Print

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

[palsch]

And it amazes me British citizens are not outraged more! There is no limit on spying British people that NSA has to abide... and it shares information with British intelligence, so British intelligence might have unlimited access to private data of British citizens - that could be bad if it is the case.

See, I just assume that both countries are doing this anyway. Actually, as a dual US/UK citizen, it would be easier and more legal for British intelligence agencies to spy on me and pass that information on to the Americans. Hell, our excessive state intrusion started before 9/11. I can plead fourth amendment protections against the NSA. That holds no water with MI5.

This may allow more access to information Brits share on US servers and services, but unless you always use encryption on all your communications (and even I'm not quite that paranoid about this stuff) the British authorities could access that stuff in transit without having to jump through any American hoops.

It seems likely he'll be charged with releasing Official secrets, which is a crime in Hong-Kong, and as such he can be extradited.


Argue against that. It's what he did.

Not really familiar with the Hong Kong law, but if it's anything like the British OSA (and it was passed in 1997, when the British law stopped applying) then it only covers documents or other things specifically designated as secrets. Given the Hong Kong authorities couldn't have even known of the existence of the documents he leaked till he leaked them it's technically impossible for them to be covered by the law.

[Duuvian]

I had a hint of it in 2008 when Clinton was suddenly brushed aside for Obama. I kind of assumed at some point the intelligence agencies left intact by Obama would backstab him after they convinced him they were on his team enough to put in place infrastructure to help take over the world's communications for the conservatives. It's why years ago I recommended when he was elected that he clean house most thoroughly and I was obviously ignored. Of course, since he hasn't yet steered away from corporate ideals in most things I doubt much will come of this as it seems the whole process has been bought out by special interests at this point. Yay America.

My advice to Obama person to person: If Obama would like the Democrats to win and to win in a way that history won't make him out to be a hidden villain, he should denounce the crap out of his agency and start firing people left and right if they even have a hint of the stink of the old way on them. The new way should be aiming towards what the internet public wants, as it's a great melting pot of world opinions. If what you want is world peace, then listen to the world on the internet, and ignore anything that seems like a self serving organization other than to acknowledge their existence and perhaps counter any danger they pose towards human rights where they operate; and acknowledge what comes back at you from the people of the internet, even if it runs counter to the powers that want to control you. Maybe I should say especially if it runs counter to the powers that want to control you.

In other words I would like our President to be Righteously offended that his underlings, for instance, would demean themselves by cataloging individual internet perversions. We only need to look at Anthony Weiner to see the fallout that this secret collection of data could cause. It seems at any available moment the opposite political party will use human sexuality against the other no matter how minor the transgression. In an age when pornography is available freely and widely upon the internet to the curious, to those who are alone and feel it is of assistance in the journey through a more difficult life than some who may not want it, and who should not feel bad for the harmless action, to those who delve into the internet and do no harm to a human other than their own psyche.

Should these people be excluded from government positions because they looked at gangbang or other even more unpolitical porn genres? Should someone be unfit for office because he sent a face picture to an undercover agent on a bondage themed website? Surely those infos would be extremely damaging should a person ever try for office and someone with the content decide to leak it. Surely you don't think the media would spare a political person of such a terrible crime after humiliating a politician for sending pictures of himself in boxer shorts to a lady friend. Should the government even give two shits about this or are we doomed to prolong the age of Christian/American sexual hesitency that makes it so hard to test people for disease, that makes it so hard to try to eliminate STDs from the human race?

What this stinks of is political manipulation, to ensure that only the least worldly attain political figureheads while bureaucracy runs rampant underneath them unchecked.

For revealing this I think this Snowden should be Pardoned by Obama, and Obama should reach out to him and bring him next to him to at least listen face to face.

Mr. Obama, you are the most powerful man in the world. Act like it.

Spoken by a true American and I'll fight anyone who denies it.

[misko27]

Okay, I'll start off with saying viewing porn is not illegal. It hasn't been, to my knowledge, ever illegal. Remember that Congress is a place full of men of great power, but they are also, a place full of men, if you follow. (Doctor Strangelove ftw)

I had a hint of it in 2008 when Clinton was suddenly brushed aside for Obama. I kind of assumed at some point the intelligence agencies left intact by Obama would backstab him after they convinced him they were on his team enough to put in place infrastructure to help take over the world's communications for the conservatives. It's why years ago I recommended when he was elected that he clean house most thoroughly and I was obviously ignored. Of course, since he hasn't yet steered away from corporate ideals in most things I doubt much will come of this as it seems the whole process has been bought out by special interests at this point.

Second, I am a little concerned by your self-reference in the first paragraph. They didn't ignore you in particular, no more so then they ignored me.

We only need to look at Anthony Weiner to see the fallout that this secret collection of data could cause. It seems at any available moment the opposite political party will use human sexuality against the other no matter how minor the transgression. In an age when pornography is available freely and widely upon the internet to the curious, to those who are alone and feel it is of assistance in the journey through a more difficult life than some who may not want it, and who should not feel bad for the harmless action, to those who delve into the internet and do no harm to a human other than their own psyche.

Third, Weiner sends pictures of his crotch to women. Not his ladyfriends, he was married. And this is to multiple women. And lying about it to the people he represents. No one was spying on him, the only reason it was found out was because he accidentally posted it publicly. The US was focused on Terrorism, and there was far more of this spying on countries like Iran then the US. Until there is proof saying otherwise, there is no government program that looks at people watching porn. Just because there might be isn't a argument. And the argument could be made that of all people who could stand to have some more watching, politicians would be one of them.

Should these people be excluded from government positions because they looked at gangbang or other even more unpolitical porn genres? Should someone be unfit for office because he sent a face picture to an undercover agent on a bondage themed website? Surely those infos would be extremely damaging should a person ever try for office and someone with the content decide to leak it. Surely you don't think the media would spare a political person of such a terrible crime after humiliating a politician for sending pictures of himself in boxer shorts to a lady friend. Should the government even give two shits about this or are we doomed to prolong the age of Christian/American sexual hesitency that makes it so hard to test people for disease, that makes it so hard to try to eliminate STDs from the human race?

Fourth, that's not exactly limited to Political media. Leak that anyone prominent looks at, err, "unpolitical" things, and people will get upset/excited, but that's a product of the culture. In fact, it is arguable the entire point of these records being secret and un-leaked is that the media does this. These leaks were pretty much only brought to light because of a leaker, so I doubt we'll see their use as a tool of public opinion any time soon. Prosecution of leaks ends their possibility of use politically, simply because the point in those cases would be to have the leak itself not be scrutinized, but the content, and given the record so far, a non-prosecution would arouse significant suspicion.

Fifth, err, Naah, not even going to start on the Christian comment.

For revealing this I think this Snowden should be Pardoned by Obama, and Obama should reach out to him and bring him next to him to at least listen face to face.

Hair-splitting here but he has yet to be charged.

[Eagleon]

I'll repeat this because people seem hung up about it [edit: and I'm all hopped up on aimless, unproductive panic and stuff whatever ]. The fourth amendment has very, very little to do with your right to be free from having your embarrassing family photos, porn, drug habits, or other dirty laundry spread around against your permission. On the broad scale, don't flatter yourself no one gives a shit. This is much more serious than that. Particularly in a society controlled by information, the fourth amendment protects us from the government deciding to pull the strings when they see something they don't like.

The NSA has effectively said with this program that the fourth amendment no longer applies to them. This is very, very bad. The fourth isn't like the second, where it was made in different times in a different situation with different technology blah blah terrorist threat. In fact, it's even more important now, because everything is handled in such an accessible way to this. No, when the government can come into your documents at will, look at what they like, and manipulate it however they feel necessary, you get extortion. Constant, ubiquitous extortion, the kind of shit that makes Watergate look like Nixon was stealing a diary from his sister. You get manipulation of the vote, you get controlled media, no tin-foil hat needed. You get North Korea.

Sooner or later (and maybe later than I'm fearing, but we're talking about human nature here), this kind of power will utterly destroy our government and our way of life. It's that fucking serious. I don't think I'm expressing any kind of hyperbole when I'm dismayed that people are still organizing to protest the Keystone pipeline when the support pillar for our constitution has been yanked out and pawned.

[SalmonGod]

Well, there is the interesting case that the US isn't actually being able to process all of this data anyway. I mean, tracking 360 million people and determining whether they are a threat or not.

I heavily dispute this.  I have here a rather large report about how surveillance was used against the Occupy movement.  It mainly pertains to Arizona, as this is where the researcher who dug up all this information is located, but does describe to a decent extent how relevant this likely is to the rest of the country as well.  I wanted to finish reading through this before I posted it, and was debating whether I'd do so in this or the Occupy thread.  I'm going ahead now, because I think this bit is particularly relevant.

Perhaps the most widely utilized feature of ACTIC is the Terrorism Liaison Officer (TLO) Program. The function of ACTIC TLOs is to disseminate ACTIC intelligence and “critical infrastructure/key resources” “threat and vulnerability assessments” within their respective law enforcement agencies, and to feed intelligence gathered by these agencies back into ACTIC, for the use of other ACTIC-engaged entities (both in the public and private sectors).

There are roughly 800 active TLOs active in Arizona through ACTIC member agencies.

Take a moment to consider this number. The total population of Arizona is roughly 6.5 million people-- nearly 4 million of whom reside in Maricopa County (primarily comprised of Phoenix and its suburbs). Another million reside in Pima County (primarily concentrated in Tucson and outlying municipalities). That leaves a remainder of roughly 1.5 million people, scattered throughout the state’s remaining 13 rural counties. As such, there is one “terrorism liaison officer” for every 8,125 residents of Arizona, most of whom live in, or around, either of the state’s two major cities-- neither of which has ever been the site of any substantial act of  “terrorism.”

Bolded emphasis at the end is mine.  The TLO position as described in the rest of the document that I've read so far describes them as the people who are tasked most directly with information gathering on specific groups.  Now if you consider the kind of data filtering that is possible with today's technology, being responsible for monitoring roughly 8,000 people as a full time job really isn't that much.  Certainly sufficient manpower for identifying persons of interest.  It goes on to describe how one TLO, with the cooperation of local police (especially infiltrators) and federal agencies, was enough to build and maintain a very comprehensive database of personal information on all the Occupy participants around Phoenix.  Plus, communications of major participants were monitored so everything was known about their plans well in advance.

It's pretty safe to assume that if you attended any Occupy event, there is a complete file on you somewhere.  Your personal history has been dug up and prepared to use against you if ever needed, and dirty laundry does matter.  What's the first thing that happens any time a dissenter manages to grab the attentions of the public?  A media campaign is launched to demonize and discredit, mostly based on that dirty laundry.  If the seeds of doubt are successfully planted in the public consciousness regarding the dissenter's character, then it's safe to pursue any action against them without significant public backlash.  We live in a fickle and superficial media culture, and that makes dirty laundry incredibly powerful.

[Sheb]

I'm also just going to post this.

The Director of National Intelligence said under oath that the NSA wasn't collecting data about millions of Americans just a few months ago. How can we believe in Congressional oversight of the intelligence community when they tell blatant lies under oaths?

That's a real problem, how are we supposed to have a debate about the scope of surveillance when the other side is just spouting pure bullshit?

[RedKing]

I'm also just going to post this.

The Director of National Intelligence said under oath that the NSA wasn't collecting data about millions of Americans just a few months ago. How can we believe in Congressional oversight of the intelligence community when they tell blatant lies under oaths?

That's a real problem, how are we supposed to have a debate about the scope of surveillance when the other side is just spouting pure bullshit?

There are some calls already for Clapper to be dismissed, or even prosecuted for perjury. I'm a bit sympathetic to the guy, because it was one of those moments where he's thinking "FUCK. I can't tell them about it....quick, what do I do?" I think he basically fell on his sword, knowing his ass was toast if it ever came out.

That said, when people fall on their swords there kind of needs to be some blood. It's like Petraeus -- I feel bad for the guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's gotta go.

[MaximumZero]

PTW.

[GlyphGryph]

There are some calls already for Clapper to be dismissed, or even prosecuted for perjury. I'm a bit sympathetic to the guy, because it was one of those moments where he's thinking "FUCK. I can't tell them about it....quick, what do I do?" I think he basically fell on his sword, knowing his ass was toast if it ever came out.

That said, when people fall on their swords there kind of needs to be some blood. It's like Petraeus -- I feel bad for the guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's gotta go.

He committed a crime, he should see justice. Admittedly, justice in this case would probably be a not-terribly-long stint in jail and ruining of his professional career, but when you break the law, that's the sort of thing one expects to happen - and I doubt perjury is a crime many people believe shouldn't be a crime.

He really doesn't have much excuse.

And misko, it's not about being illegal. XxoriginxX, it's not about processing ALL the data. It's about the government conveniently having an incredibly amount of power with no oversight, and telling us to trust them, when every action they take seems to indicate we can't. They don't need to process ALL the data to eliminate anyone who becomes a thorn in their side as a threat - And the CIAs involvement as long ago as the situation with Martin Luther King Jr. makes it quite clear they are more than willing to engage in some nasty activity to accomplish that goal even for righteous, nonviolent, noncriminal citizens who are seen as a threat to the establishment.

When you've got a branch of government lying both to the people and to their representives, with no oversight or popular support or recognition, that is NOT a democratic government, not the sort our government is supposed to be anyway.

[RedKing]

There are some calls already for Clapper to be dismissed, or even prosecuted for perjury. I'm a bit sympathetic to the guy, because it was one of those moments where he's thinking "FUCK. I can't tell them about it....quick, what do I do?" I think he basically fell on his sword, knowing his ass was toast if it ever came out.

That said, when people fall on their swords there kind of needs to be some blood. It's like Petraeus -- I feel bad for the guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's gotta go.

He committed a crime, he should see justice. Admittedly, justice in this case would probably be a not-terribly-long stint in jail and ruining of his professional career, but when you break the law, that's the sort of thing one expects to happen - and I doubt perjury is a crime many people believe shouldn't be a crime.

Depends on who's doing the lying and to whom. Oliver North became a goddamned folk hero to some for lying to Congress. 

[Sheb]

Yeah, I hardly expected him to tell the truth, but it jut show how fucked up the system is when the guy is expected to lie.

Also, what's the problem with Petraeus? I guess sex scandals are bad in that they might let someone blackmail him, but apart from that he should free to put his junk in any willing adult he meet. Or did I miss something?

P.S. Oliver North? The guy became a folk hero for funneling Iranian money to Nicaraguan death squads in strict violation of the law and lying about it? What's wrong with you people?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Petraeus technically resigned of his own volition before any story on the matter was published, but that alone betrays that the resignation was probably forced.

They probably saw him having a mistress as a possible security leak. Intelligence organizations already go to great lengths to try to keep the families of their employees in the dark.

[Sheb]

I guess that make sense.

Also, I just looked it up, Oliver North escaped scot-free from the Iran-Contra thing. Man, you wonder why people hates you, here is a good example.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Don't think that the "You must be an upstanding white Christian man" factor isn't there, though. It may be beneath the surface, but it's definitely there. Intelligence agencies are also not particularly known for their open-mindedness.

[RedKing]

Well, there's also the matter of "You lied to us (the CIA) about the mistress, what else could you be lying about?" Once you break that bond of trust (I know, it's massively ironic given that the intel community is full of people whose job it is to lie, deceive and obfuscate) then you're unfit for clearance.

This is why, when applying for security clearance, you're strongly encouraged to confess to any kind of misdeed in your past. They can overlook affairs and drug use way easier than they can overlook LYING to them about it.

Honor among thieves and all that jazz.


And yeah, to a number of conservatives, Ollie North was (and still is) a hero because they believe that the Democratic Congress was merely a hindrance to Ronald Reagan (PBUH) and his glorious plan of...ummm....doing something that fought evil somewhere. Instead of going to prison, he got a couple of years' probation, and eventually all of that was tossed out with the help of the ACLU. An organization which North probably hated and still probably hates. >_<

Now he has a lucrative career on FOX News, the board of the NRA and selling really crappy jingoistic books. Who says that perjury doesn't pay?