NSA Wiretapping and Snowden on the run

[Hiphoplives4eva]

You're a moron.

Well you're a poop head!

 

[RAX 010]

^^^^^^since you responded by saying that and didnt respond back to my serious statement....i now see you as a



keep trolling buddy....

 

[The Real]

Yeah, i agree when you are a spy there are only a few places you can go

Actually, his route suggests he's not a spy. But again, what constitutes "spy-like" behavior?

 

[daze23]

what constitutes "spy-like" behavior?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

EXCLUSIVE: Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post

Edward Snowden secured a job with a US government contractor for one reason alone – to obtain evidence on Washington’s cyberspying networks, the South China Morning Post can reveal.

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

During a global online chat last week, Snowden also stated he took pay cuts “in the course of pursuing specific work”.

His admission comes as US officials voiced anger at Hong Kong, and indirectly Beijing, after the whistle-blower was allowed to leave the city on Sunday.

Snowden is understood to be heading for Ecuador to seek political asylum with the help of WikiLeaks, which claimed to have secured his safe passage to the South American country.

Snowden, who arrived in Hong Kong on May 20, first contacted documentary maker Laura Poitras in January, claiming to have information about the intelligence community. But it was several months later before Snowden met Poitras and two British reporters in the city.

He spent the time collecting a cache of classified documents as a computer systems administrator at Booz Allen Hamilton.

In his interview with the Post, Snowden divulged information that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and mainland China.

“I did not release them earlier because I don’t want to simply dump huge amounts of documents without regard to their content,” he said.

“I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists.”

Asked if he specifically went to Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence of surveillance, he replied: “Correct on Booz.”

His intention was to collect information about the NSA hacking into “the whole world” and “not specifically Hong Kong and China”.

The documents he divulged to the Post were obtained during his tenure at Booz Allen Hamilton in April, he said.

He also signalled his intention to leak more of those documents at a later date.

“If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published.”

Two days after Snowden broke cover in Hong Kong as the source of the NSA leaks, Booz Allen Hamilton sacked him.

 

[RAX 010]

whats Snow mans status brehs?

 

[theworldismine13]

EXCLUSIVE: Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post

SMH @ this benedict arnold

 

[Robbie3000]

EXCLUSIVE: Snowden sought Booz Allen job to gather evidence on NSA surveillance | South China Morning Post

So he made up his mind to expose the NSA and figured out the best way to do it is with the Booz Allen job it seems.

 

[Kid McNamara]

Are you saying the US was always tapping phone calls and reading emails at the rate Snowden is alleging?

If that's the case then patriot act was not necessary

The NSA's mission has always been to intercept, collect, and analyze foreign communications. Snowden leaked documents pertaining to the collection of domestic metadata. What exactly are you attempting to argue here?

in the traditional sense of tapping, nobody except bad guys were getting tapped

now a lot of people say that is illegal

all i can say is that its an open question

This argument is a bit imprecise, but I'll parse through it. By the "traditional sense of tapping," I'm guessing you're referring to telephonic intercepts where an actual conversation (content) is being monitored. Such activity by law enforcement requires proof of exhaustion, and subsequently, a warrant (court authorization) to monitor a targeted individual or group (the "bad guys").

The above standard does not apply to telephonic metadata (i.e., phone number and routing information), which is also a part of legal intercepts, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. While a court order is still required, law enforcement does not need to prove exhaustion, only relevance.

This is not an open question to be decided in the next election, nor is it illegal. It is a preexisting legal precedent, established by the Supreme Court, which allows the usage of Pen registers and trap and trace devices by law enforcement officials during conduction of proactive investigations regardless of scale.

To clear that last statement up. Law enforcement often monitors the call data of thousands of users to search for patterns which can be used to establish the criminality of one. Once there is probable cause, a warrant can then be obtained to monitor the actual content (conversation between two parties).

Therefore, what the NSA is doing still fits the "traditional sense of tapping" and the established guidelines of proactive criminal investigations. Only difference is technology and scale.

But I've been trying to point out that just because this policy might be legal like TWISM and others are asserting, it does not mean that it is constitutional. It has completely subverted from it's initial intentions and limitations. This FISA is nothing like what it was supposed to be and supposed to be a response to. Ironically, it was supposed to limit the means by which the government intercepted information. So the whole "but the three branches are in agreement" argument fails when we don't get get to see the judicial opinions substantiating the activity and when they've literally only ever turned down to two requests. Congress can edit provisions of the bill to make it superior and to have it protect rights. I'm not quite sure what they're all afraid of.

Which policy are you referring to, the NSA collection policy or the FISA policy?

Well, it's difficult to know if FISA is working because of how secretive it is. I do not have an issue with the number of request they have turned down because, without context, the number is meaningless. However, you and I seem to be in agreement, the real issue worth arguing is just that, there is no context. Civilian oversight of the FISA process is a must. Not to suggest the court's procedures be open to the public, but that there must be some sort of established and impartial oversight.

 

[Chris.B]

The NSA's mission has always been to intercept, collect, and analyze foreign communications. Snowden leaked documents pertaining to the collection of domestic metadata. What exactly are you attempting to argue here?



This argument is a bit imprecise, but I'll parse through it. By the "traditional sense of tapping," I'm guessing you're referring to telephonic intercepts where an actual conversation (content) is being monitored. Such activity by law enforcement requires proof of exhaustion, and subsequently, a warrant (court authorization) to monitor a targeted individual or group (the "bad guys").

The above standard does not apply to telephonic metadata (i.e., phone number and routing information), which is also a part of legal intercepts, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. While a court order is still required, law enforcement does not need to prove exhaustion, only relevance.

This is not an open question to be decided in the next election, nor is it illegal. It is a preexisting legal precedent, established by the Supreme Court, which allows the usage of Pen registers and trap and trace devices by law enforcement officials during conduction of proactive investigations regardless of scale.

To clear that last statement up. Law enforcement often monitors the call data of thousands of users to search for patterns which can be used to establish the criminality of one. Once there is probable cause, a warrant can then be obtained to monitor the actual content (conversation between two parties).

Therefore, what the NSA is doing still fits the "traditional sense of tapping" and the established guidelines of proactive criminal investigations. Only difference is technology and scale.



Which policy are you referring to, the NSA collection policy or the FISA policy?

Well, it's difficult to know if FISA is working because of how secretive it is. I do not have an issue with the number of request they have turned down because, without context, the number is meaningless. However, you and I seem to be in agreement, the real issue worth arguing is just that, there is no context. Civilian oversight of the FISA process is a must. Not to suggest the court's procedures be open to the public, but that there must be some sort of established and impartial oversight.

If there is nothing wrong with what snowden leaked why wasn't it made public, you liberal cool-aid drinking ignoramus.

At least the Chinese don't hide the fact that they are monitoring their citizens.

never in my life did I ever think a communist government would be more open than an American government..

 

[theworldismine13]

This argument is a bit imprecise, but I'll parse through it. By the "traditional sense of tapping," I'm guessing you're referring to telephonic intercepts where an actual conversation (content) is being monitored. Such activity by law enforcement requires proof of exhaustion, and subsequently, a warrant (court authorization) to monitor a targeted individual or group (the "bad guys").

The above standard does not apply to telephonic metadata (i.e., phone number and routing information), which is also a part of legal intercepts, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. While a court order is still required, law enforcement does not need to prove exhaustion, only relevance.

This is not an open question to be decided in the next election, nor is it illegal. It is a preexisting legal precedent, established by the Supreme Court, which allows the usage of Pen registers and trap and trace devices by law enforcement officials during conduction of proactive investigations regardless of scale.

To clear that last statement up. Law enforcement often monitors the call data of thousands of users to search for patterns which can be used to establish the criminality of one. Once there is probable cause, a warrant can then be obtained to monitor the actual content (conversation between two parties).

Therefore, what the NSA is doing still fits the "traditional sense of tapping" and the established guidelines of proactive criminal investigations. Only difference is technology and scale.

ok thanks for clearing that up, but if i read you correctly you are agreeing that what the NSA was doing was "legal"

 

[newarkhiphop]

whats Snow mans status brehs?

he was suppose to catch a plane out of moscow this morning heading for cuba , but he didnt make his flight

 

[RAX 010]

he was suppose to catch a plane out of moscow this morning heading for cuba , but he didnt make his flight

does that mean they caught him or..????



this may be the end of his chapter

 

[newarkhiphop]

does that mean they caught him or..????



this may be the end of his chapter

no no he just trolled them apparently, booked a ticket under his name on that flight, when a bunch of journalist showed up/booked the same flight on the plane the seat was empty

 

[theworldismine13]

this may be the end of his chapter

and this is who you base your ideology after?