NSA Wiretapping and Snowden on the run

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,715
Reputation
4,899
Daps
68,755
:what:

Man, don't give me that shyt. These things are not implemented to stop terrorism of any kid. It's coercive tactics to keep people under some form of submission. Sometimes it nets a positive hit but is it worth it? NO.

The ONLY thing that needed to be implemented after 9/11 was some fukking bolt locks on the planes' cabin doors. That's IT. The FBI submitted to the President about an up coming plot to attack the US, including pointing out that some Muslim cats were learning how to fly planes while not caring about taking off and landing. That shyt was IGNORED.


This about control. It's about the status quo remaining the status quo.

So, it's no wonder that the PATRIOT Act and FISA are being used as a dragnet and is targetting journalists and protesters.

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show

Stop pushing this god damn "protecting us" nonsense. Protect us by bringing the people who committed the financial collapse to justice instead of saying that "they're too big to prosecute". Protect us by letting people protest, instead of working for the banks as essentially private investigative units.

I was with you, but I can't agree with two statements at all. The "all we needed was locks on plane doors" is more than a bit ridiculous and you know that. Even the way we reviewed intelligence needed to be looked at again. Further, the only goal of this is "a form of submission" is conspiracy-theory lite. You're giving people far too much credit. You have nothing to support your "coercive tactic to keep people under some form of submission" point. As detested as I am by this practice, I'm not going to let cheap populism override pragmatic criticism. Even the Moglen's of the world who have preached against this type of behavior for years wouldn't go this far. It's enough to say that the government has overstepped the boundaries of privacy, and it's time that we take it back.
 

Bud Bundy

A Bundy never cares
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
13,984
Reputation
1,632
Daps
22,463
tumblr_mo11oiizEB1qekjoqo1_500.jpg
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
I was with you, but I can't agree with two statements at all. The "all we needed was locks on plane doors" is more than a bit ridiculous and you know that.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. The only things that needed to be in place to have prevented 9/11 was locked cabin doors.


Even the way we reviewed intelligence needed to be looked at again.

FBI Was Warned About Flight Schools - CBS News

The intelligence apparatus worked prior to 9/11.We were warned multiple times by multiple agencies, including foreign ones.

The post 9/11 intelligence failed in 2 events: shoe bomber and underwear bomber. The reason those plots failed were due to malfunctioning gear. It also failed in the Boston Bombings.

Further, the only goal of this is "a form of submission" is conspiracy-theory lite. You're giving people far too much credit. You have nothing to support your "coercive tactic to keep people under some form of submission" point. As detested as I am by this practice, I'm not going to let cheap populism override pragmatic criticism.

How is using FISA and the Patriot Act to hunt down whistle-blowers, journalists and Occupy Wall Street protesters NOT a form of coercion? You have plenty of people here and outside of this site who acknowledge they understood they were being spied on. That is a form of submission. It gives a person no choice in defending themselves. When people have tried to defend themselves or ask to be removed from such lists, the government responds in a courtroom that they aren't allowed to mention whether someone is on these lists or not.


Even the Moglen's of the world who have preached against this type of behavior for years wouldn't go this far. It's enough to say that the government has overstepped the boundaries of privacy, and it's time that we take it back.

I personally don't give a crap who thinks what. When these laws are being used to crush protesting, intimidate journalists and crackdown on whistle-blowers, it goes way beyond privacy matters. This is something straight out of Venezuela or Russia.
 

Kid McNamara

'97 Mike Bibby
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,632
Reputation
-625
Daps
5,760
Reppin
Freshman Year
:rudy:

he continuing this policy, so he is to blame.

The policy of what? What is he to blame for? :what:

That the NSA is collecting, mining, comparing, and extrapolating data is not a scandal. This is the work of proactive criminal investigations and has always had a place in federal and local law enforcement. The FISA courts exist to counteract J. Edgar's abuses of power and provide an additional check, namely, to ensure that if a pattern is found which indicates a link to terrorism (or other illegal activity), the correct requisites are met in order to narrow the scope of the investigation to specific persons suspected of committing said crime.

There is no scandal here, the only difference between the NSA "dragnet" and previous wiretapping/data collection techniques is the scope, or rather, the ability to monitor a wider scope of data.

This becomes a scandal only when the programs are abused by the government or an individual actor. Until then, you're being led on by the media's faux outrage.
:skip:
 

newworldafro

DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Bushed
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
50,920
Reputation
5,122
Daps
114,961
Reppin
In the Silver Lining
Trust his opinion above the majority of the pundits out there ....... he doesn't play that politics game, he gave that work to W. the same way .... checks and balances .... but Shep Smith wasn't this upset when W.'s folks was doing the same thing :stopitslime:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10889158

Conspiracy theorists no longer look so crazy
By Tim Stanley

5:30 AM Saturday Jun 8, 2013 ✩

Those crazy American conspiracy theorists who live up trees with guns and drink their own pee don't seem quite so crazy any more. It turns out a "secret court order" has empowered the United States Government to collect the phone records of millions of users of Verizon, one of the most popular telephone providers - a huge domestic surveillance programme and a shocking intrusion into the lives of others.
Of course, it isn't the first time a US Administration has spied on its own people. The origins of this particular order lie first in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, backed by George W. Bush and passed by Congress after 9/11.

Normally, domestic surveillance targets only suspicious individuals, not the entire population, but in 2006 it was discovered that a similarly wide database of cellular records was being collected from customers of Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth.

There was plenty of outrage and plenty of lawsuits, but the National Security Agency never confirmed that the programme had been shut down. It would appear it's still in rude health: the latest court order for collecting data runs from April 25 to July 19.




A few observations. First, America is so conscious and proud of its history as a beacon of liberty that it often overlooks the tyranny that occurs on its own shores in the name of safeguarding democracy. The national security state has expanded to the point where it now functions outside of democratic control and with clear disregard for the constitution.

What's especially creepy about this case is that the state felt no legal obligation to tell citizens it was spying on them - or at least considering it. The result is a disturbing paradox: it's legal to collect information from companies but illegal for the companies to try to tell their customers about it. It seems the law prefers to take the side of the state.


Second, you get what you vote for - and both Republicans and Democrats keep on voting for authoritarians. There's a frustrating hypocrisy that many conservatives applauded the accrual of state power under Bush for the sake of fighting the War on Terror only to scream blue murder about it now it's happening under Obama.

Likewise, many liberals resented the domestic espionage programme of Bush but have been less vocal about opposing it under Obama. The journalist Martin Bashir has gone so far as to claim the IRS scandal is a coded attack on the President's race, that "IRS" is the new "n word". Sometimes it feels like Obama could be discovered standing over the body of Sarah Palin with a smoking gun in his hand and liberals would scream "racist!" if anyone called him a murderer. Their capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.
:damn: :wow:

Finally, totalling up every scandal - IRS, AP phone records, Fox journalists being targeted, the Benghazi mess - this has to be the most furtively authoritarian White House since Nixon's. We don't yet have a "smoking email" from Obama ordering all of this, but it can't be said often enough that there is a correlation between Obama's "progressive" domestic agenda and the misbehaviour of other state agencies - forcing people to buy healthcare even when they can't afford it, bailing out the banks, war in Libya and the use of drone strikes to kill US citizens. This is exactly what the Tea Party was founded to expose and oppose. All the laughter once directed at the "paranoid" right now rings hollow.


Even yall hero Young Turk is like "why did I vote again"???

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U78aW6FwkS8"]NSA Surveillance - Does Obama Have ANY Credibility Left? - YouTube[/ame]

Co - Author of original Patriot Act is troubled ............................ by the Patriot Act (of course yall should know already it was devised years earlier) ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQIbJADtmL8"]Co-Author Of The Patriot Act Flips On His Bill - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
378
Reputation
60
Daps
288
We’re all East Germans now…

:demonic:

Edit: does this mean there might be a database of all the worlds tittie pics? :dwillhuh:

God bless America, if that leaks :salute:
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,330
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,999
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
The Prez hasnt had much control over anything since JFK died. Aside from having an ever growing cabinet, the military-industrial complex has had ever-growing power. Its basically president by committee at this point, and that committee backs down to secret services. He is still the most powerful person in the united states however. Its complicated. Thats just my .02 though, and i am far from a scholar.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,643
Reppin
humans
Aaaannnd.....this is when I get to lazy to respond

:snooze:

That's the first thing recommend in the government's own findings brah. Having cabins that could be locked and only opened from the inside would have prevented the planes from being taken over to use as a weapon.

It's the only thing that would have needed to be done. The intelligence apparatus worked as multiple agencies reported to the federal government that an attack of this type and magnitude was about to take place.

These are the government's own findings or things that leaked to the press. I'll be glad to link you a source yo every single point I just made.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,715
Reputation
4,899
Daps
68,755
That's the first thing recommend in the government's own findings brah. Having cabins that could be locked and only opened from the inside would have prevented the planes from being taken over to use as a weapon.

It's the only thing that would have needed to be done. The intelligence apparatus worked as multiple agencies reported to the federal government that an attack of this type and magnitude was about to take place.

These are the government's own findings or things that leaked to the press. I'll be glad to link you a source yo every single point I just made.
I was, and remain to lazy to go into detail about everything you said (particularly your conflation of issues in order to support your liberal definition of submission in the political sense which served more for dramatics than substance), but none of those findings justifies your claim that all we had to do was create better locks. Your argument relies on the poor assumption that the only type of terrorist attack that the United States suffers from is domestic and through the utilization of airplanes. Those suggestions hold no weight in any other context. So for you to posit that after 9-11 that we had to make no other adjustments to our intelligence agencies as a whole--and yes, responding to intelligence reports is one of those changes--is naive at best and purposefully obtuse at worst. If that Nigerian kid succeeds in blowing up that plane (which I was almost on for the record), no "tighter security locks" would have prevented that tragedy. You know, and I know you that your argument only works in a very limited setting. I also know that you know that I think we went entirely too far, but you're narrowing the scale far too conveniently to support your argument. That's all I really have to say, and feel about the matter because anything else would be a pointless debate that takes away from the point of the thread, which is that this policy is something we need to be demanding more information about.
 

The ADD

Old Master
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
48,207
Reputation
6,336
Daps
99,181
David Simon | We are shocked, shocked…


But this? Please. This is bullshyt.

In Baltimore thirty years ago, after the detectives figured out which pay phones were dialing pagers, and then did all the requisite background checks and surveillance to identify the drug suspects, they finally went to a judge and asked for a wiretap on several pay phones. The judge looked at the police work and said, okay, you can record calls off those public pay phones, but only if you have someone watching the phones to ensure that your suspects are making the calls and not ordinary citizens. And if you make a mistake and record a non-drug-involved call, you will of course “minimize” the call and cease recording.

It was at that point — and not at the earlier stage of gathering thousands and thousands of dialed numbers and times of call — that the greatest balance was sought between investigative need and privacy rights. And in Baltimore, that wiretap case was made and the defendants caught and convicted, the case upheld on appeal. Here, too, the Verizon data corresponds to the sheets and sheets of printouts of calls from the Baltimore pay phones, obtainable with a court order and without any demonstration of probable cause against any specific individual. To get that far as a law-abiding investigator, you didn’t need to know a target, only that the electronic medium is being used for telephonic communication that is both illegal and legal. It’s at the point of actually identifying specific targets and then seeking to listen to the conversations of those targets that the rubber really hits the road.
 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Superstar
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
6,307
Reputation
101
Daps
15,250
Please my breh this program is bs and all this data thry are compiling is for more uses than preventive measures.

You said it yourself they were watching those brothers and did nothing. Im sure they have their phone records credit card purhases and web history.

They couldn't do anything at the time because they did nothing illegal. Same like the other people I mentioned. James Holmes, was purchasing all kinds of materials on the Internet that would raise a red flag but it wasn't illegal.

Who stopped the close call situations on board the jets in years past with the shoe and underwear crew, passengers & us marshal.

:dahell:

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,715
Reputation
4,899
Daps
68,755
(Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appears to have little choice but to launch a new round of investigations into media leaks, the very issue that consumed him for the last month and led to renewed calls for his resignation.

Holder's Justice Department was called upon to identify the leaker of sensitive information when on Saturday the super-secret National Security Agency filed a report requesting a criminal investigation.

U.S. officials said an investigation will undoubtedly try to uncover the leaker who gave a secret court order to Britain's Guardian newspaper, as well as whoever gave a document describing surveillance methods to both the Guardian and the Washington Post.

U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Saturday blamed the outlets for what he called "reckless disclosures" of classified spy agency material.

The test for Holder comes as he deals with fierce bipartisan criticism for his agency's tactics in pursuing media records in other leak investigations. President Barack Obama ordered him last month to review Justice Department procedures for handling media cases, leading Holder to conduct a series of private meetings with news executives and lawyers.

Those sessions focused on two Justice Department leak inquiries that brought an outcry after media records were seized without advance notice and one news reporter was labeled a criminal co-conspirator in documents seeking his records.

Clapper on Saturday aggressively defended secret U.S. data collection, blasting the Guardian and the Post for disclosing the highly classified spy agency project code-named PRISM.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

"It will be an interesting chance to see if the Justice Department has learned anything," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a journalists' advocacy group.

Even after the Guardian unveiled its exclusive story on the court order, Holder was reassuring news outlets on Thursday that he would not prosecute working reporters for doing their jobs.

But the publication of NSA materials - and Clapper's strong condemnation of it - puts Holder back in the position of having to evaluate whether the leaks compromised valuable sources of information used to protect the public.

"I don't see how they couldn't pursue leak investigations in the case of the disclosures this week," said Carrie Cordero, a former Justice Department national security lawyer.

POLITICAL INSULATION

Cordero, now the director of national security studies at Georgetown University Law Center, said it would be unthinkable for prosecutors to bow to recent media criticism.

"The Justice Department is by tradition supposed to be politically insulated when it's conducting an investigation, and I don't see any reason why that would change now - as unpopular as it might be," she said.

Holder's political standing has been on a slow decline. On Friday Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia became the highest-profile Democrat to suggest he should step down.

Manchin told Bloomberg TV that even if a public official like Holder has good intentions, "if they're not being effective and they're not being received, how effective is it and how good is it for the country?"

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett backed Holder in a separate interview on Thursday, telling The Huffington Post that Holder "will be in his position for quite a while."

Chris Harper, a journalism professor at Temple University, said Holder might need to consider handing off the leak investigations.

"It is the fox guarding the chicken house. It's time to start considering special prosecutors in these cases," Harper said.

Holder in June 2012 handed off two leak probes to the chief federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., and Maryland, although both prosecutors still answer to either Holder or his politically appointed deputy, James Cole.

CHANGES SOUGHT


One change in Justice Department procedure sought by media outlets is an opportunity to contest in advance any demand for records such as telephone call lists. The Associated Press reported on May 13 that the Justice Department seized some of its phone records without giving the news agency a chance to object beforehand.

Prosecutors are trying to find out who told the AP about a foiled plot to bomb an airliner over U.S. soil.

Journalists also are pressing that they not be labeled as possible criminals, as when an FBI agent in a search warrant affidavit used the term co-conspirator to describe Fox News reporter James Rosen. Rosen, who was not prosecuted, had reported secret views of U.S. intelligence officials about North Korea.

Holder as recently as Friday continued to express displeasure at the methods his prosecutors used to pursue records from Fox News and the Associated Press, said Leslie, who with other press advocates met Holder.

"He seemed to sincerely believe that those incidents were handled in a way that he didn't like," Leslie said.

Glenn Greenwald, the lead author of the Guardian's surveillance stories, told the New York Times that he expects a U.S. investigation and upgraded the security measures on his computer in Brazil, where he lives, as a precaution.

Greenwald added on Twitter, "Dear DOJ: your bullying tactics will scare some sources, but they embolden others."
U.S. attorney general under pressure to open more leak inquiries | Reuters

Oh, and an excerpt from another article.

Investigating leak

President Barack Obama's national security spokesman Ben Rhodes said the administration was investigating whether the leak had put Americans or US interests in danger, implying that legal action may be considered.

"What we're focused on doing right now ... is frankly doing an assessment of the damage that's been done to the national security of the United States by the revelations of this information," he said.

The service providers - internet titans like Google, Yahoo! and Facebook - also hit back, insisting they had not given direct access to customer data.

"Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users' data are false, period," Google's CEO Larry Page and chief legal officer David Drummond said in a message on their official company blog.

"We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday," they said, adding: "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law."

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg described the press reports as "outrageous," insisting that his firm only provided user information to the authorities when compelled to by law. Yahoo! issued a similar denial.

"The notion that Yahoo! gives any federal agency vast or unfettered access to our users' records is categorically false," general counsel Ron Bell said.

"We do not voluntarily disclose user information. The only disclosures that occur are in response to specific demands."

US spy agency seeks criminal probe into leaks - Americas - Al Jazeera English
 
Top