom!

Emotionalism! Emotionalism! Emotionalism!'

I know you are but what am I! I know you are but what am I!

All you do is throw out the same bullshit over and over and over -- and you have the gall to accuse someone else of doing the same?!?

Simply amazing ...

sedan
06-13-2013, 04:21 PM
Back on topic:



Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blogg Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”

In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W891Bf00)

Ransom
06-13-2013, 04:24 PM
In 2008, Candidate for President Senator Obama voted with Bush and the President then signed the Surveillance Act. The thorny issue at that time was immunity from prosecution for companies handing over sensitive/private data to our government upon request.

Why is everyone going off the deep end about this now?

Chris
06-13-2013, 05:11 PM
OMFG the irony!!!!

Dude -- "circling back and repeating the same point again and again ad nauseum" describes the majority of your posts to a tee.

Ad hom! Ad hom! Ad hom!

Emotionalism! Emotionalism! Emotionalism!'

I know you are but what am I! I know you are but what am I!

All you do is throw out the same bullshit over and over and over -- and you have the gall to accuse someone else of doing the same?!?

Simply amazing ...

Did you have something significant to add or did you just want to criticize yourself and your fellow travellers? I'ts not very politice to insult others though.

Chris
06-13-2013, 05:18 PM
Back on topic:



Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blogg Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”

In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W891Bf00)

So now you attack Greenwald as messenger--anything to avoid the message?


The implications of this interpretation, if correct....

I suggest you find out if the blogger is correct first.


“Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,”

That's not what I understand. They instead request batches of data, according to a few posts above, over 30,000 requests in the last year.


NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide]

So you're vouching for the slides authenticity. Why, if Greenwald, misinterpreted, does that merit calling him names, the ad hom?


In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit

So you're vouching for the data moving from private companies to NSA. Well, that's the message.


You don't anywhere address that message. Instead you nitpick Greenwald, attack a messenger, and leave the message standing. Thank you!!

Chris
06-13-2013, 05:31 PM
Apparently, sedan, anonymous is going to help verify the docs by providing more.

'How little rights you have:' Anonymous leaks more PRISM-related NSA docs (http://rt.com/usa/anonymous-leaks-prism-nsa-docs-395/)


Hackers affiliated with the Anonymous collective have leaked a US Department of Defense memo relating to the PRISM program, revealing that the National Security Agency has secretly gathered intelligence on millions of Americans for years.

The hacktivists, who have long sought complete transparency online and elsewhere, published a total of thirteen documents, one of which outlines the US government’s “NetOps Strategic Vision” for monitoring the Internet.

The documents are mostly pulled from 2008, just after when the government reportedly began using PRISM to mine servers at technology companies including Microsoft and Yahoo. An NSA slideshow published Thursday by the Guardian and the Washington Post reveals the intelligence community first gained access to Google in January of 2009 and Facebook in June of the same year.

“NetOps will transform along with the Global Information Grid to dynamically support new warfighting, intelligence, and business processes and enable users to access and share trusted information in a timely manner,” one document states.

“The future Global Information Grid will result in a richer Net-Centric information environment comprised of shared services and capabilities based on advanced technologies."

http://i.snag.gy/mTTZa.jpg

“It will be heavily reliant on end-to-end virtual networks to interconnect anyone, anywhere, at any time with any type of information through voice, video, images, or text. It will also be faced with greater security threats that NetOps must help address.”

Much of the leak contains vague language that outlines the desired goals of the “NetOps Vision,” not details on how surveillance is conducted or the individuals or groups targeted by the NSA. At least a section of Friday’s information dump was previously made available by the government, according to technology news site ZD Net, which found the data on Web.Archive.org.

Anonymous, however, reminded readers to share the documents before the figurative “they” try to make them disappear.

“Anonymous has obtained some documents that ‘they’ do not want you to see, and much to ‘their’ chagrin, we have found them, and are giving them to you,” the poster writes. “This is happening in over 35 countries and done in cooperation with private businesses, and intelligence partners worldwide. We bring this to you so that you know just how little rights you have.”

Ravi
06-13-2013, 05:34 PM
Back on topic:


Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blogg Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”

In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W891Bf00)


It's quite possible that Greenwald has destroyed his credibility.

Chris
06-13-2013, 06:59 PM
NSA leaks hint Microsoft may have lied about Skype security (http://rt.com/usa/gallagher-nsa-microsoft-skype-653/)


Microsoft may have misled millions of Skype users around the world by making claims last year that have since been contradicted by intelligence leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

National Security Agency documents leaked by Snowden...

Ryan Gallagher of Slate noted this week that one of the slides cited by the Washington Post was labeled a “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” suggesting that the NSA has in place a method for eavesdropping on conversations conducted over the popular Web client acquired in 2011 by Microsoft.

According to the slide, NSA agents can listen in or watch Skype chats “when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of 'audio, video, chat, and file transfers' when Skype users connect by computer alone.”

“This piece of information is significant for a number of reasons,” wrote Gallagher, but the most crucial perhaps is how it compares to Microsoft’s remarks last year. As RT wrote in 2012, Microsoft was awarded a patent that summer that provides for “legal intercept” technology that allows for agents to “silently copy communication transmitted via the communication session” without asking for user authorization.

At the time, Gallagher was one of the most critical reporters examining the patent, and grilled Microsoft relentlessly to see if this meant that a program previously considered highly-encrypted and tough to crack could provide a backdoor to government agents at the drop of a hat. However, Skype Corporate VP of Product Engineering & Operations Mike Gillet also explained to ExtremeTech.com that the company was making changes in its infrastructure, but that they were being done to “improve the Skype user experience.”

“Skype rejected the charge in a comment issued to the website Extremetech, saying the restructure was an upgrade and had nothing to do with surveillance,” Gallagher wrote at the time, “But when I repeatedly questioned the company on Wednesday whether it could currently facilitate wiretap requests, a clear answer was not forthcoming. Citing ‘company policy,’ Skype PR man Chaim Haas wouldn’t confirm or deny, telling me only that the chat service ‘co-operates with law enforcement agencies as much as is legally and technically possible.’”

This week, Gallagher revisited the issue and explained how Microsoft’s explanation last year is now under fire thanks to NSA leak. Gallagher recalled that Microsoft was driven to releasing a transparency report last year, in which a significant chunk was set aside solely for details on settling requests for Skype data made by law enforcement.

“The report devoted an entire section to Skype and claimed that in 2012, it hadn’t handed any communications content over to authorities anywhere in the world. Microsoft also said in notes accompanying the transparency report that calls made between Skype-Skype users were encrypted peer-to-peer, implying that they did not pass through Microsoft’s central servers and could not be eavesdropped on — except maybe if the government deployed a spy Trojan on a targeted computer to bypass encryption,” Gallagher wrote.

Now enter the “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection” slide, and the story is much different. “That the NSA claims to be able to grab all Skype users’ communications also calls into question the credibility of Microsoft’s transparency report — particularly the claim that in 2012 it did not once hand over the content of any user communications,” Gallagher wrote. “Moreover, according to a leaked NSA slide published by the Post, Skype first became part of the NSA’s PRISM program in February 2011 — three months before Microsoft purchased the service from U.S. private equity firms Silver Lake and Andreessen Horowitz.”

In a statement emailed from Microsoft to Slate, the company said it “went as far as it was legally able in documenting disclosures in its Law Enforcement Requests Report” and that “there should be greater transparency on national security requests and Microsoft would like the government to take steps to allow companies to do that.”

Microsoft’s statement came the same week that one of their largest competitors, Google, pleaded with the government to let them provide more details in their regular transparency reports published online. In a letter sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday, Google asked the Obama administration to allow it to share more information.

"Google's numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made," said David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer. "Google has nothing to hide.”

During testimony made Thursday morning before Congress, Mueller said the NSA leaks attributed to Snowden “have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety” and that the FBI and Justice Department will take “all necessary steps to hold the person responsible.” Meanwhile, US Reps. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) plan to propose legislation this week that would require that the government provides “specific and articulable facts” before it requests phone records of US citizens.

The tail end of that, that Snowden's release of this information has "caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety" is thus also more significant than merely collecting and analyzing common readily available personal information.

jillian
06-14-2013, 06:10 AM
It's quite possible that Greenwald has destroyed his credibility.

well, it certainly seems he isn't dispassionate in assessing the credibility or character of his source

Chris
06-14-2013, 06:24 AM
It's always interesting watching as events such as these unfold how some jump to conclusions before they know all the facts.

Chris
06-14-2013, 06:53 AM
Here's why many are jumping the gun:

FBI Launches Criminal Investigation Into NSA Leaks (http://www.voanews.com/content/fbi-criminal-investigation-launched-into-nsa-leaks/1681615.html)


The director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, is vowing to take swift action against the former CIA analyst who has confessed to leaking documents exposing a pair of top secret government surveillance programs.

Speaking to lawmakers Thursday, FBI chief Mueller confirmed that a criminal investigation has been opened into the leaks, which he said have dealt a blow to U.S. national security.

"These disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety," Mueller said. "We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures."
...

I don't know about swift, but the investigation has just begun. Imagine of the FBI and judicial system jumped the gun the way some do.

Ravi
06-14-2013, 07:11 AM
It's always interesting watching as events such as these unfold how some jump to conclusions before they know all the facts.
I know, like the people that immediately called him a hero. Sometimes people just make you laugh.

Chris
06-14-2013, 07:18 AM
I know, like the people that immediately called him a hero. Sometimes people just make you laugh.

Well, I can't argue with that other than to say those who did that were commenting on the message he delivered rather than on the messenger himself.

Ravi
06-14-2013, 07:20 AM
Well, I can't argue with that other than to say those who did that were commenting on the message he delivered rather than on the messenger himself.

No, if so they would have called his actions heroic.

Chris
06-14-2013, 09:36 AM
No, if so they would have called his actions heroic.

As I understand them it's heroic to inform us at risk of prosecution. Simple as that. The focus is on his actions, not his person as you and others seem intent on tearing apart. Does that make you feel big somehow?

Ravi
06-14-2013, 10:04 AM
As I understand them it's heroic to inform us at risk of prosecution. Simple as that. The focus is on his actions, not his person as you and others seem intent on tearing apart. Does that make you feel big somehow?
Not at all. It is traitorous to give classified information to foreigners. The focus is on his actions, not his person.

See how that works?

Chris
06-14-2013, 10:10 AM
Not at all. It is traitorous to give classified information to foreigners. The focus is on his actions, not his person.

See how that works?

Well that certainly beats calling him a nutter and such.

What facts do you have we don't that say he's a traitor?

If the government is violating the 4th amendment wouldn't the government be the traitor?

junie
06-14-2013, 10:28 AM
As I understand them it's heroic to inform us at risk of prosecution. Simple as that. The focus is on his actions, not his person as you and others seem intent on tearing apart. Does that make you feel big somehow?




i bet it makes this leaker loser feel pretty big to unilaterally hand over classified info to the media.

his actions betray USA security and tear apart our ongoing international diplomacy in the face of avowed terrorists intent on tearing apart the USA... yet you weep for HIM being torn apart and call him hero? pffft

this fool unilaterally decided our classified info needs to be public info... info of activity which was legally authorized by the court and which was legally classified for national security. some young know-nothing techie can just feeeel like we ought to talk about it, and that's so damn heroic? gmafb AS IF the USA hasn't been mindful and vigilant on the 4th amendment all along... this info he was privy to as a techie had nothing to do with his job and he was not authorized to access them beyond his role as a techie. he greatly misinterpreted and misrepresented this info which he was unauthorized to access, never mind publish while hiding in china. he had other legal avenues to pursue complaints of abuse. he is a criminal. America is full of heroes but traitors don't qualify...

Chris
06-14-2013, 10:32 AM
I see junie's back to calling snowden names.


It's appalling to hear the Washington bureaucrats and their media allies trash Edward Snowden as a traitor, when it's our leaders and the NSA who have betrayed us, writes Kirsten Powers.

@ The Sickening Snowden Backlash (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/14/the-sickening-snowden-backlash.html)

junie
06-14-2013, 10:35 AM
go ahead and ignore what i said. HE and those who call him hero are "sickening"... ooh a name! :laugh:

junie
06-14-2013, 10:37 AM
and naive. oooh another name.

Ravi
06-14-2013, 10:50 AM
i bet it makes this leaker loser feel pretty big to unilaterally hand over classified info to the media.

his actions betray USA security and tear apart our ongoing international diplomacy in the face of avowed terrorists intent on tearing apart the USA... yet you weep for HIM being torn apart and call him hero? pffft

this fool unilaterally decided our classified info needs to be public info... info of activity which was legally authorized by the court and which was legally classified for national security. some young know-nothing techie can just feeeel like we ought to talk about it, and that's so damn heroic? gmafb AS IF the USA hasn't been mindful and vigilant on the 4th amendment all along... this info he was privy to as a techie had nothing to do with his job and he was not authorized to access them beyond his role as a techie. he greatly misinterpreted and misrepresented this info which he was unauthorized to access, never mind publish while hiding in china. he had other legal avenues to pursue complaints of abuse. he is a criminal. America is full of heroes but traitors don't qualify...

He sure likes to throw around insults, don't he. I wonder if that makes him feel big?

Chris
06-14-2013, 12:03 PM
go ahead and ignore what i said. HE and those who call him hero are "sickening"... ooh a name! :laugh:

The headline spoke to sickening backlash. Backlash is an action, not a person. It's not name calling. But why do I need to explain the obvious?

Chris
06-14-2013, 12:04 PM
He sure likes to throw around insults, don't he. I wonder if that makes him feel big?

Who, junie?

Chris
06-14-2013, 09:41 PM
Back on topic:



Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwald’s world-shaking scoop about the NSA’s PRISM story—an aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an “epic botch” by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though I’m no expert, I’m sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.

The “crucial question,” as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: “Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data,” as Greenwald says they are, “without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?” This is what the companies have been denying—in statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.” So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining “customer data”? Etc.)

Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called “Cowards” from the blogg Uncrunched—“What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?”—is “mostly wrong.” He says, “It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they don’t have the technical background to know that ‘servers’ is a generic word and doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as ‘the main servers on which a company’s customer-facing services run.’ The ‘servers’ mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply with—they’re just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so.”

In other words, this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: “What the hell are the companies supposed to do?” Fogel jokes. “Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?”

The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSA’s PRISM program works—“the difference,” as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, “between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.”

Excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W891Bf00)



And for yet another response to sedan's gotcha. All it turns out to be in media mishandling and misinterpreting.


There are some rumblings amongst tech types that Glenn Greenwald, in his reporting of the PRISM story, misinterpreted one of the alleged PowerPoint slides. Karl Fogel, a pro-open-source blogger tech type, calls it an "epic botch." So what happened?

Greenwald's original article over at the Guardian revealed that the government has been using a secret court order to force Verizon into handing over an extensive amount of user data on a regular basis. But Fogel, among others, points to this slide:

http://i.snag.gy/ZawFF.jpg

That slide has been interpreted as the government directly tapping into company servers to retrieve whatever information the government wants.... Fogel has a problem with this language; his analysis of the slide indicates that what's actually going on isn't so much companies handing over keys to their servers, but companies creating a private digital locked box in which the government can access data they've requested through legal means.

Fogel writes: "The crucial question is: Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data, without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers?"

Fogel, and many other tech types I've talked to, are outraged about the media handling of this story. In their mind, the media is bungling all of the intricate technical aspects of the story due to a lack of expertise in the field....

....This post, from Mark Jaquith, another tech type, hammers home that "this is not a pedantic point" and insists that Greenwald's misinterpretation could be "the difference between a bombshell and a yawn of a story." I completely disagree; I think it is a worthy point, one that should be discussed and cleaned up, but there's much more at stake here than whether the government had direct access to a company's data. I'm glad these guys are on the case; before we decide how to respond as a country to this program, we need to know exactly what's going on. But I don't think that if the answer turns out to be "no, the government did not have direct access to this data" that we can just brush off our hands and say "well, okay then."

@ What Glenn Greenwald Got Wrong (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/prism-problems-direct-access-epic-botch-or-mere-semantics?src=SOC&dom=tw)

Ransom
06-15-2013, 06:23 AM
i bet it makes this leaker loser feel pretty big to unilaterally hand over classified info to the media.

his actions betray USA security and tear apart our ongoing international diplomacy in the face of avowed terrorists intent on tearing apart the USA... yet you weep for HIM being torn apart and call him hero? pffft

this fool unilaterally decided our classified info needs to be public info... info of activity which was legally authorized by the court and which was legally classified for national security. some young know-nothing techie can just feeeel like we ought to talk about it, and that's so damn heroic? gmafb AS IF the USA hasn't been mindful and vigilant on the 4th amendment all along... this info he was privy to as a techie had nothing to do with his job and he was not authorized to access them beyond his role as a techie. he greatly misinterpreted and misrepresented this info which he was unauthorized to access, never mind publish while hiding in china. he had other legal avenues to pursue complaints of abuse. he is a criminal. America is full of heroes but traitors don't qualify...

May I ask your position on Bradley Manning. Marie's as well? Thanks.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 06:35 AM
imo manning is another little dweeb with delusions of grander putting his own personal bullshit before his fellow citizens. I'd be surprised if Junie felt differently.

Ransom
06-15-2013, 06:37 AM
But Manning is military, and if he's the traitor Snowden is, he should be executed by firing squad. Correct?

Ravi
06-15-2013, 07:04 AM
No, I'm against the death penalty, which is the ultimate expression of big brother.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 08:21 AM
"With more than 1.1 billion monthly active users worldwide," said Ullyot, "this means that a tiny fraction of one percent of our user accounts were the subject of any kind of U.S. state, local, or federal U.S. government request (including criminal and national security-related requests) in the past six months. We hope this helps put into perspective the numbers involved, and lays to rest some of the hyperbolic and false assertions in some recent press accounts about the frequency and scope of the data requests that we receive."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57589463/facebook-around-10k-requests-for-info-from-govt-in-last-6-months/

Chris
06-15-2013, 08:31 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57589463/facebook-around-10k-requests-for-info-from-govt-in-last-6-months/

Any spying on us is traitorous.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 08:41 AM
Right, the police can no longer execute search warrants.

Chris
06-15-2013, 08:49 AM
Right, the police can no longer execute search warrants.

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.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 08:49 AM
Right, the police can no longer execute search warrants.

Search warrants should be specific, not generalized. 4th Amendment, U.S. Const.

jillian
06-15-2013, 08:56 AM
Search warrants should be specific, not generalized. 4th Amendment, U.S. Const.

the 4th amendment doesn't say that.

the case law definition of "reasonable" search and seizure governs... and certain things fall within exceptions to the requirement of a warrant at all.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 08:59 AM
the 4th amendment doesn't say that.

the case law definition of "reasonable" search and seizure governs... and certain things fall within exceptions to the requirement of a warrant at all.

The 4th Amendment was drafted specifically to outlaw general search warrants. That is a large part of what unreasonable search and seizure means.

Chris
06-15-2013, 09:04 AM
the 4th amendment doesn't say that.

the case law definition of "reasonable" search and seizure governs... and certain things fall within exceptions to the requirement of a warrant at all.

Seems like your words lead to saying something but that something is elided or dropped.

What does case law say?

What "certain things"?

Ravi
06-15-2013, 11:07 AM
Search warrants should be specific, not generalized. 4th Amendment, U.S. Const.
We don't know what information they are getting. The courts ruled that meta data does not fall under the 4th. We also don't know what data they asked for from facebook, if it was general or specific or even how much of what Facebook gave them was even related to NSA.

I find what Snowden released to be not creditable. He claims he has more "damning" evidence so why doesn't he release it if his goal is to inform the American people.

The whole thing smacks of bullshit.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 11:09 AM
Which courts have ruled that metadata isn't protected by the 4th Amendment?

Ravi
06-15-2013, 11:20 AM
FISA, lol. I guess that's not going to be good enough.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 12:08 PM
I checked around. SCOTUS in Smith v. Maryland, (1979) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735) held that phone metadata was not protected by the 4th Amendment. Metadata includes a lot more information today that it did in 1979. It would be interesting to see how a contemporary SCOTUS would rule.

Chris
06-15-2013, 12:24 PM
We don't know what information they are getting. The courts ruled that meta data does not fall under the 4th. We also don't know what data they asked for from facebook, if it was general or specific or even how much of what Facebook gave them was even related to NSA.

I find what Snowden released to be not creditable. He claims he has more "damning" evidence so why doesn't he release it if his goal is to inform the American people.

The whole thing smacks of bullshit.

IOW, you don't know what information they're collecting and analyzing and based on that unknown you opine it smack of bullshit.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Chris
06-15-2013, 12:29 PM
FISA, lol. I guess that's not going to be good enough.

Is this a FISA ruling you can link us to or is it a secret ruling?

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 12:34 PM
I think that you have to file a FOIA request to get an opinion made public.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/public-first-secret-court-grants-eff-motion-consenting-disclosure


The FISC gave its OK to the public disclosure of an earlier opinion of the FISC—an opinion that declared aspects of the NSA's surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional.

The link, at the bottom notes that FISA recently created a public database for rulings, although I imagine they use it sparingly.

Chris
06-15-2013, 12:58 PM
I think that you have to file a FOIA request to get an opinion made public.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/public-first-secret-court-grants-eff-motion-consenting-disclosure

So then the earlier referenced FISA ruling on metadata is at best speculation at this point.

The link, at the bottom notes that FISA recently created a public database for rulings, although I imagine they use it sparingly.

sedan
06-15-2013, 02:03 PM
IOW, you don't know what information they're collecting and analyzing and based on that unknown you opine it smack of bullshit.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

First of all, expressing an opinion is not the same thing as making an argument.

You cannot claim a logical fallacy has been committed unless an argument has been put forth.

Second, it is actually Snowden and Greenwald who have created the false perception -- based on incomplete and misinterpreted information -- that the NSA's activities have exceeded the bounds of legality. That is the actual argument from ignorance being made here, but of course we cannot expect you to acknowledge this simple and obvious truth.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 02:04 PM
I checked around. SCOTUS in Smith v. Maryland, (1979) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735) held that phone metadata was not protected by the 4th Amendment. Metadata includes a lot more information today that it did in 1979. It would be interesting to see how a contemporary SCOTUS would rule.

Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something to that effect yesterday but I couldn't find it again, only that FISA said it wasn't unconstitutional.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 02:04 PM
I checked around. SCOTUS in Smith v. Maryland, (1979) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735) held that phone metadata was not protected by the 4th Amendment. Metadata includes a lot more information today that it did in 1979. It would be interesting to see how a contemporary SCOTUS would rule.
btw, what information more does metadata now include?

Ravi
06-15-2013, 02:07 PM
First of all, expressing an opinion is not the same thing as making an argument.

You cannot claim a logical fallacy has been committed unless an argument has been put forth.

Second, it is actually Snowden and Greenwald who have created the false perception -- based on incomplete and misinterpreted information -- that the NSA's activities have exceeded the bounds of legality. That is the actual argument from ignorance being made here, but of course we cannot expect you to acknowledge this simple and obvious truth.Thank you. I was going to say that about opinions but figured there wasn't much point. Chris is just going to continue to insult people that have opinions he doesn't agree with.

As to your second point point, spot on.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 02:15 PM
Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something to that effect yesterday but I couldn't find it again, only that FISA said it wasn't unconstitutional.

I am not sure what court hears appeals from FISA. The link in my post at 166 states that the FISA court has held parts of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional. Those opinions have yet to be made public.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 02:18 PM
btw, what information more does metadata now include?

I am not much of a tech guy. Wiki says: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata)

The case from 1979 referred only to the phone numbers called. Now it would include all sorts of things, like what websites you went to and who you emailed.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 02:53 PM
I am not sure what court hears appeals from FISA. The link in my post at 166 states that the FISA court has held parts of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional. Those opinions have yet to be made public.
I had to read that again and I still don't totally grasp it. FISC is the FISA court, no? And they ruled that something the NSA had done was unconstitutional and apparently the NSA is no longer allowed to do it.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 02:54 PM
I am not much of a tech guy. Wiki says: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata)

The case from 1979 referred only to the phone numbers called. Now it would include all sorts of things, like what websites you went to and who you emailed.

So basically the difference is between where your phone call went and where your IP went.

Chris
06-15-2013, 03:56 PM
First of all, expressing an opinion is not the same thing as making an argument.

You cannot claim a logical fallacy has been committed unless an argument has been put forth.

Second, it is actually Snowden and Greenwald who have created the false perception -- based on incomplete and misinterpreted information -- that the NSA's activities have exceeded the bounds of legality. That is the actual argument from ignorance being made here, but of course we cannot expect you to acknowledge this simple and obvious truth.

First, expressing an opinion is stating an argument. Even just an opinion can be logically fallacious. Don't like it pointed out, don't be logically fallacious.

Second, no, it was Greenwald and much of the media who got some facts wrong. Why do you find it even surprising the media gets things wrong. That's ought to be the point of discussion, to try and get to the truth, rather than, as you seem to try, to bury it.

Third, thanks for the ad hom in your opinionated argument. Try and attack the message rather than the messenger all the time.

Chris
06-15-2013, 03:58 PM
Thank you. I was going to say that about opinions but figured there wasn't much point. Chris is just going to continue to insult people that have opinions he doesn't agree with.

As to your second point point, spot on.

Where have I insulted anyone, marie? Attacking the message is not the same as attacking the messenger as you have just done. Why are you making false accusations?

Chris
06-15-2013, 04:02 PM
We discussed metadata some yesterday. Here's what metadata is from A Guardian guide to your metadata (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-is-metadata-nsa-surveillance?CMP=twt_gu#meta=1111111).

Content:

http://i.snag.gy/7cy3O.jpg

Form:

http://i.snag.gy/W6YPR.jpg

Case:

http://i.snag.gy/w3gkx.jpg

As for questions about metadata, marie, this was posted back on page 10, post 99. If you weren't so busy attacking messengers, you might have noticed.

Chris
06-15-2013, 04:10 PM
Which courts have ruled that metadata isn't protected by the 4th Amendment?


FISA, lol. I guess that's not going to be good enough.


I checked around. SCOTUS in Smith v. Maryland, (1979) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735) held that phone metadata was not protected by the 4th Amendment. Metadata includes a lot more information today that it did in 1979. It would be interesting to see how a contemporary SCOTUS would rule.


Thanks for that. I thought I'd read something to that effect yesterday but I couldn't find it again, only that FISA said it wasn't unconstitutional.

So despite your claim FISA didn't rule on metadata. All there is is a court case from 1979.

Chris
06-15-2013, 04:18 PM
Smith v Maryland 1979:


The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.

The only metadata in the case was numbers dialed. I don't recall the telephone company when I signed up for land lines providing any statements of privacy the way Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others do. I doubt this case would stand as precedence.

Here is Googles: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

Chris
06-15-2013, 04:42 PM
Facebook Reveals Government Spying Numbers [UPDATE: Microsoft, Too] (http://valleywag.gawker.com/facebook-reveals-government-spying-numbers-513581623?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)


It's not enough, but it's sure a start: with post-PRISM privacy backlash still flaring, Facebook pressed the US government to allow some limited disclosure of gag order demands. This is our first glimpse at how much of our data is handed over.

According to top Facebook attorney Ted Ullyot, for a six month period "ending December 31, 2012, the total number of user-data requests Facebook received from any and all government entities in the U.S....was between 9,000 and 10,000." The company can only release so-called "bucketed" numbers in a range, but those 9-to-10 thousand requests correspond to between "18,000 and 19,000 accounts." We don't know how many of these requests were executed by Facebook—a Wall Street Journal source says the company "complied at least partially with 79%" of them. This, as FB is quick to point out, is a minuscule fraction of the network's billion-plus user base—but it is only a six month range out of many, many years of global popularity. It's also worth noting that not all of these requests pertained to FISA or national security-related investigations—some of them could have been for "things like a local sheriff trying to find a missing child," says Ullyot. We don't know.

What we do know is that the company claims it's "continuing to push for even more transparency," and what we can hope is that this will (quickly) translate into a better understanding of how, and how much, we're being watched.

Update: Microsoft followed suit, reports the Journal:

Microsoft later Friday said it received 6,000 to 7,000 requests for data in the second half of the year, from all U.S. government and law-enforcement entities in the U.S.

Ravi
06-15-2013, 04:58 PM
So despite your claim FISA didn't rule on metadata. All there is is a court case from 1979.
Actually, it did, I just didn't link it because I was more interested in Peter's link regarding SCOTUS ruling on metadata. But thanks for your interest.

Chris
06-15-2013, 05:00 PM
Video @ Sarah Palin slams ‘Orwellian’ U.S. government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sarah-palin-slams-orwellian-us-government/2013/06/15/670b59ec-d5f6-11e2-ab72-3f0d51ec1628_video.html).

"Now more than ever it just seems so Orwellian around here, but finally around here those scandals are being revealed."

Re Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's statement that he gave the "least untruthful" answer possible to a congressman's question about the government's surveillance programs: "Where I come from, that's called a lie."



OK, now let's have a contest to see who can best attack the messenger....

Chris
06-15-2013, 05:01 PM
Actually, it did, I just didn't link it because I was more interested in Peter's link regarding SCOTUS ruling on metadata. But thanks for your interest.

Then back it up, if you can. Be informative. Talking about talking about it doesn't do that.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 05:05 PM
I had to read that again and I still don't totally grasp it. FISC is the FISA court, no? And they ruled that something the NSA had done was unconstitutional and apparently the NSA is no longer allowed to do it.

We don't know, because the opinion has not been made public. Yet.

Peter1469
06-15-2013, 05:08 PM
So basically the difference is between where your phone call went and where your IP went.

I don't know the extent of it. Metadata technically also includes drafts of documents that you create.

But if you do internet research, on say STDs, then call your doctor for an appointment, the metadata lets the government know what is going on in your personal life.

Mainecoons
06-15-2013, 06:58 PM
I got a laugh out of this.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-bush-surveillance/2013/06/15/id/510122


“And we’re going to trust the President and Vice President of the United States that they’re doing the right thing, don’t count me in on that,” Biden said.

Whenever it appears that we've seen a new high in hypocrisy, this administration tops it.

Chris
06-15-2013, 08:48 PM
More coming out...

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)


National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."

There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."

The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET. A representative said Nadler was not immediately available. (This is unrelated to last week's disclosure that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)

sedan
06-15-2013, 09:17 PM
More coming out...

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

What is it about this story that invites so much misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and just plain bad reporting?

Here's the video of the public exchange between Nadler and Mueller:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta_71HUIvrs


If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the person who supposedly told Nadler (in the closed door session) that a warrant wasn't needed was Mueller himself.

The attentive listener will also note that Nadler is asking whether "specific information" about a phone number can be obtained without a warrant -- he isn't asking whether content can be obtained without a warrant. Mueller is perplexed because he believes he has given the same answer to the same question in both hearings. It looks to me like Nadler simply misunderstood what he heard in the closed door session. Mueller is obviously discussing metadata, not content.

Then this so-called 'journalist' Declan McCullagh misrepresents the exchange to mean that someone else told Nadler something different in the closed door session. But it wasn't someone else ... it was Mueller himself.

And yes, Chris, I'm attacking the messenger here because the messenger is deliberately distorting what actually happened to feed yet another false narrative that people like yourself are so eager to propagate.

Ransom
06-15-2013, 10:22 PM
I don't know the extent of it. Metadata technically also includes drafts of documents that you create.

But if you do internet research, on say STDs, then call your doctor for an appointment, the metadata lets the government know what is going on in your personal life.

The internet research could be a student or other doctor, how would anyone know the call was to make an appointment, the call itself recorded and length of time, not the content of the call,

Ravi
06-16-2013, 07:29 AM
We don't know, because the opinion has not been made public. Yet.
True. But this does tend to show that the FISA court does weigh in on whether or not NSA is adhering to the constitution. More evidence, perhaps, that they aren't violating the fourth amendment as Snowden has claimed.

Ravi
06-16-2013, 07:32 AM
What is it about this story that invites so much misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and just plain bad reporting?

Here's the video of the public exchange between Nadler and Mueller:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta_71HUIvrs


If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the person who supposedly told Nadler (in the closed door session) that a warrant wasn't needed was Mueller himself.

The attentive listener will also note that Nadler is asking whether "specific information" about a phone number can be obtained without a warrant -- he isn't asking whether content can be obtained without a warrant. Mueller is perplexed because he believes he has given the same answer to the same question in both hearings. It looks to me like Nadler simply misunderstood what he heard in the closed door session. Mueller is obviously discussing metadata, not content.

Then this so-called 'journalist' Declan McCullagh misrepresents the exchange to mean that someone else told Nadler something different in the closed door session. But it wasn't someone else ... it was Mueller himself.

And yes, Chris, I'm attacking the messenger here because the messenger is deliberately distorting what actually happened to feed yet another false narrative that people like yourself are so eager to propagate.

Yep....there is a lot of ass-uming going on lately.

Chris
06-16-2013, 09:13 AM
What is it about this story that invites so much misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and just plain bad reporting?

Here's the video of the public exchange between Nadler and Mueller:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta_71HUIvrs


If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the person who supposedly told Nadler (in the closed door session) that a warrant wasn't needed was Mueller himself.

The attentive listener will also note that Nadler is asking whether "specific information" about a phone number can be obtained without a warrant -- he isn't asking whether content can be obtained without a warrant. Mueller is perplexed because he believes he has given the same answer to the same question in both hearings. It looks to me like Nadler simply misunderstood what he heard in the closed door session. Mueller is obviously discussing metadata, not content.

Then this so-called 'journalist' Declan McCullagh misrepresents the exchange to mean that someone else told Nadler something different in the closed door session. But it wasn't someone else ... it was Mueller himself.

And yes, Chris, I'm attacking the messenger here because the messenger is deliberately distorting what actually happened to feed yet another false narrative that people like yourself are so eager to propagate.


If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the person who supposedly told Nadler (in the closed door session) that a warrant wasn't needed was Mueller himself.

Nadler is reporting what was said in the previous day's closed door hearing.


The attentive listener will also note that Nadler is asking whether "specific information" about a phone number can be obtained without a warrant -- he isn't asking whether content can be obtained without a warrant.

Sorry but in your video the attentive listener with here Nadler ask about the contents at about th 1:41 mark.


Mueller is perplexed because he believes he has given the same answer to the same question in both hearings.

As Nadler says they heard the exact opposite answer the previous day.


It looks to me like Nadler simply misunderstood what he heard in the closed door session.

Based on your misunderstanding as I've demonstrated.


Mueller is obviously discussing metadata, not content.

He discusses both in the video you provide.


I'm attacking the messenger

Based on your misinterpretation of the video and guessing what had been said in the closed door session. People attack messengers when they have run out of good argument.

Chris
06-16-2013, 09:15 AM
True. But this does tend to show that the FISA court does weigh in on whether or not NSA is adhering to the constitution. More evidence, perhaps, that they aren't violating the fourth amendment as Snowden has claimed.

That's what it's supposed to do.

Still waiting for you to substantiate an earlier claim:

Peter: "Which courts have ruled that metadata isn't protected by the 4th Amendment?"

Marie: "FISA, lol."

Chris
06-16-2013, 10:09 AM
It seems Dick has joined has joined the liberals here: Dick Cheney: Edward Snowden Is A 'Traitor' And Possibly A Chinese Spy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/16/dick-cheney-edward-snowden_n_3450006.html). Politics does make strange bedfellows.

Peter1469
06-16-2013, 10:55 AM
True. But this does tend to show that the FISA court does weigh in on whether or not NSA is adhering to the constitution. More evidence, perhaps, that they aren't violating the fourth amendment as Snowden has claimed.

All we know for now- from my earlier link:


The FISC gave its OK to the public disclosure of an earlier opinion of the FISC—an opinion that declared aspects of the NSA's surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional.

Peter1469
06-16-2013, 10:57 AM
It seems Dick has joined has joined the liberals here: Dick Cheney: Edward Snowden Is A 'Traitor' And Possibly A Chinese Spy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/16/dick-cheney-edward-snowden_n_3450006.html). Politics does make strange bedfellows.


Dick Cheney is a NECON. With regard to the power of the federal government, NECONs are allies with the libs.

Chris
06-16-2013, 11:43 AM
Dick Cheney is a NECON. With regard to the power of the federal government, NECONs are allies with the libs.

Yes, a neocon is merely a liberal mugged by reality. I wonder has Obama been so mugged what with all this spying on US citizens, drone bombing, Libya, etc, etc, etc.

sedan
06-16-2013, 12:42 PM
People attack messengers when they have run out of good argument.
I attack messengers when their message is a lie.

This is more reasonable to me than repeating and spreading the lie.



The chairman of the House intelligence committee strongly asserted Sunday that the National Security Agency is not recording Americans’ phone calls under U.S. surveillance programs, and any statements suggesting differently amount to “misinformation.”

Lining up with Obama administration officials — and the president himself — Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails.

“If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law,” Rogers said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think (Americans) think there's this mass surveillance of what you're saying on your phone call and what you're typing in your e-mails. That is just not happening.”

The NSA has repeatedly said that it collects only metadata — phone numbers and duration — of phone calls, but not the actual conversations taking place. If it needs to listen to a conversation, it must first obtain an order from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

But during a House judiciary committee hearing Thursday with FBI Director Robert Mueller, a Democratic congressman from New York said he was told in a classified discussion that NSA analysts were capable of obtaining specific information from phone calls without a warrant.

The congressman, Jerrold Nadler, issued a statement Sunday to CNN regarding his his exchange with Mueller at the hearing.

“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," Nadler said.

Rogers strongly pushed back at the question of whether anyone in the U.S. government was listening to the phone calls. He said “there is all this misinformation about what these programs are,” and he hopes the public will soon come to better understand how the programs disrupted terrorist plots.

Rogers: NSA ‘is not listening’ to Americans’ phone calls (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/16/rogers-nsa-is-not-listening-to-americans-phone-calls/?hpt=hp_t2)


According to Congressman Rogers, you and McCullagh are spreading misinformation.

I'll be more blunt: you are spreading lies.

Mainecoons
06-16-2013, 12:50 PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

And what are you spreading? Wistful thinking?


The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/) works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/) without going before a court and seeking approval.
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/) to the Guardian. Snowden said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video) in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."
There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/) who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET. A representative said Nadler was not immediately available. (This is unrelated to last week's disclosure (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587929-38/nsa-secretly-vacuumed-up-verizon-phone-records/) that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)

Chris
06-16-2013, 12:50 PM
I attack messengers when their message is a lie.

This is more reasonable to me than repeating and spreading the lie.



The chairman of the House intelligence committee strongly asserted Sunday that the National Security Agency is not recording Americans’ phone calls under U.S. surveillance programs, and any statements suggesting differently amount to “misinformation.”

Lining up with Obama administration officials — and the president himself — Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails.

“If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law,” Rogers said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think (Americans) think there's this mass surveillance of what you're saying on your phone call and what you're typing in your e-mails. That is just not happening.”

The NSA has repeatedly said that it collects only metadata — phone numbers and duration — of phone calls, but not the actual conversations taking place. If it needs to listen to a conversation, it must first obtain an order from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.

But during a House judiciary committee hearing Thursday with FBI Director Robert Mueller, a Democratic congressman from New York said he was told in a classified discussion that NSA analysts were capable of obtaining specific information from phone calls without a warrant.

The congressman, Jerrold Nadler, issued a statement Sunday to CNN regarding his his exchange with Mueller at the hearing.

“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," Nadler said.

Rogers strongly pushed back at the question of whether anyone in the U.S. government was listening to the phone calls. He said “there is all this misinformation about what these programs are,” and he hopes the public will soon come to better understand how the programs disrupted terrorist plots.

Rogers: NSA ‘is not listening’ to Americans’ phone calls (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/16/rogers-nsa-is-not-listening-to-americans-phone-calls/?hpt=hp_t2)


According to Congressman Rogers, you and McCullagh are spreading misinformation.

I'll be more blunt: you are spreading lies.

Perhaps, provided you demonstrate a lie, which you haven't. You above made many false claims about the video, to me those claims were wrong, I don't stoop to attacking you and calling you a liar. Logical fallacies like attacking the messenger cannot lead to any truth.


[A] According to Congressman Rogers, [B] you and McCullagh are spreading misinformation.

[A] is an opinion. Given that, [B] is a non sequitur.


I'll be more blunt: you are spreading lies.

Please demonstrate that I or anyone intentionally lied. Till then that stands as a false accusation.

sedan
06-16-2013, 01:19 PM
Perhaps, provided you demonstrate a lie, which you haven't. You above made many false claims about the video, to me those claims were wrong, I don't stoop to attacking you and calling you a liar. Logical fallacies like attacking the messenger cannot lead to any truth.

Hmm ...

In the very same sentence where you say you don't stoop to attack me and call me a liar ... you call me a liar?

Am I supposed to take this seriously?



[A] is an opinion. Given that, [B] is a non sequitur.

There are differences between facts and opinions.

It is a fact that Rogers said the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails.

It is a fact that Rogers said any statements suggesting differently amount to “misinformation.”

It is a fact that you and McCullagh are spreading that very same misinformation.



Please demonstrate that I or anyone intentionally lied. Till then that stands as a false accusation.

I have no idea whether you are "intentionally" lying or not.

All I know is that given an opportunity to repudiate the misinformation you posted earlier, you doubled down on it instead.

Chris
06-16-2013, 01:31 PM
Hmm ...

In the very same sentence where you say you don't stoop to attack me and call me a liar ... you call me a liar?

Am I supposed to take this seriously?




There are differences between facts and opinions.

It is a fact that Rogers said the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails.

It is a fact that Rogers said any statements suggesting differently amount to “misinformation.”

It is a fact that you and McCullagh are spreading that very same misinformation.




I have no idea whether you are "intentionally" lying or not.

All I know is that given an opportunity to repudiate the misinformation you posted earlier, you doubled down on it instead.


In the very same sentence where you say you don't stoop to attack me and call me a liar ... you call me a liar?

Where did I call you a liar, sedan? Point out the specific words.

"False claims"? No, that doesn't say you are a liar. Your claims can be false and you can completely believe them. That's not lying.

So where's the beef, sedan, where'd I call you a liar?





There are differences between facts and opinions.

It is a fact that Rogers said the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails.

Yes, there is a difference between fact and opinion.

It is a fact that Rogers expressed an opinion.





I have no idea whether you are "intentionally" lying or not.

Then you are arguing from unknowns when you accuse me of lying. Thus a false accusation.


All I know is that given an opportunity to repudiate the misinformation you posted earlier, you doubled down on it instead.

You have yet to establish misinformation. It doesn't follow from Roger's opinion, that's a non sequitur.


Basically, sedan, all you've done with that post if repeat your opinion. You've substantiated nothing. You've continued to make false accusations given that you have demonstrated no basis for them.

Ravi
06-16-2013, 04:40 PM
Here is a good rundown of the weirdness by CNET. I'm disappointed in CNET, btw.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

Of course it is possible that President Obama is holding the Congresscritter's family in Gitmo until he sucks up and lies to the American people. :rolleyes:

Ravi
06-16-2013, 04:41 PM
Quit making false claims, Chris.

Mainecoons
06-16-2013, 05:04 PM
Here is a good rundown of the weirdness by CNET. I'm disappointed in CNET, btw.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

Of course it is possible that President Obama is holding the Congresscritter's family in Gitmo until he sucks up and lies to the American people. :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that a Democrat is not correctly reporting what he was told in the briefing?


Nadler: Then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn't need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict.

And then he recants:


Since the scandal broke, Nadler has walked back his comments in a statement. "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," the New York Democrat told Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/video-congressman-claims-he-was-told-government-could-listen).

Doesn't this make you wonder?

It does me.

Sorry, I don't trust the government or NSA to tell the truth here. You do and that is your right.

sedan
06-16-2013, 07:46 PM
Quit making false claims, Chris.

Yes, but at least he isn't lying -- he's only making false claims!!

What a stupid ridiculous game.

Meanwhile, back on topic:



ODNI Statement on the Limits of Surveillance Activities
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511


June 16, 2013

ODNI Statement on the Limits of Surveillance Activities


The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress. Members have been briefed on the implementation of Section 702, that it targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose, and that it cannot be used to target Americans anywhere in the world.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence Public Affairs Office

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/880-odni-statement-on-the-limits-of-surveillance-activities


As the video plainly showed, Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed briefing.

Chris
06-16-2013, 07:47 PM
Here is a good rundown of the weirdness by CNET. I'm disappointed in CNET, btw.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/

Of course it is possible that President Obama is holding the Congresscritter's family in Gitmo until he sucks up and lies to the American people. :rolleyes:

Disappointed, because they disagree with your view of things?

Chris
06-16-2013, 07:48 PM
Quit making false claims, Chris.

What false claims, marie? Can you point them out and demonstrate with facts, not opinions like sedan did?

Chris
06-16-2013, 07:55 PM
Yes, but at least he isn't lying -- he's only making false claims!!

What a stupid ridiculous game.

Meanwhile, back on topic:



ODNI Statement on the Limits of Surveillance Activities
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511


June 16, 2013

ODNI Statement on the Limits of Surveillance Activities


The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress. Members have been briefed on the implementation of Section 702, that it targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose, and that it cannot be used to target Americans anywhere in the world.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence Public Affairs Office

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/880-odni-statement-on-the-limits-of-surveillance-activities


As the video plainly showed, Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed briefing.


Yes, but at least he isn't lying -- he's only making false claims!

You have yet to demonstrate either. All you've done is post opinions agree with you, like marie's rather contentless post.


What a stupid ridiculous game.

Then don't play games that confuse opinions with facts.


As the video plainly showed, Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed briefing.

As the video showed and I demonstrated you misunderstood it. A very obvious example is this your claim:


The attentive listener will also note that Nadler is asking whether "specific information" about a phone number can be obtained without a warrant -- he isn't asking whether content can be obtained without a warrant.

When Nadler at about the 1:41 mark in the video clearly asks about content.

Here's the post where I countered your other claims: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13553-More-NSA-Spying-on-Citizens?p=308197&viewfull=1#post308197. You have not responded to one yet.


As for your ODNI Statement, what do you expect government to do when the information is classified. That was one of the points Nadler made in the video you posted.


I think you need to declare the video you posted a hostile witness, lol.

sedan
06-16-2013, 07:55 PM
Doesn't this make you wonder?

It does me.

Sorry, I don't trust the government or NSA to tell the truth here. You do and that is your right.

Here's what I wonder ...

Do you think Nadler was the only member of Congress in the briefing?

Why is it that he's the only one who heard that an analyst could wiretap at will?

Wouldn't you think that if this had really been presented at the briefing there'd be a lot more members talking about it?

Or ... are all the other members who were there, both Republican and Democrat, part of a vast conspiracy that only Nadler was initially excluded from?

Does that really make sense?

Or is it possible that he simply misunderstood what he heard?

Chris
06-16-2013, 07:56 PM
Here's what I wonder ...

Do you think Nadler was the only member of Congress in the briefing?

Why is it that he's the only one who heard that an analyst could wiretap at will?

Wouldn't you think that if this had really been presented at the briefing there'd be a lot more members talking about it?

Or ... are all the other members who were there, both Republican and Democrat, part of a vast conspiracy that only Nadler was initially excluded from?

Does that really make sense?

Or is it possible that he simply misunderstood what he heard?

Why do you want maine to argue from unknowns? Speaking of playing games.

Chris
06-16-2013, 08:33 PM
Well this settles everything: Obama does not feel Americans' privacy violated (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/us-usa-security-idUSBRE95F00B20130616).

But, wait, then Snowden revealed nothing and cannot be a traitor.

Chris
06-16-2013, 08:42 PM
3 NSA veterans speak out on whistle-blower: We told you so (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/)


...Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.

To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.

Today, they feel vindicated....

Video of interview at link.

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 07:38 AM
Here's what I wonder ...

Do you think Nadler was the only member of Congress in the briefing?

Why is it that he's the only one who heard that an analyst could wiretap at will?

Wouldn't you think that if this had really been presented at the briefing there'd be a lot more members talking about it?

Or ... are all the other members who were there, both Republican and Democrat, part of a vast conspiracy that only Nadler was initially excluded from?

Does that really make sense?

Or is it possible that he simply misunderstood what he heard?

See Chris's response and learn how to argue from knowns.

Chris
06-17-2013, 08:08 AM
First Cheney, then Obama, now Miss Alabama...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V8vXrqHurTc

:-P

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 08:14 AM
From the thread I started about the latest Guardian revelations:


And now we go back to your regularly scheduled prime-time soap opera tragicomedy for idiots, in which the protagonists read from teleprompters advising the same idiots, that only terrorist suspects are targeted by the totalitarian superstate, and that no matter what, one should trust the government - after all they are only here to help you.

Chris
06-17-2013, 10:23 AM
Government caught in a trilemma: Obama Speaks with Forked Tongue on Surveillance (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/16/obama-speaks-with-forked-tongue-on-surve)


It’s bad enough the federal government spies on us. Must it insult our intelligence too?

The government’s response to Edward Snowden’s leaks about the National Security Agency’s secret monitoring of the Internet and collection of our telephone logs is a mass of contradictions. Officials have said the disclosures are (1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security. It’s hard to see how any two of these can be true, much less all three.

Can’t they at least get their story straight? If they can’t do better than that, why should we have confidence in anything else that they do?

junie
06-17-2013, 10:37 AM
Government caught in a trilemma: Obama Speaks with Forked Tongue on Surveillance (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/16/obama-speaks-with-forked-tongue-on-surve)



you do understand that our government is now forced to defend their surveillance procedures in open court, right?


"It’s hard to see how any two of these can be true, much less all three."


all 3 ARE true...

1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security.

Ravi
06-17-2013, 10:41 AM
Government caught in a trilemma: Obama Speaks with Forked Tongue on Surveillance (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/16/obama-speaks-with-forked-tongue-on-surve)
I don't recall Obama saying this was "old news" and it can be grossly inaccurate and a blow to national security at the same time because stupid people believe other stupid people and start retaliating against the USA.

Chris
06-17-2013, 10:45 AM
you do understand that our government is now forced to defend their surveillance procedures in open court, right?


"It’s hard to see how any two of these can be true, much less all three."


all 3 ARE true...

1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security.

Explain how all 3 can be true when logically they contradict each other. If it's old news, for example, how can it possibly be a blow to security? Ditto if it's grossly inaccurate. Such things violate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction.

Chris
06-17-2013, 10:47 AM
I don't recall Obama saying this was "old news" and it can be grossly inaccurate and a blow to national security at the same time because stupid people believe other stupid people and start retaliating against the USA.

The government has claimed it's old news, read the article--great quibble though!!


it can be grossly inaccurate and a blow to national security at the same time because stupid people believe other stupid people and start retaliating against the USA

And, uh, how does that deal a blow to national security re NSA, or are you quibbling again over words?

junie
06-17-2013, 10:47 AM
I don't recall Obama saying this was "old news" and it can be grossly inaccurate and a blow to national security at the same time because stupid people believe other stupid people and start retaliating against the USA.


yep. old news in the sense that the procedures were known by those authorized to know and approved by a judge who took full consideration of our privacy rights in the scope of such surveillance... now conveniently being misinterpreted and held against the USA, just as you said.

Chris
06-17-2013, 10:52 AM
yep. old news in the sense that the procedures were known by those authorized to know and approved by a judge who took full consideration of our privacy rights in the scope of such surveillance... now conveniently being misinterpreted and held against the USA, just as you said.

Junie, nice twist of wards just like jillian's post. What's claimed to be old news is what Snowden revealed. But if what he revealed is old new, iow, well known to all--news is news--then what possible damage was done?

Note that jillian said it can be misinterpreted, not that it is as you misinterpreted. You two should work out that disagreement, don't you think?

junie
06-17-2013, 11:12 AM
derr @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) the info was legally CLASSIFIED with good reason...

info which snowden, as a lowly IT tech, was unauthorized to interpret, misinterpret, and give to the media.


"But if what he revealed is old new, iow, well known to all--news is news--then what possible damage was done?" :loco:

Chris
06-17-2013, 11:15 AM
derr @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) the info was legally CLASSIFIED with good reason...

info which snowden, as a lowly IT tech, was unauthorized to interpret, misinterpret, and give to the media.

If it was classified then it was not old news. Again, violates the law of noncontradiction. Derr.


info which snowden, as a lowly IT tech, was unauthorized to interpret, misinterpret, and give to the media

Nice opinion but it begs the question for it is the very question.

Ravi
06-17-2013, 11:23 AM
derr @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) the info was legally CLASSIFIED with good reason...

info which snowden, as a lowly IT tech, was unauthorized to interpret, misinterpret, and give to the media.


"But if what he revealed is old new, iow, well known to all--news is news--then what possible damage was done?" :loco:
come on now! How could such a brilliant person such as Snowden misinterpret anything? The guy is able to wiretap Obama, for goodness sake!

junie
06-17-2013, 11:48 AM
"if it was classified then it was not old news" :rollseyes:


like i said, it was well known by those who are authorized to know such classified info, and it was properly authorized by a judge with FULL consideration of the importance of our 4th amendment privacy protections. it IS well known that the USA has been publicly wrangling over the balance of privacy protection in the face of avowed terrorists... who can deny that?

when the ACLU put up a fight years ago, the court ruled they had no standing based on their speculative theory of hypothetical future injury... all WELL KNOWN info... but NOW that snowden revealed classified documents which names verizon as a party to POSSIBLE wrong doing, which btw he failed to report properly and in a LEGAL fashion, NOW the ACLU can hang their hat on that to try to make a claim against our government as a verizon customer.

so for you to say hey man "news is news" and this guy is a hero, is just laughable. classified info is NOT news fodder...

now we have laws suits and open discovery and an international smear campaign against the USA, AS IF we haven't taken our 4th amendment privacy protections seriously and taken every legal measure to insure the proper purpose of info gathered by our surveillance programs.


all because some know-nothing techie felt like we should make classified info public fodder...

1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security. >>> true, true, and true...

Chris
06-17-2013, 11:53 AM
come on now! How could such a brilliant person such as Snowden misinterpret anything? The guy is able to wiretap Obama, for goodness sake!

Still having trouble explaining how old news could damage national security?

Chris
06-17-2013, 12:00 PM
"if it was classified then it was not old news" :rollseyes:


like i said, it was well known by those who are authorized to know such classified info, and it was properly authorized by a judge with FULL consideration of the importance of our 4th amendment privacy protections. it IS well known that the USA has been publicly wrangling over the balance of privacy protection in the face of avowed terrorists... who can deny that?

when the ACLU put up a fight years ago, the court ruled they had no standing based on their speculative theory of hypothetical future injury... all WELL KNOWN info... but NOW that snowden revealed classified documents which names verizon as a party to POSSIBLE wrong doing, which btw he failed to report properly and in a LEGAL fashion, NOW the ACLU can hang their hat on that to try to make a claim against our government as a verizon customer.

so for you to say hey man "news is news" and this guy is a hero, is just laughable. classified info is NOT news fodder...

now we have laws suits and open discovery and an international smear campaign against the USA, AS IF we haven't taken our 4th amendment privacy protections seriously and taken every legal measure to insure the proper purpose of info gathered by our surveillance programs.
all because some know-nothing techie felt like we should make classified info public fodder...

1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security. >>> true, true, and true...


You argument merely repeats a semantic twisting. Old news implies we all knew about it. If it was still classified then it wasn't old news. The contradiction continues.



it was properly authorized by a judge with FULL consideration of the importance of our 4th amendment privacy protections

Some opinions hold that and other opinions do not.


it IS well known that the USA has been publicly wrangling over the balance of privacy protection in the face of avowed terrorists... who can deny that?

I don't. But that is not what Snowden revealed.


the court ruled they had no standing based on their speculative theory of hypothetical future injury... all WELL KNOWN info

Link please to the facts behind your opinion.


so for you to say hey man "news is news" and this guy is a hero, is just laughable.

I agree, it's laughable. But I didn't say it, you just did, nice straw man--straw men are laughable.


1) old news, (2) grossly inaccurate, and (3) a blow to national security. >>> true, true, and true...

Trilemma of contradictions. It is was old news and we knew about it then Snowden revealed nothing.



I do appreciate you're going beyond opinion to try and substantiate it. Now we have something to discuss. Will the discussion continue?

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 12:03 PM
The faces of more than 120 million people are in searchable photo databases that state officials assembled to prevent driver’s-license fraud but that increasingly are used by police to identify suspects, accomplices and even innocent bystanders in a wide range of criminal investigations.
The facial databases have grown rapidly in recent years and generally operate with few legal safeguards beyond the requirement that searches are conducted for “law enforcement purposes.” Amid rising concern about theNational Security Agency’s high-tech surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html) aimed at foreigners, it is these state-level facial-recognition (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-19/business/38672491_1_surveillance-bombings-video)programs that more typically involve American citizens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/state-photo-id-databases-become-troves-for-police/2013/06/16/6f014bd4-ced5-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

BrianDamage
06-17-2013, 12:20 PM
2960

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 12:24 PM
:rofl:

Ravi
06-17-2013, 12:27 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/state-photo-id-databases-become-troves-for-police/2013/06/16/6f014bd4-ced5-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

Yep, and I bet you support e-verify, which will give the government a legitimate reason to have a federal searchable data base for anyone that seeks a job.

Chris
06-17-2013, 12:36 PM
Another contradiction...

http://i.snag.gy/pTDz7.jpg

Mister D
06-17-2013, 12:38 PM
Yep, and I bet you support e-verify, which will give the government a legitimate reason to have a federal searchable data base for anyone that seeks a job.

E-verify is used to validate a Social Security number and other goverment issued IDs. Smack yourself.

Chris
06-17-2013, 12:51 PM
E-verify is used to validate a Social Security number and other goverment issued IDs. Smack yourself.

And when you apply for a job you agree voluntarily to submit to background checks.

Ravi
06-17-2013, 12:53 PM
E-verify is used to validate a Social Security number and other goverment issued IDs. Smack yourself.

And when they get the pics in their we will have a nationally searchable database with pictures.

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 12:56 PM
That's "there."

Your posts on this topic, and for that matter most of the rest, remind me of this great quote:


And now we go back to your regularly scheduled prime-time soap opera tragicomedy for idiots, in which the protagonists read from teleprompters advising the same idiots, that only terrorist suspects are targeted by the totalitarian superstate, and that no matter what, one should trust the government - after all they are only here to help you.

Mister D
06-17-2013, 01:16 PM
And when they get the pics in their we will have a nationally searchable database with pictures.

Marie, they already have the data. They issued the IDs!

Chris
06-17-2013, 01:16 PM
That's "there."

Your posts on this topic, and for that matter most of the rest, remind me of this great quote:

[/FONT]

Just reading this: NSA Scandal Separates Liberty Lovers from Poseurs (http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/14/nsa-scandal-separates-liberty-lovers-fro)


Most Americans who pay any attention to politics believe the nation’s great chasm is between “Red State” Republicans and “Blue State” Democrats. While the nation’s two major parties have their differences, the real divide is and always has been between those who reflexively trust the authorities and those who recognize that their own government poses the gravest threat to their liberties.


I used to think it was the ruling class vs the ruled class, but obviously the ruled class is subdivided into those who seek to more ruling for the sake of personal security and those who seek less ruling for the sake of social, economic and political liberty.

Mister D
06-17-2013, 01:17 PM
And when you apply for a job you agree voluntarily to submit to background checks.

Right.

sedan
06-17-2013, 03:55 PM
See Chris's response and learn how to argue from knowns.

Um ... you're the one who was "wondering".

I'm just wondering right along with you.

But I entirely understand why you don't want to answer my questions.

It's pretty clear that either there's a massive conspiracy involving many members of Congress from both parties, or else Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed hearing.

One of these explanations makes far more sense to me than the other.

But if you'd rather not express a rational opinion, that's fine by me.

Chris
06-17-2013, 04:40 PM
Um ... you're the one who was "wondering".

I'm just wondering right along with you.

But I entirely understand why you don't want to answer my questions.

It's pretty clear that either there's a massive conspiracy involving many members of Congress from both parties, or else Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed hearing.

One of these explanations makes far more sense to me than the other.

But if you'd rather not express a rational opinion, that's fine by me.

Massive conspiracy in Congress? Based on one opinion? Talk about exaggeration.

"One of these explanations makes far more sense to me than the other."

Exactly, the opinion that agrees with your opinion. That rationalization, not rational thinking.

Ravi
06-17-2013, 05:41 PM
Um ... you're the one who was "wondering".

I'm just wondering right along with you.

But I entirely understand why you don't want to answer my questions.

It's pretty clear that either there's a massive conspiracy involving many members of Congress from both parties, or else Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the closed hearing.

One of these explanations makes far more sense to me than the other.

But if you'd rather not express a rational opinion, that's fine by me.What's Rand Paul have to say??? I bet if he heard something that no one else did all the righties would believe him.

Chris
06-17-2013, 06:42 PM
What's Rand Paul have to say??? I bet if he heard something that no one else did all the righties would believe him.

Basically, he'd like to sue the NSA.

Chris
06-17-2013, 08:12 PM
Great video at the link: NSA Gathers Far More than Phone Data (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/nsa-gathers-far-more-phone-data). Some old, some new, some look forward.

Mainecoons
06-17-2013, 09:44 PM
Another reaction from the left:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/o-NEW-YORKER-570-454x620.jpg

Chris
06-17-2013, 10:02 PM
Kind of recursive given she's probably calling 911 for government help.

Ravi
06-18-2013, 04:48 AM
Great op/ed that puts it all in perspective: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tapped-lunacy-article-1.1375252