Seeing as the facts themselves are horrifying, irrelevant character attacks comes across as trying to distract and muddy the issue.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayWell PRISM didn't actually offer the NSA direct access to servers.
That was a different program.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayThose kids and that jerk grow up. Capabilities may escalate as you get older, but not much actually changes. As a kid, if you try and hit the jerk that's pushing you around, well, you're probably going to get your ass kicked. But you might also impress some of the other kids enough to come have your back, and when it's five of you dogpiling on the jerk, the situation turns around pretty hard. But you'll never be able to make him stop if nobody ever throws that first punch, and accepts the risk of getting the shit beat out of him in the process.
I've seen this same dynamic in social situations, as well as in corporate, legal, and political world. It's everywhere, really. People are unhappy. They want something to change. They're willing to talk and whisper among themselves about how much they hate it. But nobody's willing to step up to the people in charge and say, "This has to change. It cannot continue as it is." Nobody does it because everyone is afraid of retribution, and everyone cares, but nobody cares enough to take the plunge of risking everything.
The measures an activist uses reach more ears than the cause he fights for. Many people know of Martin Luther King Jr.'s great speech, "I have a Dream!" How many people know any more about the speech than that famous line? Many know that Gandhi starved himself in peaceful protest. How many know why he did that? What he was trying to accomplish? Look at the misuse of Guy Fawkes in the Anonymous movement; he's become famous for the means by which he revolted, through the Gunpowder Plot. Why he did it? No one cares.LISTEN! .
For many people, the first they ever heard of Snowden was, "Did a bunch of illegal stuff and then ran away to foreign country, now hunted by the law." That's not inspirational. That's not a rallying cry. That's not a banner under which millions will march. What that is, is a conversation point for people to whisper about while refusing to act.
edited 25th Mar '14 2:58:02 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
I've yet to see anything truly 'horrifying' or even that shocking in the documents. A lot of this stuff was old news back in 2012 when FISA was reauthorized. It's also important to take note of the fact that some of the worst things listed aren't that bad. Like the British intelligence's 'war on hackers.'
For starters, Greenwald was pushing the narrative of the NSA sneaking into back-doors for servers. More information followed showing that websites has cooperated in providing meta data under court oversight. Greenwald only doubled down on defending his original reporting.
He has also been extremely chary with facts regarding the limitations on what the NSA has done.
The original article is here
He directly implies hat the government enjoys unchecked and unrestricted access to metadata about users any time it wanted.
[[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42097_Google_Responds_to_Greenwald_Report-_What_the_
... Further details come out]] here showing...this isn't exactly true. Google did confirm it cooperates, but only after the info is vetted and scrutinized by Google's own legal team. Furthermore, Greenwald used the term 'direct access' multiple times, and this has been shown to be false.
Egregiously, the initial reporting indicated that they could track a person's movements over time, as in US citizens. This was later revised to be foreign targets
Summing it up Here
is that contrary to Greenwald's initial reporting, the NSA could not willy-nilly seize data.
Here is a good discussion
of how poor the reporting was when the story broke.
Another example is this article
. The claims are...misleading and scattered, with mitigating info buried. It discusses the British intelligence and the operation ANTICRISIS GIRL, but we only see two powerpoint slides of ACG while claiming they spied on Wikileaks and their supporters.
Now scroll down and you see: It is unclear from the Power Point presentation whether GCHQ monitored the Wiki Leaks site as part of a pilot program designed to demonstrate its capability, using only a small set of covertly collected data, or whether the agency continues to actively deploy its surveillance system to monitor visitors to Wiki Leaks.
While he also claims they use IP addresses to track individual people. Without a court order, this is simply not possible.
Greenwald, btw, failed to disclose he sits on a board of an organization that raises money for Wikileaks. This is a major conflict of interest.
The Heathrow incident speaks for itself. Greenwald flat out lied that his husband was detained without a lawyer or water. He was offered both and refused.
Here's a favorite
. Greenwald reports on the NSA using porn as a weapon on terrorists. IE: by exposing the porn-surfing habits of terrorist leaders to expose them as hypocrites.
Greenwald...neglects to mention from the get-go this was done to six targets and makes it appear they're doing it to 'radicalizers'.
edited 25th Mar '14 3:07:21 PM by Lightysnake
Let's see, conspiring to weaken cryptography standards, adding security vulnerabilities to commercial products, hacking hundreds of thousands of people, hacking innocent people unrelated to the targets of investigation, operating criminal botnets, engaging in online smear campaigns, lying under oath to congress, ...
Stop trying to derail the conversation with your dislike of Greenwald.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayMichael Maiello at Esquire just argued that Obama's commitment to overhaul opens the door, politically, to a pardon for Snowden
. Regardless of your feelings on Snowden himself, a pardon would send a hell of a message. The NSA leadership would flip their shit though.
I'd be shocked if that happened. It also opens up a horrible precedent. "Steal hundreds of classified documents, run to Russia, offer to help countries avoid US surveillance...but you got people talking, so it's all good." It's a pretty terrible article that pretty much mangles the facts and doesn't seem to understand the basic definition of a whistleblower
![]()
You mean exactly what spy agencies do to foreign targets? Clapper screwed up and should have kept his mouth shut, but he was sandbagged and Wyden knew it. It's an old trick: Ask someone a question you know they're not legally allowed to directly answer. Not to say Clapper was right. It was very stupid of him.
I'd also ask you to source these things. For the record, I'd love to not talk about Greenwald. He just won't let us.
edited 25th Mar '14 5:04:46 PM by Lightysnake
Considering the upcoming midterm elections, I have a bit of doubt on Obama's words. It could be just window dressing.
Besides, I still think that the NSA might have confidential information that could compromise Obama politically or personally (or both). It's just Wild Mass Guessing, of course, but honestly, I wouldn't put it past them to do such a thing.
What horrible precedent? What if such a pardon makes way to improving on better conditions for the law regarding whistleblowers?
edited 25th Mar '14 5:04:31 PM by Quag15
Because it says you can infiltrate security agencies with express intent to steal data, steal hundreds of classified documents, flee to Russia, expose no legal wrongdoing, jeopardize the safety of an agent, nearly cause two countries to come to blows and exacerbate a humanitarian problem, offer to aid countries against the US
Snowden is no hero. He's an activist who thought theft would be a great idea and has clearly not planned this out well at all. He's stuck in Russia and clearly didn't want to be at first.
And Snowden's not a whistleblower by the very definition of the word, so he's worthless to any conversation regarding those. And that bit on the NSA having confidential on the President? Like...what? That goes into the realm of the farcical.
How the hell does none of what Snowden revealed about US intelligence agencies' shady practices count as legal wrongdoing?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Because the vast majority of it was legalized in 2006 and 2012. Most of the worst stuff (not that Snowden or Greenwald will tell you) is being done to non-citizens. there was the incident of the NSA analysts spying on people they knew, but that was individual wrongdoing and detailed in an internal audit.
If there's actual legal wrongdoing, I haven't seen it in the articles posted yet. I'm not saying there isn't, but they're taking their sweet time. The NSA, for anything domestic, has to get a warrant to actually listen in, and they have to go through courts for that. I'll definitely grant FISC has its own issues, but that's a separate topic
edited 25th Mar '14 5:24:45 PM by Lightysnake
Ah, wait, I think I have pinpointed the problem: Some of us, like me, define "illegal" in a way that also encompasses "unconstitutional" — or in another way, "just because this act is permitted by a law that violates basic rights (human, civil, or whatever the category) as defined in the country's constitution does not make said act 'legal'".
Laconic: Constitution > Laws when there is conflict, unless it is exhaustively proven otherwise with a sufficient measure of fairness and honesty in the proving process.
edited 25th Mar '14 5:33:40 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Snowden was hired. He found the information and thought about things according to his conscience.
Which he then leaked through the Guardian and other people.
Knowing that he could be screwed up beyond anything and knowing his concerns had been ignored or dismissed throught the legal means and channels of communication, he felt that he had no other choice but to risk it. He could've gone to South America, but the US still has some weight over the countries in that area unlike, say, the weight they have over China or Russia (which is relatively little).
Link me to the article about the agent. As for exposing, Snowden felt that intruding in the communications of thousands/millions of Americans was against his conscience and against the right to privacy (and I'm no even talking about Facebook, I'm talking about phone calls to their colleagues, friends and family). Also, spying on the allies' nations is not ok. It causes a breach of trust between them.
I'm not gonna comment this sentence. Because I can't understand what that is supposed to mean. Also, the US has aided countries and certain groups to fight other countries, so, call it karma.
Replace theft with whistleblowing and I'll agree with you on that. Though his initial plans didn't came to fruition, as the US blocked many paths and pressured other countries to sabotage his escape route (e.g. Evo Morales incident).
"A whistleblower is a person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal activity occurring in an organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest."
Tapping into communications unkwowingly and without a mandate against Americans and many other people throughout the world is a violation of the law and a direct threat to public interest.
Also, Snowden has information that he hasn't exposed, for even he knew it would be going too far. Exposing illegal activity and dishonesty is also something he's done, through the press. He's not worthless. On the contrary, without him, we wouldn't be knowing and discussing the full extent of what the biggest nations on earth are doing to us, the people.
It wouldn't be the first organization to have confidential information on the President. See FBI and JFK.
That's why I said it was Wild Mass Guessing. I don't claim it to be true until I have further evidence, but one can always be prepared for all case scenarios, from the best to the worst.
edited 25th Mar '14 5:37:44 PM by Quag15
Sept against domestic targets yeah, oddly enough there are different rules for domestic and foreign targets.
Can I get a source on this?
I've added a step that you appear to have forgotten about in your list of what Snowden did.
Someone want to explain who this guy is and why he's apparently behind all the information Snowden is leaking? I've been following things via several news outlets (mainly the BBC, Guardian and Independent) and I've not heard this name before (well that I can remember).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
'Constitutional' is a debatable proposition. While one judge has said it isn't, two others have ruled separately in a way that incorporates precedent, namely Smith v. Maryland which ruled that the type of data the NSA collects is not private.
To put it another way, your phone calls' contents are private, but the record that they exist, created by whatever company is not. Other challenges by the ACLU have also not been heard by the courts, quite deliberately, for several reasons.
Missing from the documents thus far, is also that the agency has targeted American citizens unconstitutionally. The FISA provides that all procedures must comply with the Fourth Amendment, which doesn't say 'no watching people ever,' it provides for the search needing to be 'reasonable' and supported by warrant.
It's a very debatable issue here. The text of 'persons, houses, papers and effects' does not, traditionally, cover metadata, either.
Now, then:
Snowden was hired. He found the information and thought about things according to his conscience.
Snowden took the job specifically to steal documents
actually.
Knowing that he could be screwed up beyond anything and knowing his concerns had been ignored or dismissed throught the legal means and channels of communication, he felt that he had no other choice but to risk it. He could've gone to South America, but the US still has some weight over the countries in that area unlike, say, the weight they have over China or Russia (which is relatively little).
And he also took tons of clssified documents to those countries, which is not a good thing. And save the "he could be screwed beyond anything." Multiple leakers have been arrested in the US. All of them tried and convicted legally.
Your cause is worth as much as you're willing to give for it. Snowden is simply an attention seeker who's not willing to walk a mile for the country he supposedly loves.
Link me to the article about the agent. As for exposing, Snowden felt that intruding in the communications of thousands/millions of Americans was against his conscience and against the right to privacy (and I'm no even talking about Facebook, I'm talking about phone calls to their colleagues, friends and family). Also, spying on the allies' nations is not ok. It causes a breach of trust between them.
This is what spy agencies do...they do it to us. Hell, Israel has spied on us. And Australia.
The data was first posted here
and has since been redacted, due to keeping the name of an NSA agent on the front page who composed the program (that wasn't spying on anyone playing Angry Birds)
And again, if that's what you think the NSA is doing, you have been misinformed. Grievously.
I'm not gonna comment this sentence. Because I can't understand what that is supposed to mean. Also, the US has aided countries and certain groups to fight other countries, so, call it karma.
Snowden revealed state secrets from Australia
pertaining to Indonesian surveillance. The timing of this is when Australia and Indonesia had been working to curb human trafficking across the seas.
As a result, Indonesia had called off its cooperation
with Australia. Well done, Snowden. Well done. How does this possibly pertain to the US exactly?
Oh, and Australia and Indonesia had increased naval tensions towards one another as a result.
As for that whole "he's a whistleblower" thing
Read the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act.
Frankly, if you didn't know about this? You weren't paying attention in 2006 when it came out Bush was doing this shit without warrants. ACTUAL whistleblowers came forward. Democrats fought to get oversight, hence FISA.
Metadata is not private, and that's standing US law. The NSA does not 'tap into' communication. To even learn someone's name, they need a court issued warrant. This is authorized by FISA, which states flat out it must conform to the fourth amendment, so that takes it right out of the realm of 'illegal or misconduct' unless you can point to the documents to show me a specific instance of violation.
I'd invite you to read Kurt Eichenwald's piece
. He'd been writing about this before Snowden was a household name.
Now, as for the NYT issues: The Guardian, in partnership with The New York Times and Pro Publica, published a piece detailing how the NSA could collect data from smartphone apps. Except, the documents contained thename of an NSA agent. They later realized this and published a redacted version later.
So, in essence, Snowden dumped a gaggle of info featuring names of confidential agents into the public eye and let people sort it out for him. This is beyond irresponsible.
edited 25th Mar '14 6:02:54 PM by Lightysnake
I dont know if Greenwald specifically reported on these things accurately or not. But...
The NSA has developed the capability
to hack servers, if they want to...
Both Google and Yahoo claimed that the NSA hacked their servers
...
The NSA does collect telephone
and internet
metadata... although Obama recently proposed to stop storing the phone records...
The NSA does, in fact, track the location of people through their cell phones
, although the NSA claims that they do not do this in bulk...
The GCHQ thing seems to come entirely from Snowden, so it all depends on how reliable you think he is. But it seems clear that they at least that they collected some kind of data from Wikileaks and took a lead in pressuring foriegn countries to persecute Assange.
The NSA also collects the IP addresses
, as well as passwords to online email and other accounts of the Sysadmins of networks they want access to.
The NSA broke surveillance rules or court orders
almost 3000 times in one year, and the rate continues to increase...
So while I cant speak to Greenwald's reporting, if those are the main complaints against him, it seems somewhat of a nitpick taking into account the vast extent of what the NSA has done.
For those who want to learn more, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
is a good resource.
For the record, I'd love to not talk about Greenwald. He just won't let us.
Actually, it is just you. Noone was talking about Greenwald before you kept bringing him up constantly.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Playedited 25th Mar '14 6:08:12 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016If one doesn't know about Greenwald, they aren't following this story well. He's been a major part of it from the get go, given major publications publish his claims without the barest hint of a fact check.
![]()
1. Of course the NSA has the capacity to hack servers. Why would this shock anyone? What good would a spy agency be without that?
2. nobody has been quite able to yet explain to me how the metadata thing is some grievous violation of privacy. You give up metadata every day on the internet, and according to US law, it isn't really private. There are questions I have about how effective it is, but that's another conversation.
3. We know they can track targets through cellphones to an extent. The issue is, I've seen no evidence they're doing this to anyone but actual targets.
4. Those 'NSA broke court orders' thing comes from an internal audit the NSA itself conducted. Look at the article itself: The documents do not make it clear how much of the information that can be taken from apps is routinely collected, stored or searched, nor how many users may be affected. The NSA says it does not target Americans and its capabilities are deployed only against “valid foreign intelligence targets”
Just cause the information is available via the apps doesn’t mean NSA is collecting it. If it is, there’s no confirmation of it there.
Just because the NSA can do something doesn't mean it is. That's why oversight is important.
Now, back to the internal audit:
Look at the article and then these facts:
–There was a “quadrupling of NSA’s oversight staff” in 2009 after the Obama administration came into office.
–There are “semi-annual reports to Congress” about NSA “errors and infractions.”
–The public can read abbreviated versions of these audits. “The limited portions of the reports that can be read by the public acknowledge ‘a small number of compliance incidents.’” Obviously, a full public disclosure of agency errors would reveal the nature of NSA’s top secret SIGINT operations. But this is evidence that the public can attain a limited peek at NSA’s audits anyway.
–There are “regular audits from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and periodic reports to Congress and the surveillance court.”
–Regarding the surveillance court, Gellman’s article reveals a summary of a now infamous 86-page October 2011 decision by the FISA court, which determined that a then-brand new NSA operation was unconstitutional and must be discontinued.
The very existence of this FISC decision utterly neuters the “FISA is a rubber stamp court” narrative peddled by Greenwald and his groupies. In total, the article decimates the notion that NSA operates without oversight or self-correcting measures that yield to constitutional mandates.
Some context as well here
Some math helps to contextualize the violations as well. 2,776 violations in one calendar year averages out to around 7 violations per day (or, perhaps more realistically, 10 violations per business day). The NSA probably employs between 30,000 and 40,000 people, mostly concentrated in the DC area at Ft. Meade in Maryland. Let’s say 1/3 of them are involved in analysis, so anywhere between 10,000 and 13,000. 7 violations per day among 13,000 analysts is actually a very small number in a relative sense. Especially considering the volume of information the NSA tries to sort each day (upwards of billions of pieces of data), 7 violations per day doesn’t sound very significant. That doesn’t make it okay, but it does suggest violations happen rarely, and are far outside the norm
The 'violations' also include: “operator error,” “computer error,” “typographical errors” and so forth.
So, see the issues?
I didn't know.
But in fairness the only other sites that I could find that carried the story were Fox News
, The Voice of Russia
, and the Wall Street Journal.
I thought Press TV was the best choice out of the 4.
edited 25th Mar '14 6:25:38 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Greenwald's proficiency as a journalist - or lack of it as the case may be - isn't really relevant to the substance of the NSA disclosures, which were prepared mostly by the Guardian, who themselves seem to have all the Snowden docs.
Schild und Schwert der Partei