Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

The problem is that the FISA courts seems more of a rubber stamp than anything else. They never refused any demand for access. Depending on how streamlined the process is, it is entirely possible than a single agent could just go and access whatever he wanted.

[Loud Whispers]

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

why

[GlyphGryph]

Considering that the UK official who recently commented on this said exactly the same thing "If you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear from this program", well..

[palsch]

The problem is that the FISA courts seems more of a rubber stamp than anything else. They never refused any demand for access. Depending on how streamlined the process is, it is entirely possible than a single agent could just go and access whatever he wanted.

My understanding is that the FISA process involves claims going through two separate review processes before being put in front of a court. There are internal NSA procedures with dedicated teams who review claims (as well as gathered information for retroactive minimisation purposes) and then a team of FISA lawyers who then submit the proposal to the judge. Their being a rubber stamp doesn't mean it's that streamlined or that they don't apply limits and refinements to the claims.

While it's pretty much been known since FISA and the FAA have extremely broad scope and the potential for abuse, it's not that broad. Criticising FISC for being a rubber stamp and FISA conditions for being too easy to meet is one thing, pretending the entire court system (along with the NSA) have gone rogue and are completely ignoring the laws that govern them is quite another.

This is actually part of my concern. The debate has come back into the public eye with these leaks, which is great. But the hyperbole is likely to cause those who understand the system to be dismissive of complaints based on that hyperbole.

We saw the same thing with the NDAA. The idea that it was authorising citizen detention made no sense for those who had been following detention law over the previous decade, which ended up making the whole debate not about how to reduce US military detention but about trying to pin down what exactly the law did.

In this case the valid debate about FISA/FAA look like they are going to be overshadowed by arguments about just what the fuck PRISM is or conspiracy shit about how the NSA are flat out ignoring the law.

[XXSockXX]

I've just read that Snowden is seeking asylum in Iceland. There is a loophole however:
If China does not extradict him, the US-authorities plan to declare his passport invalid. China deports stateless people to the country they travelled from. (Says a german newssite citing rumors from Washington...)

[SalmonGod]

Regarding that Slate article and whether or not Snowden had all the accesses he claims:  I'm undecided at this point, but I do recall that Manning had access to huge amounts of classified data and that his level of access was said to be available to tens of thousands of people.  So it wouldn't surprise me too much if Snowden had all the accesses he claims.

A quick search shows that there's been new information obtained on security clearances fairly recently, and it's becoming part of the debate surrounding this issue.  Supposedly, 1.4 million people in the U.S. have top-secret level clearance.

Another thought:  if Snowden's story about his accesses doesn't add up, could it be possible that he's taking credit to protect the person actually responsible?

[XXSockXX]

A quick search shows that there's been new information obtained on security clearances fairly recently, and it's becoming part of the debate surrounding this issue.  Supposedly, 1.4 million people in the U.S. have top-secret level clearance.

So much for top-secrecy  . That whole thing reeks of incompetence.

Merkel said she'd bring it up when Obama is in Berlin next week. He may not care much about diplomatic pressure, but it's also bad for US-business.

[palsch]

Regarding that Slate article and whether or not Snowden had all the accesses he claims:  I'm undecided at this point, but I do recall that Manning had access to huge amounts of classified data and that his level of access was said to be available to tens of thousands of people.  So it wouldn't surprise me too much if Snowden had all the accesses he claims.

Oh, he had top secret access.

It's less likely he had access to the PRISM system.

This remains a solid outline of what PRISM seems to be. The existence of PRISM doesn't seem to be classified at all. Seeing the contents of PRISM are going to require access to that specific program and going through internal NSA procedures, even if you generally have top secret clearance.

And yeah, classification reform has been on the radar for a while now. Since the 9/11 commission actually. There have been bills passed and debates had. Just no-one generally gives a crap.

Another thought:  if Snowden's story about his accesses doesn't add up, could it be possible that he's taking credit to protect the person actually responsible?

Oh, his story and position matches the documents leaked. It seems he did have top secret access and the documents leaked are consistent with that. It's the claims he was actually able to use PRISM to order releases of data and the claims about how it works (the live access to servers, 'watching as you type' stuff) that don't add up.

[RedKing]

I'm sure this is going to come across as hypocritical (because I have been and continue to be a strong critic of PFC Manning), but I seriously applaud Snowden. If you're going to leak, this is how you do it. You don't do an indiscriminate data dump on Wikileaks. You find a reputable news organization (preferably one outside the US but still fairly US-friendly), and you give narrowly targeted information to them.

And yeah, there's a shitload of security clearances out there. And it's not uncommon (especially in IT) to run across stuff you're really not cleared for.

[Eagleon]

Ok, sorry if you guys don't give a crap and this is off-topic or whatever.

It blows my mind that anyone could begin to accept (or posit to dismiss without ridicule) widespread monitoring of US communications as 'ok because foreigners'. Do people really think there's any way to separate out foreign communications from overwhelming amounts of US communications perfectly? And even if there is, do people think this is all that it'll be used for? That the US is so pristine of human rights violations that there aren't people that need to be protected from the government? You don't wiretap everyone in your own nation by accident. You don't trust the same agency that's spying on you to resolve something like this, no matter how classified their actions may be. Nothing is more damaging to national security than this kind of violation, because the US is not and has never been immune to becoming a dictatorship.

I've never believed for a moment that the government by itself was powerful enough to grow into a tyranny, but when I see things like _nothingtohide and a general lack of outrage, protest, riots from something like this, I truly have to wonder how close we are.

[Scoops Novel]

I was wondering where you where, Redking. You're not the first I've seen say that, by the way. Why do you think Bradley Manning went down the route he did?

[Moghjubar]

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

why

From http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572
"These people trust our government to amass a gigantic database of personal information on civilians suspected of no wrongdoing because only criminals and terrorists have an expectation of privacy.

And I think they’re idiots. So I made this to mock them."

[Sheb]

RedKing, couldn't you get in trouble for approving of whistleblowers? Also, what do you think of PRISM, if you can tell us about it?

palsch: what your aticle describe doesn't seem so far removed from what Snowden claim. The main differences with the wildest claims are that 1) The internet companies know what they give the NSA, as they are answering FISC orders, and 2) It all goes through a FISA court.

But now, the process of handing over the informations through PRISM may well be automated. And given the tradition in the US government to interpret the law in far-reaching way (like the fact that apparently Obama's talking over a meeting of whether or not to kill someone fullfill due process), I wouldn't be surprised if analysts had access to the informations by default, with the FISA court analyzing the stuff afterward.


P.S. Also, as a non-US citizen, fuck your government guys.

[Scelly9]

And yeah, there's a shitload of security clearances out there. And it's not uncommon (especially in IT) to run across stuff you're really not cleared for.

Heh, I've recently been looking at jobs in pentesting. One of the requirements in every one I've looked at is "Top Secret security clearance". If a top secret clearance is required for every single person in a huge industry like that, it makes sense that they hand the things out like candy.

[XXSockXX]

Even here, where privacy is more of an issue than in the US, I think the majority just doesn't realize the extent of this. I keep hearing "I have nothing to hide" from people, until I point out that future employers might object to their passed-out-drunk-pics on Facebook. Everyone is used to mistrusting the government, but they only care if it costs them money.