CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The NSA spying and whistleblower thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The NSA spying and whistleblower thread

post #1 of 87
Thread Starter 

The previous discussion needed a more descriptive thread title.

 

So now Latin America is mad because Bolivia's prez's plane was banned from flying over France and Portugal because someone *cough* the US *cough* thought that Ed Snowden was onboard, which he seemingly wasn't. So now we've pissed off an entire region of the world for nothing because we hate whistleblowers.

post #2 of 87
It is a charged statement calling Snowden a whistleblower. There exists debate as to just what he is.
post #3 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

It is a charged statement calling Snowden a whistleblower. There exists debate as to just what he is.
Let's see: let the public know about massive, warrantless domestic spying programs conducted by the federal government? One might say he figuratively "blew the whistle" on such activities, no?
post #4 of 87

The US (and many Euro countries) have always shat on Latin America.  They knew they would be mad, but did it anyways because - what are they going to do?

post #5 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

It is a charged statement calling Snowden a whistleblower. There exists debate as to just what he is.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Let's see: let the public know about massive, warrantless domestic spying programs conducted by the federal government? One might say he figuratively "blew the whistle" on such activities, no?

 

The issues are 1) is he giving info other governments? (Odds are he is, willingly or not. He stays in Hong Kong and then Russia? Two governments likely to pay top dollar for info: not unsuspicious) 2) is he doing this for altruistic motives or for money and fame?

 

The US Federal government clearly regards him as a Traitor. Supposedly Snowden hired a lawyer and maybe a PR guy before he even took the NSA job. That indicates harmful intent. Then again, that story could be a smoke screen created by the Feds to smear Snowden.

post #6 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post


The issues are 1) is he giving info other governments? (Odds are he is, willingly or not. He stays in Hong Kong and then Russia? Two governments likely to pay top dollar for info: not unsuspicious) 2) is he doing this for altruistic motives or for money and fame?

The US Federal government clearly regards him as a Traitor. Supposedly Snowden hired a lawyer and maybe a PR guy before he even took the NSA job. That indicates harmful intent. Then again, that story could be a smoke screen created by the Feds to smear Snowden.

My point exactly, Cylon. Snowden himself says he sought out the NSA job specifically to get info to leak.
post #7 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Let's see: let the public know about massive, warrantless domestic spying programs conducted by the federal government? One might say he figuratively "blew the whistle" on such activities, no?

If he stopped there I would be inclined to agree.  Going on to say that we've hacked Chinese cell phone companies, hacked cable providers in Hong Kong, spied on the Kremlin (along with various other allies), etc etc puts him in more of a "douche with some kind of axe to grind against the US" category.

 

Just my opinion.

post #8 of 87

Just throwing this out here....

 

Quote:

France Intelligence Agency Spies On Phone Calls, Emails, Social Media Activity: Report

 

PARIS, July 4 (Reuters) - France's external intelligence agency spies on the French public's phone calls, emails and social media activity in France and abroad, the daily Le Monde said on Thursday.

 

It said the DGSE intercepted signals from computers and telephones in France, and between France and other countries, although not the content of phone calls, to create a map of "who is talking to whom". It said the activity was illegal.

 

"All of our communications are spied on," wrote Le Monde, which based its report on unnamed intelligence sources as well as remarks made publicly by intelligence officials.

 

"Emails, text messages, telephone records, access to Facebook and Twitter are then stored for years," it said.

The activities described are similar to those carried out by the U.S. National Security Agency, as described in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

 

<Cont.>

 

At this point, it would probably be easier to list who isn't spying....

post #9 of 87
Yeah 'America! Ugh!

http://rt.com/news/latin-america-outrage-bolivia-plane-653/


What the hell is wrong with our government! God we must be super terrified what Snowden knows. We blatantly violated our own constitution and spied on our allies, not only that but disregarded centuries of American law and spied on citizens with absolute zero proof of criminal activities. How is it that no ones head has dropped yet? Obviously Clapper has lied countless times with no penalty. I don't get how articles of impeachment haven't been drawn up against Obama yet. He obviously perjured himself like Clinton did, but his crimes are far worse, worse than even Bush!
post #10 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post

If he stopped there I would be inclined to agree.  Going on to say that we've hacked Chinese cell phone companies, hacked cable providers in Hong Kong, spied on the Kremlin (along with various other allies), etc etc puts him in more of a "douche with some kind of axe to grind against the US" category.

Just my opinion.

He says it's wrong to spy on a country that has an unstable political system and 25,000 nukes because "we're not at war with Russia". How stupid does he think we are? How stupid is he? He went to work for the NSA to steal spying secrets and apparently doesn't believe in the entire idea of intelligence gathering in the first place. Again, that is not "whistle blowing".

"Mr. President! Putin is dead and their missles are in the air! We have no idea what's going on!" "Hm... OK, let's now tap their phones."
post #11 of 87
Jeez this is potentially going to get ugly!

http://rt.com/news/unasur-bolivia-condemn-skyjack-677/
post #12 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

"Mr. President! Putin is dead and their missles are in the air! We have no idea what's going on!" "Hm... OK, let's now tap their phones."

 

I'm less worried about completely fictional, neo-con approved scenarios than I am about the actual government overreach we're witnessing right now.

post #13 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaisMagic View Post

Yeah 'America! Ugh!

http://rt.com/news/latin-america-outrage-bolivia-plane-653/


What the hell is wrong with our government! God we must be super terrified what Snowden knows. We blatantly violated our own constitution and spied on our allies, not only that but disregarded centuries of American law and spied on citizens with absolute zero proof of criminal activities. How is it that no ones head has dropped yet? Obviously Clapper has lied countless times with no penalty. I don't get how articles of impeachment haven't been drawn up against Obama yet. He obviously perjured himself like Clinton did, but his crimes are far worse, worse than even Bush!

 

What?

post #14 of 87
Okay I should of said or government/administration violated American law and the constitution with the warrant less spying done by the CIA, FBI and NSA. What they have done are a blanantly disregard of the 4th Amendment and totally not even covered by the Patroit Act (which i view as unconstituional) And literally our laws go back to over 200 years so that was correct maybe not said all that great.
post #15 of 87


Part of this comes from the stance the government took in 1934. Congress said in the Communications Act of 1934 that since wired and wireless communications allow commerce to be conducted from state to state, the federal government has the right to regulate and control such wired and wireless communications.

 

Quote: The Communications Act of 1934

 

so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission'

 

Anyone who thinks his or her wireless communications are safe from monitoring isn't paying attention. It is distasteful, and the government does not want the political blowback from this being publicized, but legally, they are in their rights to gather that information until Congress passes a law saying they can't.

post #16 of 87
Yeah sure but you still need reasonable cause. You can't just spy on people for the hell of it. That's unconstitutional and has been backed up countless times in Supreme Court decisions. The only time you can waive that is in times of war and we haven't declared war so what's happened since 2001 is unacceptable! Honestly at times I wonder if people in our government realize there are more amendments than the first and second. It dosent seem like it!
post #17 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaisMagic View Post

Yeah sure but you still need reasonable cause. You can't just spy on people for the hell of it. That's unconstitutional and has been backed up countless times in Supreme Court decisions. The only time you can waive that is in times of war and we haven't declared war so what's happened since 2001 is unacceptable! Honestly at times I wonder if people in our government realize there are more amendments than the first and second. It dosent seem like it!

 

No, you need reasonable cause to listen to or read the messages.  You don't need a warrant to stand outside someone's house and note the number of times a person recieves visitors and how long those visitors stayed.  Is it creepy? Is it distasteful? Is it something the people have allowed the federal government to do? Absolutely. 

 

But, data parsing programs have been huge boons for law enforcement. It has highlighted connections between actual criminals. Look at how quickly the Boston bombers were identified. A lot of that has to do with the sheer amount of data they had available to them.  I am not saying that the program is ethically correct, but it is currently legally correct.

post #18 of 87
So Venezula gives asylum to Snowden. Kind of saw this coming. Ha gives another reason for our government to hate Venezula. This is totally something Chavez would of done. God our relationship with Latin America is so bad right now. Well this story just got way more interesting.

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-leak-snowden-live-updates-482/
post #19 of 87
Thread Starter 

Cool. It's about time to let us know all about how evil a country Venezuela is now.

post #20 of 87

Comments from the Noam-ster

 

<excerpt>

Quote:

In his first public comment on the scandal that has enveloped the US, UK and other governments, as well as internet companies such as Google and Microsoft, Chomsky said he was not overly surprised technology and corporations were being used in this way.

 

"This is obviously something that should not be done. But it is a little difficult to be too surprised by it," he said. "They [governments and corporations] take whatever is available, and in no time it is being used against us, the population. Governments are not representative. They have their own power, serving segments of the population that are dominant and rich."

 

Chomsky, who has strongly supported the Occupy movement and spoken out against the Obama administration's use of drones, warned that young people were much less shocked at being spied on and did not view it as such a problem.

 

"Polls in the US indicate there is generational issue here that someone ought to look into – my impression is that younger people are less offended by this than the older generation. It may have to do with the exhibitionist character of the internet culture, with Facebook and so on," he said. "On the internet, you think everything is going to be public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/nsa-surveillance-attack-american-citizens-noam-chomsky

post #21 of 87
As a younger person on the Internet, I still say fuck this noise and give me my damn privacy.
post #22 of 87
I personally think Snowden is a scumbag and don't really care about him. But that being said I like that he revealed how bad this program was and what the NSA was doing. It's a terrible thing our government was doing and regardless of how shitty Snowden might be it dosent change the fact we deserve our privacy and our government has no right to spy on innocent people. And to me this is most definitely an impeachable offense.
post #23 of 87
Yeah, let't throw Obama out and Biden too, so we can have a president with integrity: John Boehner!
post #24 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

As a younger person on the Internet, I still say fuck this noise and give me my damn privacy.

 

If you really want 'privacy' in this day and age, you have to make some decisions- "Do I move 'off the grid' ?"


Time to give up the computers, internet, cellphones, avoid the big cities (cameras are everywhere), pay cash for everything (you have to use rubber gloves when handling the money as it can retain your DNA)....it might be best to avoid contact with anyone.

 

post #25 of 87
Well it serves you people right for electing massively corrupt politicians! I hope your proud of yourselves! A Presiden Boehner or President Cantor would be the bitter medicine that would teach you a valuable lesson.

By the way thank god our political process isn't like Britians imagine having such Presidents like O'Neill, Gingrich, Hastert or Pelosi? *shudder*
post #26 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaisMagic View Post

Well it serves you people right for electing massively corrupt politicians! I hope your proud of yourselves! A Presiden Boehner or President Cantor would be the bitter medicine that would teach you a valuable lesson.

By the way thank god our political process isn't like Britians imagine having such Presidents like O'Neill, Gingrich, Hastert or Pelosi? *shudder*

 

Obligatory

 

post #27 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

If you really want 'privacy' in this day and age, you have to make some decisions- "Do I move 'off the grid' ?"

Time to give up the computers, internet, cellphones, avoid the big cities (cameras are everywhere), pay cash for everything (you have to use rubber gloves when handling the money as it can retain your DNA)....it might be best to avoid contact with anyone.
Alternatively, we could establish some kind of legal restrictions on whether corporations and government agencies are allowed to collect data and what they're allowed to do with it, and rigorously enforce them. You know, almost like we gave half a shit about the rights of individuals or something.

Naw. That'd be crazy.
post #28 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Alternatively, we could establish some kind of legal restrictions on whether corporations and government agencies are allowed to collect data and what they're allowed to do with it, and rigorously enforce them. You know, almost like we gave half a shit about the rights of individuals or something.

Naw. That'd be crazy.

 

Don't get me wrong,  I'm with you here but I really think that this particular 'genie' is out of the bottle and I really wonder if it's possible to contain/rein it in.

 

In this modern world, we need to look at the definition of what 'privacy' truly is. There didn't used to be GPS, CCTV cameras, tracking cookies, 'cloud' storage...when you are surfing the interwebs, is their an expectation of privacy?  I'm just asking rhetorical questions here...ones that, IMO need to be addressed in order to move forward with legal/governmental policy.

 

Holding corporations responsible is a good idea but given just what has occurred with 'big business' in the last decade, I think it's a bit naive to assume that they will give a damn about an individuals privacy. Even if the big companies did suffer penalties for misusing data they harvested, there are plenty of less honorable people that wouldn't think twice about acquiring/using/selling said data. Even if you have the most secure computer system in the world, there will be someone out there who will find a way into it.    

 

Proposing legislation that will hold Apple, Google, et al responsible for 'losing' data maybe a good idea but Apple, Google, etc. will be throwing millions of dollars at it in order to indemnify themselves (and their shareholders) against it.

 

IMO, while it's possible to fight multiple (political) battles at a time, I think the more important one, at this point in time, is getting money out of politics. Until this happens, getting any other changes are going to be much, much harder if not impossible. 

post #29 of 87
You know what? Just because there's not much we can do about something doesn't mean we have to just shrug and accept it.
post #30 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

Don't get me wrong,  I'm with you here but I really think that this particular 'genie' is out of the bottle and I really wonder if it's possible to contain/rein it in.

 

In this modern world, we need to look at the definition of what 'privacy' truly is. There didn't used to be GPS, CCTV cameras, tracking cookies, 'cloud' storage...when you are surfing the interwebs, is their an expectation of privacy?  I'm just asking rhetorical questions here...ones that, IMO need to be addressed in order to move forward with legal/governmental policy.


 

 

This. How can anyone expect to send their personal information across god knows how many linking servers owned by different people and expect privacy? Maybe, back in the 90s when you operated mostly within the confined space of AOL or Compuserv, when you rarely actually used the internet, and pulled most of your info from within it's places... maybe there was a modicum of expectation. But with every transaction using a minimum of 4 different corporations (Your browser, ISP, The Website, and a Payment Services Website) if not more, how can really expect to have any real privacy.

 

Even on this board, there are a number of different corporations pulling data from my web browser to advertise to me. I bought a picnic backpack for my parent's wedding anniversary. Now I see nothing but adds for Ebags. I bought the item through amazon, but I did do a number of google searches around. My solution to this is to wipe my browser of all cookies, history etc. But that only wipes data from my end. My ISP has records of where I have been. Sites have information about where you go when you click out of websites and who sent you to their websites. My information is scattered across the world like Danny McBride's seminal fluid across James Franco's house.  It's everywhere.

 

I am with Vtran. I think the genie is out of the bottle. The internet grew faster than its regulation. The response shouldn't be amazement that it happend. The response should be an action plan to circumvent or prevent it from continuning to happen.

post #31 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

 

This. How can anyone expect to send their personal information across god knows how many linking servers owned by different people and expect privacy? Maybe, back in the 90s when you operated mostly within the confined space of AOL or Compuserv, when you rarely actually used the internet, and pulled most of your info from within it's places... maybe there was a modicum of expectation. But with every transaction using a minimum of 4 different corporations (Your browser, ISP, The Website, and a Payment Services Website) if not more, how can really expect to have any real privacy.

 

Even on this board, there are a number of different corporations pulling data from my web browser to advertise to me. I bought a picnic backpack for my parent's wedding anniversary. Now I see nothing but adds for Ebags. I bought the item through amazon, but I did do a number of google searches around. My solution to this is to wipe my browser of all cookies, history etc. But that only wipes data from my end. My ISP has records of where I have been. Sites have information about where you go when you click out of websites and who sent you to their websites. My information is scattered across the world like Danny McBride's seminal fluid across James Franco's house.  It's everywhere.

 

I am with Vtran. I think the genie is out of the bottle. The internet grew faster than its regulation. The response shouldn't be amazement that it happend. The response should be an action plan to circumvent or prevent it from continuning to happen.

 

Too true. Plus it's not like there are actual humans out there looking at all of your online transactions. Autonomous software records, autonomous software sees, autonomous software flags. And sometimes, it sees too many red flags and it may go to a human being.

The point being, beware of the up-and-coming robot overlords. They know your deepest, darkest secrets. Now, let's all join in on that Daisy Bell chorus.

post #32 of 87

 'Spock' voice- "fascinating" 

 

'Mr Burns' voice- "Excellent...."

Quote:

These Amazing Twitter Metadata Visualizations Will Blow Your Mind

Metadata in Twitter posts lets readers in on your geographic location, the language you speak, the phone you use, and more. They're also a mapmaker's best friend.

 

Twitter's full data stream--their “firehose”--is a very detailed thing. Access to raw tweet upon raw tweet lets brands know what customers think and allows first responders to instantly tabulate hurricane damage. The firehose is also full of metadata which discloses personal, geographic, and technological information on Twitter's tens of millions of users. Gnip, one of the best known Twitter firehose resellers, just turned a raw sample of metadata from 280 million tweets into an amazing example of data visualization.

 

<cont.>

post #33 of 87
Thread Starter 

Again, there's a distinction between corporations who actually need this information to have their gizmos work (and let the user opt out when possible) and the government using it for espionage against citizens not even accused of anything. The fact that the technology exists for the former doesn't excuse the latter. Remember the uproar over warrantless wiretapping of telecoms?

 

Apples and oranges.

post #34 of 87
Playing devil's advocate...

Does Twitter really need to know the location of the person sending the tweet in order for the app to work properly?

How many companies actually offer 'opt out' options on their apps these days?
How many people actuall read them (much less understand them)?

I've said it before, I trust corporations a lot less then I trust the government. At least with the government, there is the possibility of accountability. Corporations are only accountable to their owners/shareholders which are usually only concerned with turning a profit and could give a shit about an individual's privacy.

All this is somewhat moot as the line between government and business is pretty damn blurry these days.
Which brings me back to concentrating on getting money out of politics. That should be the main priority of the electorate these days.
post #35 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Does Twitter really need to know the location of the person sending the tweet in order for the app to work properly?

 

Not strictly, but there was a time when people weren't sure what Twitter's business model even was. Then they started incorporating targeted ads and an api for developers to use location info so you could do things like track tweets from specific locations if, say, a major event happened there. Those are legitimate reasons for a business like Twitter to have that kind of data.

 

Quote:
How many companies actually offer 'opt out' options on their apps these days?

 

Not enough. Twitter did (does?).

 

Quote:
How many people actuall read them (much less understand them)?

 

Technology is always going to have features for power users that the casual user never bothers with.

 

Quote:
I've said it before, I trust corporations a lot less then I trust the government. At least with the government, there is the possibility of accountability. Corporations are only accountable to their owners/shareholders which are usually only concerned with turning a profit and could give a shit about an individual's privacy.

 

The idea to me is corporations can have legitimate business reasons for having access to this information whereas the government doesn't have that excuse. And the government can have motives that are far worse than just mere profit.

post #36 of 87
post #37 of 87
Thread Starter 

Recent Quinnipiac poll results:

 

Quote:
American voters say 55 - 34 percent that Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
 
In a massive shift in attitudes, voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 14, 2010, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country.
 
Almost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.
post #38 of 87
I saw this I think last night on TYT and made me happy. He's obviously a whistleblower. If he sold information to Russia and China he'd still be in those countries not stuck in limbo. Until proven otherwise I support what he did and what he leaked was something we needed to know so I support what he did. The government really seems to have an issue with openness which is depressing because in a democracy you should expect our government to do better than that's. oh and the people who say Snowden should of stayed. Why? Look at what happened to Manning. I don't blame him for fleeing I just hope this gets in the governments head to stop these unconstitutional actions. This really needs to have a gigantic debate on this issue because this dosent seem like the country my grandparents fought for or the nation that existed when I was a child.
post #39 of 87
MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry lambasts Snowden.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3592427/

You know the more I hear from MHP the less I like her. She is a shameless stooge for the Obama Administration and her opinions seem to have come out from their PR team. Honestly of late MSNBC have seem to become more and more the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. This is vastly disappointing. Their is no good place to turn for news. Fox is pro Republican MSNBC is pro democratic and CNN is the corprotist leaning conservative frontrunner tabloid network ala New York Post in print. Comments like these show how messed up our media is. Free press, indeed.
post #40 of 87

I am increasingly convinced that Snowden royally fucked up by getting involved with an idealistic journalist like Glen Greenwald.

(and I say that as an idealistic journalist who genuinely admires Greenwald.)

post #41 of 87
Thread Starter 

So the NY Times joins Greenwald in noting a momentum shift in the air:

 

Quote the Times:

But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House.

 

The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the scope of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden, lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions.

 

Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court.

 

“There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here,” Ms. Lofgren said.

 

 

Quote:

Then Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican veteran and one of the primary authors of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act, stepped to a microphone on the House floor. Never, he said, did he intend to allow the wholesale vacuuming up of domestic phone records, nor did his legislation envision that data dragnets would go beyond specific targets of terrorism investigations.

 

“The time has come to stop it, and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.

 

Quote the Greenwald:
Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.

 

Quote:
Just as Democrats went from vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo imprisonments, the leading defenders of the NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years - Nancy Pelosi - in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find the very idea ludicrous. But such is life in the Age of Obama: one of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party from pretend-opponents of the permanent National Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters.
post #42 of 87
This made me laugh. Pretty good honestly.
post #43 of 87

SNowden gave up the goods:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

 

The NSA can, without any warrant, find out everything you do on the interent.  This kind of thing has been rumored in tech circles since 9/11, but there you go, a doofy powerpoint presentation.

 

Banality of evil indeed.

post #44 of 87
Thread Starter 
post #45 of 87
Quote:
“The whole reason I came here was to ask you to help you to help us make it better,” said the general. “And if you disagree with what we’re doing, you should help us twice as much.”
...that's not how that works, dude.
post #46 of 87

Don't Google "pressure cookers" or "backpacks", or the Feds will end up at your door:

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

 

Sleep tight, everybody!

post #47 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post

Don't Google "pressure cookers" or "backpacks",


On your work computer shortly before being fired. And it was local law enforcement, acting on a tip from the former employer about the suspect googling, not the Feds.

 

From the updated article:

 

 

Quote:

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee.  The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.” 

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post


On your work computer shortly before being fired. And it was local law enforcement, acting on a tip from the former employer about the suspect googling, not the Feds.

 

From the updated article:

 

 

 

I coined a new phrase regarding the current incarnation of what passes for 'news' these days:  "premature journalism" 

 

"....and we have a breaking news story.....aaaahhh ooohhhhh....ummm, sorry....."

post #49 of 87
Much to the surprise of nobody...

New York times: Other Agencies Clamor for Data N.S.A. Compiles
Quote:
The National Security Agency’s dominant role as the nation’s spy warehouse has spurred frequent tensions and turf fights with other federal intelligence agencies that want to use its surveillance tools for their own investigations, officials say.

Agencies working to curb drug trafficking, cyberattacks, money laundering, counterfeiting and even copyright infringement complain that their attempts to exploit the security agency’s vast resources have often been turned down because their own investigations are not considered a high enough priority, current and former government officials say.

And...

Reuters: The DEA has its own surveillance program, fuck you very much
Quote:
A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

Edited by Reasor - 8/5/13 at 10:34am
post #50 of 87
Thread Starter 

So given the updates we've seen of late, anyone still see this as relatively benign as putting up some things on Facebook or Twitter?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The NSA spying and whistleblower thread