Ship of Fools: Patriot Act continues to threaten American Liberties

Thread: Patriot Act continues to threaten American Liberties Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025898

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The National Security Agency has received a ruling requiring a major telecommunications firm turn over its daily call logs.
Seems a violation of principals Americans claim to old dear.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

And Democratics who decried this pratice under GW Bush's watch are now defending it as nessacary for national security. And the company involved says it's the law & the law must be obeyed. Sound like they lifted that from Les Miserables.
Isn't democracy great ? Well it's io borrow from Churchill " the worst of all systems except for the alternatives" [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
And Democratics who decried this pratice under GW Bush's watch are now defending it as nessacary for national security.

I'm pretty sure Russ Feingold (the only member of the U.S. Senate to vote against the USA PATRIOT* Act) felt the same way about its use under both administrations. Feingold seems to be a true believer on this subject.

There were sixty-two Democratic members of the House of Representatives that voted against the USA PATRIOT Act. Which, exactly, did you have in mind as supporting the law because of the change in presidential administration?

--------------------
*The actual name of the law is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". Overwhelming acronym superiority is one of the many advantages of the worlds sole remaining superpower.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

A local talk radio guy kept asking way back when "do people who support this now want Hillary to have that power later?".

This country needs an enema.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.

Speaking of which . . .

quote:
In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous? ow.ly/lKS13
@algore

Yeah, that guy. Remind me again how the U.S. dodged a bullet in 2000?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

There's no telling what Gore would have done if he were president.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.

This is an incredibly self-defeating notion (unless you are trying to keep this abomination in place, of course.) We should welcome anyone who sees the light, however late, with open arms. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.
This is an incredibly self-defeating notion (unless you are trying to keep this abomination in place, of course.) We should welcome anyone who sees the light, however late, with open arms. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Luke 15:17 "When he came to his senses . . ."

[ 06. June 2013, 17:05: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

We're told by the privacy law people in Canada that we should avoid USA-based data services entirely because we have no idea what they might be snooping on. This includes all business data back-up, internet calling services, health records.

It seems the idea of getting data is initially noble: detecting terrorists and other related threats and stopping them. But it gets misused. Considering the parallel to arresting people, with the misuse of black sites to hold them in.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Coming soon to a UK government near you http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/30/snoopers-charter-web-five-letter

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.

How much more hypocritical is it that those who once spoke publicly against it are now embracing it and utilizing it to it's fullest potential?

It was a horrible notion from the beginning, to be sure. Once again, under threat of X, Americans give away their freedoms to the government, who always knows best. Before it was the commies, now the terrorist, next it'll be something else.

[Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
How much more hypocritical is it that those who once spoke publicly against it are now embracing it and utilizing it to it's fullest potential?

It is, indeed, a contemptible thing.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Once again, under threat of X, Americans give away their freedoms to the government, who always knows best. Before it was the commies, now the terrorist, next it'll be something else.

We have met the X and he is us.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

We have been told that the data collected is only the telephone numbers and the time of the call. But officials (Senators) have said that the data provides a way to "map" an individual's daily movements. How can this be if only area codes are provided? Cell phones would not even have these location hints?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm definitely not a technician, but I understand that cell phones make contact with the nearest antenna, and the information of which antenna this is is stored. If this information is turned over to the NSA, they can find out a lot of information about the cell phone owner. If they were at a demonstration, for example.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

On the Law and Order shows it seems most of the bad guys use disposable phones, anyway.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is keeping an eye on the story.

Also the Common Dreams progressive news site, which has great resource links at the bottom of the page.

And Democracy Now is on the case.

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is keeping an eye on the story.

Also the Common Dreams progressive news site, which has great resource links at the bottom of the page.

And Democracy Now is on the case.

Glad to learn this. I'm outraged by these revelations. By the snoopiness, and the uselessness.

Did absolutely no good as far as the Boston Marathon bombers were concerned.

PS: Is it only me who worries about political uses of this information? If a cell phone can track location, it can track a "family values" politician on his regular visits to his mistress, boyfriend, or dominatrix and her dungeon. And that information can be used to keep the politician in line for crucial votes. Ditto for journalists. Similar uses of sensitive data were made, back in the pre-electronic age, anyway.

[ 07. June 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: Grammatica ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
We have been told that the data collected is only the telephone numbers and the time of the call.

If they want to ac tually listen to what someone ius saying they do it differently. They have been doingthat for decades, and co-operating with British (and other) security services to share data - but they don;t have enopugh computer stuff to listen to *every* call. They can store traffic data though (telcos already do for billing and debugging)

That is quite different from the Internet stuff of course.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm definitely not a technician, but I understand that cell phones make contact with the nearest antenna, and the information of which antenna this is is stored.

Well yes, it has to. Otherwise the phone company won;t know where to route your calls to. That's how cellphones work.

In urban areas you can triangulate on signal an work out where a phone is to within a few metres (you can do it yourself on s smartphone with no GPS - how else does it know where it is for that all-important Facebook Location information?)

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The Fourth Amendment is dead, and Obama's promises of transparency in government were outright lies.

Russ Feingold quoted Justice Arthur Goldberg back in October of 2001 when he was telling us that the Patriot Act was a bad idea:

quote:
From Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez:
"It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation's foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action. "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances ... In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution."
Source

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
PS: Is it only me who worries about political uses of this information?

Well, yes, that is the concern. After all, the phone companies have had access to this data all along and nobody worried about it. Probably because the only likely use that the phone company would make of it is to sell the info to marketers to allow for even more targetted marketing. But the politically motivated could and would use it in so many disreputable and hypocritical ways.

Having said that, I do find it ironic that some people I know who freely talk on their cell phones on the bus, in restaurants and other public places are now muttering about their privacy being violated... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Oh for fuck's sake. Hedgehog, can you really not see the difference between an individual's stupid choice to talk too loudly in public and the government gathering metadata on phone calls made throughout the US and tapping straight into the servers of major internet service providers?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

PS: Is it only me who worries about political uses of this information? If a cell phone can track location, it can track a "family values" politician on his regular visits to his mistress, boyfriend, or dominatrix and her dungeon. And that information can be used to keep the politician in line for crucial votes. Ditto for journalists. Similar uses of sensitive data were made, back in the pre-electronic age, anyway. [/QB]

No, I'm all for it being hard for a "family value" politician to have regular visits (or any variant of systematic deception by anyone).
But for someone else to have control of that is ugly.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Grammatica: PS: Is it only me who worries about political uses of this information? If a cell phone can track location, it can track a "family values" politician on his regular visits to his mistress, boyfriend, or dominatrix and her dungeon. And that information can be used to keep the politician in line for crucial votes. Ditto for journalists. Similar uses of sensitive data were made, back in the pre-electronic age, anyway.

That's only the beginning. For example, the Occupy manifestations had specific times and locations. By cross-referencing these with the cell-phone location records, government could easily identify its participants. Or that of mosques. Or of abortion clinics. I can think of some very scary things that government could do with this kind of information.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We're told by the privacy law people in Canada that we should avoid USA-based data services entirely because we have no idea what they might be snooping on. This includes all business data back-up, internet calling services, health records.

It seems the idea of getting data is initially noble: detecting terrorists and other related threats and stopping them. But it gets misused. Considering the parallel to arresting people, with the misuse of black sites to hold them in.

But perhaps if we catch a few pedophiles it will all be worth it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Fr Weber: But perhaps if we catch a few pedophiles it will all be worth it.

No, prevention of pedophily doesn't justify everything.

(FWIW To me there is a difference between a situation where a pedophile has already confessed to a priest, and blanket rules involving a lot of people that might prevent pedophily. But I guess that would better be discussed on the other thread.)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.

Isn't that one of the many conversations that gave Ruth W her title?

Yeah I remember the early days of the Patriot Act. For the most part, people who tried to speak out about it were labeled unpatriotic.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Fr Weber: But perhaps if we catch a few pedophiles it will all be worth it.
No, prevention of pedophily doesn't justify everything.

For I detect a little sarcasm in Fr Weber's tone of voice?

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh for fuck's sake. Hedgehog, can you really not see the difference between an individual's stupid choice to talk too loudly in public and the government gathering metadata on phone calls made throughout the US and tapping straight into the servers of major internet service providers?

Yes, Ruth, of course I do. That would explain my first paragraph. And why I used the word "ironic" in the second paragraph, while I used "disreputable and hypocritical" in the first.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only people who spoke publicly against the Patriot Act when it was enacted have moral standing to bitch now.
Isn't that one of the many conversations that gave Ruth W her title?

Yeah I remember the early days of the Patriot Act. For the most part, people who tried to speak out about it were labeled unpatriotic.

I complained bitterly about it, and nearly everyone I spoke to on the subject handwaved my concern with the typical "Well, if it keeps us SAFE..." nonsense.

I feel a little like Cato the Elder saying it, but nevertheless : repeal the Patriot Act, and dismantle Homeland Security and the TSA.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh for fuck's sake. Hedgehog, can you really not see the difference between an individual's stupid choice to talk too loudly in public and the government gathering metadata on phone calls made throughout the US and tapping straight into the servers of major internet service providers?
Yes, Ruth, of course I do. That would explain my first paragraph. And why I used the word "ironic" in the second paragraph, while I used "disreputable and hypocritical" in the first.

I still don't see how yapping too loud on the phone even comes into the conversation.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I think, Ruth, that he was making a tiny joke.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

So if I believe CSI, it is routine for the police to get a court order to get access to the cellphone records of a suspect, from which they derive his location as a function of time, and who his friends and contacts are.

The differences between that and this are:

1. Warehousing of data by NSA rather than relying on what the cellphone companies keep (maybe NSA keeps data longer).

2. Instead of requiring a court order to examine someone's phone records, the NSA needs to think that they might like to see them.

Do I have that right?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So if I believe CSI, it is routine for the police to get a court order to get access to the cellphone records of a suspect, from which they derive his location as a function of time, and who his friends and contacts are.

The differences between that and this are:

1. Warehousing of data by NSA rather than relying on what the cellphone companies keep (maybe NSA keeps data longer).

2. Instead of requiring a court order to examine someone's phone records, the NSA needs to think that they might like to see them.

Do I have that right?

Not quite. The other difference is that instead of getting the records of a particular suspect the NSA is collecting everyone's phone records, whether they're suspected of anything or not. Under the current program, a warrant need not "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

For a while now I have abandoned any idea that there is any foolproof privacy in any of our mass communications. I am not at all surprised, just sad.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not quite. The other difference is that instead of getting the records of a particular suspect the NSA is collecting everyone's phone records, whether they're suspected of anything or not. [/QB]

My understanding was that they collect everyone's records in the sense that they archive all the data so they have it available (that's my point 1), but only decide to look at particular individuals and their connections (but without the inconvenience of a little thing like a warrant).

My understanding was that they are not doing data mining and pattern matching on the whole dataset to identify suspicious behaviour patterns that call for further investigation, but of course we only have the word of the secret, secretive spy organization for that. Once they control the data, there is no technical impediment preventing them from doing anything with it.

(The data geek in me would love to play with that dataset. The healthy paranoid in me is rather unnerved that it exists.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding was that they collect everyone's records in the sense that they archive all the data so they have it available (that's my point 1), but only decide to look at particular individuals and their connections (but without the inconvenience of a little thing like a warrant).

I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction under the law. Typically it's more concerned with what kinds of information the state collects and how it's collected than what's done with it after it's been acquired.

And, of course, now we have confirmation that the PRISM program exists. In contrast to the NSA's cell phone tracking, this one actually involves collecting and (in theory) analyzing the contents of files and communications.

[ 07. June 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re warrants, etc.:

I suspect that No Such Agency pretty much does what it wants.

I'd be happy to be wrong.

OTOH, I lived through Watergate and the days of CONTELPRO. So color me cynical.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Sorry. Too late to fix my typo. Should be COINTELPRO.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding was that they collect everyone's records in the sense that they archive all the data so they have it available (that's my point 1), but only decide to look at particular individuals and their connections (but without the inconvenience of a little thing like a warrant).
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction under the law. Typically it's more concerned with what kinds of information the state collects and how it's collected than what's done with it after it's been acquired.

This statement from the Director of National Intelligence claims that there are, in fact, legal restrictions on how the database is used:

quote:
◾By order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata acquired under the program. All information that is acquired under this program is subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and handling. The court only allows the data to be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization. Only specially cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in the Court-approved procedures may even access the records.

I was surprised to see this - I had been thinking that the whole point of hoovering up everything would have been to do data mining. I suppose one could argue that having an archive of the data enables more permissible, warranted searches by preserving records longer than the telecoms normally would.

But if that's all they're doing with it, why does it have to be so hush-hush? We already know they can get this kind of info (if over a more limited time span) from telecoms if they have a specific target; the idea that they might be able to do the same kind of (what sound like) permissible searches on older data doesn't seem a big enough deal to justify all the secrecy.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh for fuck's sake. Hedgehog, can you really not see the difference between an individual's stupid choice to talk too loudly in public and the government gathering metadata on phone calls made throughout the US and tapping straight into the servers of major internet service providers?
Yes, Ruth, of course I do. That would explain my first paragraph. And why I used the word "ironic" in the second paragraph, while I used "disreputable and hypocritical" in the first.
I still don't see how yapping too loud on the phone even comes into the conversation.

Rather a lot to go through here. First, Nicolemr is correct that it was a tiny joke and I apologize if it has distracted from the main thread. But, as usual, my jokes tend to have a small grain of seriousness in them. Having said that, I accept the rebuke that it is obscure and needs to be explained. (I am not sure that it was so obscure that it deserved obscenity, but I suppose that is a matter of personal style.)

So here is the convoluted path: When I heard about this, I thought back to my days in law school several decades ago. And I remember my prof discussing the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." He commented that, if you are speaking on the phone and others could hear it, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and that therefore (at least in theory) the police could listen in without a warrant. Why? Because it wasn't a "private" conversation! I commented that, taken to the extreme, that theory would mean that no phone conversation was ever private because every conversation was subject to be ing overheard. He agreed: the phone operator always has the technical ability to break into a conversation.

This led me to think of people talking on their cell phones in public. The thing is, my experience is that they act as if their conversation should be private--they are offended if you show any signs of listening in. But this isn't reasonable. They are talking in public. This made me think that what people consider "private" is not necessarily a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Just because you think it is rude that others are listening in does not make it a private conversation.

I then thought about Facebook. In litigation (whether with the government or civil trials) what people post on Facebook often comes back to haunt them when the other side brings it up to damage their credibility (if they say something different in court than they posted on Facebook)(e.g., in court, they say "I am in so much pain that I spend my day just sitting on a couch" but on Facebook they post "Went dancing and then riding a roller coaster!"). The Facebook poster tends to be offended because they consider Facebook posts to be "private" but, of course, they are not. Others can see it. The personal intent that it should be private does not override the fact that it is not.

And that made me think about internet access. And we all know that what we access on the internet is not "private." Businesses, for example, set up cookies to track where we go to some extent. So, for example, I visit a website of a tea distributor and, for weeks thereafter, the little side ads on the SOF are trying to sell me tea. This is not a coincidence. Obviously, my visit to the tea site was not "private." In the same way, as I mentioned before, the phone company has always had this phone info as to when and where I made a call. They could, theoretically, use it in any way they see fit. It isn't "private." Others beyond my control have always had access to it.

But this in no way exonerates the government in the current situation. Croesos has it right. I have no problem with the government accessing such information when they have a specific suspect and probable cause to think that the records will provide information of illegal conduct. What is obscene about the Patriot Act is that it has essentially dumped probable cause and permitted everybody's records to be collected without any definite evidence (i.e., probable cause) to do so. That is what violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution. While a private business might get away with it, the government cannot. The government can certainly look at such information in the proper situation with the proper evidence to establish probable cause for a particular suspect, with the courts acting as gatekeeper. But none of that is what is happening here and what the government is doing should be stopped.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

I think that David Simon makes rather a good point, here.

Relatedly, I am never sure why people seem to object in principle to the government accessing other peoples e-mail accounts. Personally, if Special Branch want to peruse, say, Anjem Choudary's hotmail account I think we should let them get on with it.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Relatedly, I am never sure why people seem to object in principle to the government accessing other peoples e-mail accounts.

Because that's the job of your employer? [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that David Simon makes rather a good point, here.

Relatedly, I am never sure why people seem to object in principle to the government accessing other peoples e-mail accounts. Personally, if Special Branch want to peruse, say, Anjem Choudary's hotmail account I think we should let them get on with it.

Sorry, no he does not make a good point. The difference between asking for a wiretap and this* is that the information is already gathered. It will be abused. History has shown that this is not a question.

*and the snoopers charter

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

But the analogy wasn't with a wiretap. If the government wanted to tap all our phone numbers on the off chance that it would lead to a successful criminal prosecution then I would object strongly on the grounds that a) it was a violation of privacy and b) it was a waste of government money.

The analogy is with the Baltimore PD making note of every telephone number being rung by a bank of payphones so they can establish that the payphones are being used to page drug dealers. Which can then be used for an authorisation for a wire tap. Basically this little lot is going to sit inert in a warehouse somewhere until they get, say, a telephone number which they know will be used by a Jihadist, at which point they will run it through the data bank for hits. Rather tedious if you delivered Pizza to said Jihadist back in the day but generally not a bad idea. Of course, it could be misused if the Nazis swept to power but this is also an argument for dismantling the police and the armed services as well.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The analogy is with the Baltimore PD making note of every telephone number being rung by a bank of payphones so they can establish that the payphones are being used to page drug dealers.

Which makes it non-analogous to the NSA program.

quote:
Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.

There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders — not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.

Note the difference. Unlike the current NSA program the police suspected certain, specific pay phones of being used for criminal activity and presented enough evidence supporting this "probable cause" to an independent judge, probably "supported by Oath or affirmation", upon which a warrant was issued. The Baltimore police didn't say "we suspect drug traffickers are using phones, so we want to review the records of all phone calls made in Baltimore".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

There are more examples, but one name shows the potential for abuse: J. Edgar Hoover.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
The analogy is with the Baltimore PD making note of every telephone number being rung by a bank of payphones so they can establish that the payphones are being used to page drug dealers.
Which makes it non-analogous to the NSA program.

quote:
Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.

There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders — not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.
Note the difference. Unlike the current NSA program the police suspected certain, specific pay phones of being used for criminal activity and presented enough evidence supporting this "probable cause" to an independent judge, probably "supported by Oath or affirmation", upon which a warrant was issued. The Baltimore police didn't say "we suspect drug traffickers are using phones, so we want to review the records of all phone calls made in Baltimore".

That's a fair point inasmuch as the scale of earlier trawls for data was smaller but the principle is that innocent people had their phone calls noted by the police. Now in the earlier instance the innocent people were people using payphones in the projects and in the current instance the innocent people are anyone using a given mobile phone provider.

Now admittedly my understanding of the social dynamic here derives from the wire but the Baltimore PD getting the info from payphones in the projects largely affects the urban underclass whereas mobile phone ownership affects People Like Us. This couldn't have anything to do with the "woe unto Illium" routine, could it?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Now admittedly my understanding of the social dynamic here derives from the wire but the Baltimore PD getting the info from payphones in the projects largely affects the urban underclass whereas mobile phone ownership affects People Like Us. This couldn't have anything to do with the "woe unto Illium" routine, could it?

I don't think so. Massive data mining is different in kind from targeted searches of small nets for limited times. Being able to track who everyone is calling, and from where and at what time is massively more dangerous to our liberties than some shmuck cop getting a warrant to track a few pay phones for a specified period of time. With such data access, it is quite possible to focus on, say, a political opponent and work back in time to find some questionable associations in their past, and then either track down or make up incriminating behavior to undermine your rival. This is truly worrisome power, and should alarm everyone. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

My apologies, Hedgehog -- I was too spitting mad to even consider the possibility of humor on this thread. And I am of course in complete agreement with you about what the Patriot Act has done to probable cause.

A question for those in the know: when the Baltimore PD asked a judge to let them tap pay phones, was it a matter of public record? If so, that would make it different from what's going on now.

Also, to me it is important that this has been going on for years without our knowledge. Obama says he "welcomes debate" about this, which is bullshit -- if he welcomed debate, this would have been public knowledge. We can't debate something we don't know anything about.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Real question: Is this very different from the similar explosion of horror a few years ago? link

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Link says the page is unavailable.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

May need to have facebook, unfortunately. It's shared by a page I haven't liked or anything, so I don't think it should be a permissions issue, but perhaps one needs to be logged into facebook.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I didn't like the Patriot Act when it was introduced and I don't like it now. But it's pretty hysterical to see things like Fox News getting all bent out of shape now when they were all in favor when Bush came up with the idea.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm going to piggy-back onto this thread, so apologies in advance.

The most revelations regarding the UK's secret monitoring service (GCHQ) are here, which occurs against a background were a law allowing the government access to precisely the data collected through Prism was withdrawn in the face of almost universal opposition.

Our beloved foreign minister says "if you are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business and personal life, you have nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the content of your phone calls or anything like that."

I say, "fuck that shit."

Citizens have - under existing law - an expectation that their private lives remain exactly that: private. I don't want my life laid bare for someone to pick over (I'll leave that to God), and that's with me living a pretty vanilla existence.

My wife is considering applying for a post which requires additional security clearance above what she already has. I, of course, have spent the last few months working out a foolproof way of smuggling a heavily-armed, highly dangerous team of enemy combatants across the US-Canada border. This can only end well... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This article provides some useful discussion.

A child's guide to why NSA Surveillance is Bad

[quote]Laws mean very little when they are manipulated for evil.[/url]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Well, this should be a boon for Dan Brown: years ago, he published a novel called "Digital Fortress", about a certain agency...

Now, if I were paranoid, I might think he engineered the whole thing to revive sales...
[Paranoid]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I didn't like the Patriot Act when it was introduced and I don't like it now. But it's pretty hysterical to see things like Fox News getting all bent out of shape now when they were all in favor when Bush came up with the idea.

It should be noted that one of the key differences between the Bush-era warrantless wiretap program and the current NSA program is that the former was illegal. The latter proceeds under color of law, thanks in part to some 2008 revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Whether that law is Constitutional is another question, but I wouldn't hold up much hope of the current Supreme Court curtailing the surveillance power of the state.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Fourth Amendment is dead, and Obama's promises of transparency in government were outright lies.

[/QUOTE]

I'm glad to hear you say it, he hasn't received nearly enough criticism for this whole fiasco.

I had a fleeting thought earlier today that possibly he was taking the Patriot Act to it's logical/extreme conclusion in order to get bipartisan support towards repealing the damn thing altogether; then I remembered who we were dealing with.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Power once gained, and however gained, is rarely relinquished. The Patriot Act began to show what freedoms Americans were willing to relinquish.
As the Snooper's charter could well in Britain.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Fourth Amendment is dead, and Obama's promises of transparency in government were outright lies.
I'm glad to hear you say it, he hasn't received nearly enough criticism for this whole fiasco.

I had a fleeting thought earlier today that possibly he was taking the Patriot Act to it's logical/extreme conclusion in order to get bipartisan support towards repealing the damn thing altogether; then I remembered who we were dealing with.

Did you remember that then-Senator Obama voted in favor of the FISA amendment under discussion (after initially saying he opposed it) in 2008? So yes, it's hardly surprising that President Obama feels comfortable exercising power Senator Obama thought President Obama (or, at that point, potentially President McCain) should have.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Power once gained, and however gained, is rarely relinquished.

Which gets to the problem of why hoping that the president is a swell guy who does the right thing is inherently un-American. The U.S. Constitution does not rest on the assumption that the president is going to always be a nice guy exercising restraint. On the contrary, the structure of divided government with checks and balances assumes that the president very often will pursue policies in line with his own personal ambitions. Theoretically Congress (or, more rarely, the Supreme Court) is supposed to act to thwart this to prevent the diminishment of its own authority, but as we can see from this example the current Congress happy in this particular instance to hand massive power over to the executive branch and take a "hands off" approach afterwards.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
A question for those in the know: when the Baltimore PD asked a judge to let them tap pay phones, was it a matter of public record? If so, that would make it different from what's going on now.

It would be a matter of public record inasmuch as a formal document would be submitted to a judge requesting the harvesting of the relevant data. It wouldn't be public inasmuch as the local drug dealers couldn't skim through the Proceedings of the Courts of Baltimore to see which payphones the fuzz were checking up on.

Basically, for the police or intelligence services to surveille the bad guys and build a case against them you most certainly have to violate their right to privacy and sometimes you have to violate the privacy of innocent persons. And the regulation of the police and intelligence services has to be done <I>in camera</I> because you can hardly alert the bad guys that you have a court order to listen to their telephone conversations.

That's based on a) my having watched all 5 seasons of The Wire and b) having worked for three years for a law enforcement agency in the UK which was engaged in covert surveillance. [Biased]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Does anyone else find Snowdon's actions in leaking the NSA info really odd???

From what I've heard in an audio interview and a bit of a TV version, it just doesn't make any sense. He'd been working for an NSA contractor for *3 months*, decided to leak info, got his hands on it, and gave it out--*knowing* that his life is probably over, maybe literally? He came out as the leaker *and* hid out in Hong Kong. Legal opinions vary on whether this was smart or stupid: HK has an extradition treaty with the US; but there's a loophole that may protect him.

In the audio interview, his voice sounds very calm, professional, and polished. No sign of the stress I've noticed in previous whistle-blowers. However, per the interviewer and what I just saw on TV, he does sometimes look very emotional. (The interviewer said the only time he seemed so was when he was talking about the possible fall-out for his family.)

I wondered if maybe he was going to defect to China. In the interview I heard on NPR, he was asked that--and he dodged the question. Carefully talked about how China isn't really our enemy, etc., etc.

How did a new, low-level employee get the info and get it out? (I have the same question about Bradley Manning. A private with access to thousands of classified documents, and able to download them undetected???)

Did he do this in order to ditch unknown problems in his life? Is it ego? Is this like some of the gov't employees who've seen themselves as master spies, and acted it out?

This needs John Le Carre', Robert Ludlum, and John Grisham to co-write a novel.
[Paranoid]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

How did a new, low-level employee get the info and get it out? (I have the same question about Bradley Manning. A private with access to thousands of classified documents, and able to download them undetected???)

Snowdon was not exactly new. He had been working for the NSA, through various contractors, for four years. As to low level, and Bradley Manning, there is a misunderstanding how the process works. Companies, and military units, which deal with classified material are like their parallels who do not. There are jobs that need to be done that high level management, or officers, will not be doing. So you have multiple levels who have the same classification. Otherwise, it is difficult to work together.
The problem arises out of a solution to previous inefficiency. A serious issue in the past was no coordination of resources. Many people operating independently often had information which might help another, but no one knew. Admission of this has lead to more availability of information to more people. These leaks are the flip side of that coin.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How did a new, low-level employee get the info and get it out? (I have the same question about Bradley Manning. A private with access to thousands of classified documents, and able to download them undetected???)

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Snowdon was not exactly new. He had been working for the NSA, through various contractors, for four years. As to low level, and Bradley Manning, there is a misunderstanding how the process works.

Multiple jobs over the course of four years and three months in a current posting is very different from the kind of highly trained, very dedicated NSA analyst you would imagine being briefed on the parameters of a project so secret its existence is withheld from the public. In part this is probably due to the manpower requirements of running a project on this scale. There simply aren't enough of those highly trained, very loyal analysts at the NSA, hence the need to hire contractors.

I'm beginning to suspect that this project, at least the parts of it we've become aware of so far, isn't so much an intelligence operation as it is a massive grift by Booz Allen Hamilton. This kind of indiscriminate collection of data doesn't seem conducive to tracking terrorism, but it does seem conducive to employing a lot of analysts and charging the NSA a hefty data processing fee.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This is interesting, Crœsos. Cherchez l'argent is often a clue to actions, but so is the revenge motive. Here, from the linked blog is a pertinent quote.

quote:
Booz Allen Hamilton lists this as its first risk factor: “We depend on contracts with U.S. government agencies for substantially all of our revenue. If our relationships with such agencies are harmed, our future revenue and operating profits would decline.”

Your "grift" perception looks to me as though it may have a lot of mileage. Consultants can make a lot of money out of peddling hope, particularly when any organisation feels it "must do something" to combat "something else". And I mean "really must do something" rather than "being seen to do something".

To find the needle in the haystack, first create the haystack, second the search engine. All that takes time, meanwhile the money rolls in. I think you're on to something. Plus it looks like "game's up" time.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Consulting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I didn't like the Patriot Act when it was introduced and I don't like it now. But it's pretty hysterical to see things like Fox News getting all bent out of shape now when they were all in favor when Bush came up with the idea.

Just out of curiosity, how many Republican legislators have introduced a bill in the last week to repeal the damned thing?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

President Obama has made his first comments on the NSA surveillance program since it was revealed to the public.

quote:
You can shout Big Brother or program run amok, but if you actually look at the details, I think we’ve struck the right balance.

Of course, one of the biggest problems with the program is that it's classified so we can't "look at the details", so this essentially boils down to "trust me".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Bumping the thread because this* seems kind of relevant:

quote:
Mr. Pickering was targeted by a longtime surveillance system called mail covers, but that is only a forerunner of a vastly more expansive effort, the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, in which Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images.

Together, the two programs show that snail mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency has given to telephone calls and e-mail.

The mail covers program, used to monitor Mr. Pickering, is more than a century old but is still considered a powerful tool. At the request of law enforcement officials, postal workers record information from the outside of letters and parcels before they are delivered. (Actually opening the mail requires a warrant.) The information is sent to whatever law enforcement agency asked for it. Tens of thousands of pieces of mail each year undergo this scrutiny.

The Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program was created after the anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed five people, including two postal workers. Highly secret, it seeped into public view last month when the F.B.I. cited it in its investigation of ricin-laced letters sent to President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. It enables the Postal Service to retroactively track mail correspondence at the request of law enforcement. No one disputes that it is sweeping.

Leaving aside questions of legality or Constitutionality, I'm starting to wonder how effective these kinds of programs are at their purported task. If you remember the findings of the 9/11 Commission [PDF], their overarching conclusion was that U.S. intelligence agencies had enough information on hand to expose the plot but had failed to "connect the dots" in the common parlance of the era. In other words, they had enough information on hand but didn't analyze it in a timely manner.

So given that, why does the solution to "not connecting the dots" seem to have become "get more dots"? Collecting a lot more data, almost all of it irrelevant, seems not just unproductive but actively counter-productive. At least assuming that the goal of these programs is to fight terrorism and not to spy on Americans or line the pockets of government contractors.

--------------------
*The New York Times website has a ridiculous paywall which allows non-subscribers to view ten free articles per calendar month. Only click the link if you're a NYT subscriber or feel like using up one of your ten monthly Times passes.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Golden Key asks:

quote:
How did a new, low-level employee get the info and get it out? (I have the same question about Bradley Manning. A private with access to thousands of classified documents, and able to download them undetected???)

Well, it depends on the agency/department where he worked. In most government departments in Canada, classified material is either commercial confidences (as in contract or funding application material), personnel, or cabinet documents. Only a small proportion of staff get to deal with those, but they are of a range of levels.

In other departments/agencies, there is an unbelievably huge daily cascade of classified information (immigration, justice, etc) and much of it has to be handled, at least initially, at fairly low levels. And, unless you're prepared to pay for some complex access procedures, anyone around has easy access. In my bureaucratic days, one of our real headaches was outsourcing, a procedure greatly encouraged and much beloved of fiscal conservatives-- on several occasions, I had to clamp down on contractors who felt that the presence of a single cleared employees gave automatic clearance to the 47 around him.

The most sensitive files tended to be closely guarded in the old-line agencies, but in some places if one is bottle-washer on that floor....

As to how he got the information out: unless he is at a strip-search at exit place, it is very easy to pocket a USB drive. Indeed, we've had several security breaches in Canada where an employee takes information out of the office on a key to work at home, or to transfer the information to another office, and manages to lose it. British Columbia shipmates may have greater current knowledge of the loss of thousands of medical records.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

There seems, from an English perspective, to be a slightly worrying unanimity between the Democrats and Republicans.

Anyone?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's always been thus DTO. Caesar is two faced: on both sides of the coin.

[ 03. July 2013, 20:19: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Since Edward Snowden became, to quote Stephen Colbert, "drone-bait", I've been noticing how many times information on telephone calls is part of solving crimes or mysteries in TV and movies. The location of the callers, how long they talked, how often and when they talk, landline or cell, are all bits of information. So Americans have been watching the telephony surveillance program in action, in fiction, for quite a while.

I have no idea whether "As seen on TV!!" makes it all better or even worse. It does make the handwringing over this particular surveillance program look rather silly, IMO.

My employer has strict policies against using free e-mail services like Google, or tools like Survey Monkey, because of the security risk -- specifically, the risk that our information isn't secure from the US government. We were told this was because it could be subpoena'ed under the Patriot Act. Good thing we were careful, since we were so naïve.

As for employee access to sensitive information, everyone I work with has always been completely aware that the guts of our computers are wide open to our IT peeps. These people aren't high up in the org chart, but it's misleading to call them "low-level" because they're highly specialized and skilled, and they're integral and essential to every aspect of operations. If it's stored electronically, a whole host of employees will have direct access to it all as part of doing their jobs. We trust them because there isn't any alternative, and because they have a code of ethics, and because they sign confidentiality agreements.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

Handwringing?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Since Edward Snowden became, to quote Stephen Colbert, "drone-bait", I've been noticing how many times information on telephone calls is part of solving crimes or mysteries in TV and movies. The location of the callers, how long they talked, how often and when they talk, landline or cell, are all bits of information. So Americans have been watching the telephony surveillance program in action, in fiction, for quite a while.

I have no idea whether "As seen on TV!!" makes it all better or even worse. It does make the handwringing over this particular surveillance program look rather silly, IMO.

Despite the way it's portrayed in popular media, only a very small percentage of American citizens are TV characters.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
their overarching conclusion was that U.S. intelligence agencies had enough information on hand to expose the plot but had failed to "connect the dots" in the common parlance of the era. In other words, they had enough information on hand but didn't analyze it in a timely manner.

To be fair, the attempt to "connect the dots" is what created Manning and Snowden. Allowing more people to see the dots collected.
The collecting more dots is greed and stupidity.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I feel a little like Cato the Elder saying it, but nevertheless : repeal the Patriot Act, and dismantle Homeland Security and the TSA.

This is a good start.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

I would put this in the prayer thread in All Saints but that would be understandably regarded as politicizing the prayer thread, so i am offering it here. Let anyone make of it what they will. Some will get angry, some will just laugh at it -- so be it, it's just what I'm praying -- I hope that maybe at least some others, in their hearts, might add their inward prayers to this.

[Votive]

God, please protect Edward Snowden -- may he find a safe refuge from very powerful forces

[Votive]

Be with Bradley Manning in his time of persecution and with all the heroic individuals who are willing to risk their lives and freedoms for the sake of the larger good and a more generally decent and humane society for their fellow human beings. Thank you God, for their witness and example.

[Votive]

Dear God, you can do anything. Please somehow deliver the country in which I reside from its present path, and give we who live here discernment -- and please do likewise for the people in other countries facing similar situations.

From the Book of Common Prayer (US, 1979)
For those who suffer for the sake of Conscience

O God our Father, whose Son forgave his enemies while he was suffering shame and death: Strengthen those who suffer for the sake of conscience; when they are accused, save them from speaking in hate; when they are rejected, save them from bitterness; when they are imprisoned, save them from despair; and to us your servants, give grace to respect their witness and to discern the truth, that our society may be cleansed and strengthened. This we ask for the sake of Jesus Christ, our merciful and righteous Judge. Amen.

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :

I think that is an excellent post.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

I thought about starting a new thread, but instead decided to pump this one up to ask the question: is Snowden a hero or a traitor?

I'm not sure myself, and was curious what other shipmates thought?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Possibly both? I am not equivocating,traitor is a legal definition, hero a value judgement.
We, as citizens, deserve to know what our governments are doing. I believe that the British and American governments are stepping beyond a very dangerous boundary between security and invasion of privacy. We are complacent and we should not be.

quote:
The price of peace is eternal vigilance

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I thought about starting a new thread, but instead decided to pump this one up to ask the question: is Snowden a hero or a traitor?

I'm not sure myself, and was curious what other shipmates thought?

Hero!

(But I would say that, wouldn't I)

[ 24. July 2013, 00:43: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

A thieving ex-employee.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

A well meaning man. He deserved to be fired from his job. Nothing more. He has done a good service to the world, viz., House forces vote on amendment that would limit NSA bulk surveillance: Opposition to bulk surveillance swells with vote that would 'end authority for blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act'.

He's probably lucky to be alive, given how mad he's made some politicians.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Traitor, he's acted in a way you'd expect of the Stasi. But given he's admitted his guilt and revealed a despicable betrayal of the American people and values (that he was a relatively small fish in) probably deserves some clemency for his actions before this year.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

A coward.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Traitor, he's acted in a way you'd expect of the Stasi.

Hasn't Snowden acted in a way that's more or less the opposite of the Stasi? Instead of protecting the state's secrets and using knowledge of private secrets to blackmail citizens, he's revealed government secrets and (as far as we know) blackmailed no one. Plus he hasn't tortured or "disappeared" anyone.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Traitor, he's acted in a way you'd expect of the Stasi.
Hasn't Snowden acted in a way that's more or less the opposite of the Stasi? Instead of protecting the state's secrets and using knowledge of private secrets to blackmail citizens, he's revealed government secrets and (as far as we know) blackmailed no one. Plus he hasn't tortured or "disappeared" anyone.

Quite so. The villain in this piece is the government that insists on spying on its own citizens. Snowden, by virtue of exposing the government's nefarious ways and thus seeking to end them, is clearly the hero.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The villain in this piece is the government that insists on spying on its own citizens. Snowden, by virtue of exposing the government's nefarious ways and thus seeking to end them, is clearly the hero.

The villain in this piece are the people who crafted, voted for, encouraged voting for, and applauded the Patriot Act.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite so. The villain in this piece is the government that insists on spying on its own citizens. Snowden, by virtue of exposing the government's nefarious ways and thus seeking to end them, is clearly the hero. [/QB]

He has now, that's what redeems him. But prior to that he was assisting in said actions.

[ 24. July 2013, 21:30: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A coward.

Could you expand on that?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

"Democracy Now!" had a good and relevant show yesterday (7/24). One segment was about Snowden, including a longer version of a June interview that's the media's mostly used as sound bytes. There's also commentary by Daniel Ellsberg.

The next segment is about Daniel Ellsberg;the "Pentagon Papers" that he leaked, back in the '70s; how that all went down; and how a Unitarian Universalist Church publisher was the only one brave enough to print the papers in book form. Daniel, the senator who presented the papers to Congress, and one of the Beacon Press publishers reminisce. Much of it is *hilarious*. (It's speeches to a UU conference, I think.)

The site has both transcripts (posted with each segment) and recordings.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Traitor, he's acted in a way you'd expect of the Stasi.
Hasn't Snowden acted in a way that's more or less the opposite of the Stasi?

You are misunderstanding the comment - which is a commentary on the actions of the snoopers, a body of which Snowden was formerly part of. Hence 'he deserves clemency for coming clean'.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

irish_lord99. He is infinitely more courageous than I will ever be, but he counted coup and ran away. I would be far more impressed if he stayed and let Caesar punish him. Martyr him. Although to some extent even that cannot redeem what he´s done. He took the king´s shilling, signed a contract and betrayed and broke that. That is not how you, we defeat Caesar.

At least he is one is one step up from Assange.

And these men´s feet of clay are not comparable to those of Kennedy and Martin Luther King. They stayed.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Snowden won't face torture or execution, Holder tells Russia.

Doesn't the fact that such statements are necessary demonstrate that there's something very wrong with the U.S. security state?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

There is something wrong, but I don't think that shows anything, because I think that is supposed to mean they can safely extradite him without harming their stance.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Americans, I hope you do not cook and enjoy outdoor activities.

[ 01. August 2013, 21:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re no torture or execution:

Snowden and his lawyer might want to keep in mind the US gov't's lovely way of side-stepping such agreements by sending the prisoner to another country...where the prisoner can be tortured...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Americans, I hope you do not cook and enjoy outdoor activities.

Ah, memories!

I always suspected there was some kind of electronic surveillance involved in my "visit" from the JTTF since they knew in advance which computers to seize, despite the fact that no such surveillance was detailed in the warrant they left.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Americans, I hope you do not cook and enjoy outdoor activities.

If you do, though, here's a tip: don't use your employer's computer to search for "pressure cooker bombs" and "backpacks".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Bumping this thread because I came across this:

quote:
National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency’s enormous eavesdropping power to spy on love interests, U.S. officials said.

The practice isn’t frequent — one official estimated a handful of cases in the last decade — but it’s common enough to garner its own spycraft label: LOVEINT.

Spy agencies often refer to their various types of intelligence collection with the suffix of “INT,” such as “SIGINT” for collecting signals intelligence, or communications; and “HUMINT” for human intelligence, or spying.

The “LOVEINT” examples constitute most episodes of willful misconduct by NSA employees, officials said.

The article goes on to quote various named and unnamed NSA sources saying that using the NSA's resources to spy on an agent's ex is very rare and always dealt with harshly. As with all other recent assurances from the NSA about how they operate, these are backed up by nothing other than the assertion that the NSA is trustworthy.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0