US govt secretly collecting data on millions of Verizon user

Byrnzie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ge-charges

On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden

Who is actually bringing 'injury to America': those who are secretly building a massive surveillance system or those who inform citizens that it's being done?


Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 June 2013


'...Prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, there were a grand total of three prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act (including the prosecution of Dan Ellsberg by the Nixon DOJ). That's because the statute is so broad that even the US government has largely refrained from using it. But during the Obama presidency, there are now seven such prosecutions: more than double the number under all prior US presidents combined. How can anyone justify that?

For a politician who tried to convince Americans to elect him based on repeated pledges of unprecedented transparency and specific vows to protect "noble" and "patriotic" whistleblowers, is this unparalleled assault on those who enable investigative journalism remotely defensible? Recall that the New Yorker's Jane Mayer said recently that this oppressive climate created by the Obama presidency has brought investigative journalism to a "standstill", while James Goodale, the General Counsel for the New York Times during its battles with the Nixon administration, wrote last month in that paper that "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom." Read what Mayer and Goodale wrote and ask yourself: is the Obama administration's threat to the news-gathering process not a serious crisis at this point?

...He [Edward Snowden] could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things.

What he did instead was give up his life of career stability and economic prosperity, living with his long-time girlfriend in Hawaii, in order to inform his fellow citizens (both in America and around the world) of what the US government and its allies are doing to them and their privacy. He did that by very carefully selecting which documents he thought should be disclosed and concealed, then gave them to a newspaper with a team of editors and journalists and repeatedly insisted that journalistic judgments be exercised about which of those documents should be published in the public interest and which should be withheld.

That's what every single whistleblower and source for investigative journalism, in every case, does - by definition. In what conceivable sense does that merit felony charges under the Espionage Act?

The essence of that extremely broad, century-old law is that one is guilty if one discloses classified information "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation". Please read this rather good summary in this morning's New York Times of the worldwide debate Snowden has enabled - how these disclosures have "set off a national debate over the proper limits of government surveillance" and "opened an unprecedented window on the details of surveillance by the NSA, including its compilation of logs of virtually all telephone calls in the United States and its collection of e-mails of foreigners from the major American Internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple and Skype" - and ask yourself: has Snowden actually does anything to bring "injury to the United States", or has he performed an immense public service?

The irony is obvious: the same people who are building a ubiquitous surveillance system to spy on everyone in the world, including their own citizens, are now accusing the person who exposed it of "espionage". It seems clear that the people who are actually bringing "injury to the United States" are those who are waging war on basic tenets of transparency and secretly constructing a mass and often illegal and unconstitutional surveillance apparatus aimed at American citizens - and those who are lying to the American people and its Congress about what they're doing - rather than those who are devoted to informing the American people that this is being done.

The Obama administration leaks classified information continuously. They do it to glorify the President, or manipulate public opinion, or even to help produce a pre-election propaganda film about the Osama bin Laden raid. The Obama administration does not hate unauthorized leaks of classified information. They are more responsible for such leaks than anyone.

What they hate are leaks that embarrass them or expose their wrongdoing. Those are the only kinds of leaks that are prosecuted. It's a completely one-sided and manipulative abuse of secrecy laws. It's all designed to ensure that the only information we as citizens can learn is what they want us to learn because it makes them look good. The only leaks they're interested in severely punishing are those that undermine them politically. The "enemy" they're seeking to keep ignorant with selective and excessive leak prosecutions are not The Terrorists or The Chinese Communists. It's the American people.

The Terrorists already knew, and have long known, that the US government is doing everything possible to surveil their telephonic and internet communications. The Chinese have long known, and have repeatedly said, that the US is hacking into both their governmental and civilian systems (just as the Chinese are doing to the US). The Russians have long known that the US and UK try to intercept the conversations of their leaders just as the Russians do to the US and the UK.

They haven't learned anything from these disclosures that they didn't already well know. The people who have learned things they didn't already know are American citizens who have no connection to terrorism or foreign intelligence, as well as hundreds of millions of citizens around the world about whom the same is true. What they have learned is that the vast bulk of this surveillance apparatus is directed not at the Chinese or Russian governments or the Terrorists, but at them.

And that is precisely why the US government is so furious and will bring its full weight to bear against these disclosures. What has been "harmed" is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability. If anything is a crime, it's that secret, unaccountable and deceitful behavior: not the shining of light on it.

Guitar92player

aerial wrote:

To bad you refuse to understand that this has nothing to do with Hannity, Fox News (which I rarely watch). I do like 5 at 5 sometimes.

If you just look at the people Obama associated with you would know he hates everything America is about and wants to change it to a socialist paradise. For the ones that stand behind this fake they have to be either ignorant or socialist lovers them selves. I believe he is using this data mill to blackmail congress, judges and anyone that gets in his way. Notice how anyone that could give information about Benghazi are retired, resigned or promoted to positions that would keep them from testifying Why is Obama never knows what is going on until the News reports on it....shouldn't he be doing his job and make it his business on what is going on in his administration? The guy has excuse after excuse and claims to know nothing about anything. We know Rice was sent out to lie question is why? If you have to lie about things then something is not on the up and up.

Now if it is okay to collect peoples DNA (creepy), and keep taps on Americans private lives how about we properly have this guy vetted. Why the hell is his whole life sealed? Where is his family? No one at the Collage he went to ever saw him......isn't this a little creepy to anyone?

I think someone has their foil cap on too tight...

I think you make some valid points, but I agree with the person who said that if this was happening under Bush, it would not be getting as much backlash.

Here is how I see it:

I'm pissed this was happening, although I pretty much already knew something like this was happening cuz of the Patriot Act.

However, to fight modern terrorism, you need tactics like this, because they use a wide variety of technology. To fight technology you need technology. Their tapping and trying to listen to something that involves terrorism is valid, but it sucks it violates our civil liberties.

But now that terrorists definitely know all of how the gov't was listening to them, they now know not to use phones or do anything technological anymore. It may slow them down, but they will be hard to catch.

Guitar92player

Cosmo wrote:

...
Here.. this is exactly what I'm talking about:

...
Come on... i know you know who this person is... I know you watch FOX News.
This is the shit I'm talking about. Only being up in arms because your politician isn't in office.
The arguements would be completely different... there would not be a big deal about Benghazi and this NSA Data Mining thing would be getting defended as 'Keeping America Safe'.
This is the shit i'm talking about.

Here is a video of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t27ie4qFlXM

Godfather.

Amid the furor in Washington over government leaks and media exposés, a little-known executive order signed by President Obama in October of 2011 could fuel the paranoia.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 ... z2XEZOQ3gO

Godfather.

Byrnzie

Godfather. wrote:

Amid the furor in Washington over government leaks and media exposés, a little-known executive order signed by President Obama in October of 2011 could fuel the paranoia.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 ... z2XEZOQ3gO

Godfather.

'As an example of the order's broad sweep, a Department of Education security systems webinar describes how, "certain life experiences can alter a person's normal behavior and cause them to act illegally or irresponsibly."

It points to "stress, divorce, untreated mental illness, financial problems, frustrations with co-workers or the organization" as warning signs that must be reported.'

So now having a conscience, and acting on it, is synonymous with mental illness?

Godfather.

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Amid the furor in Washington over government leaks and media exposés, a little-known executive order signed by President Obama in October of 2011 could fuel the paranoia.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 ... z2XEZOQ3gO

Godfather.

'As an example of the order's broad sweep, a Department of Education security systems webinar describes how, "certain life experiences can alter a person's normal behavior and cause them to act illegally or irresponsibly."

It points to "stress, divorce, untreated mental illness, financial problems, frustrations with co-workers or the organization" as warning signs that must be reported.'

So now having a conscience, and acting on it, is synonymous with mental illness?

I was thinking that all those "disorders" affect about 99.9% of the worlds population at some point and time
so now it's a executive order to keep an eye on your co-worker and rat them out for personal problems ?

Godfather.

Godfather.

Mick Jagger zinged President Obama’s NSA surveillance debacle during last night’s Rolling Stones concert at the Verizon Center in Washington, DC.

"I don't think President Obama is here tonight... But I'm sure he's listening in," Jagger reportedly joked.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... z2XFEIH5gn

Godfather.

aerial

Guitar92player wrote:

aerial wrote:

To bad you refuse to understand that this has nothing to do with Hannity, Fox News (which I rarely watch). I do like 5 at 5 sometimes.

If you just look at the people Obama associated with you would know he hates everything America is about and wants to change it to a socialist paradise. For the ones that stand behind this fake they have to be either ignorant or socialist lovers them selves. I believe he is using this data mill to blackmail congress, judges and anyone that gets in his way. Notice how anyone that could give information about Benghazi are retired, resigned or promoted to positions that would keep them from testifying Why is Obama never knows what is going on until the News reports on it....shouldn't he be doing his job and make it his business on what is going on in his administration? The guy has excuse after excuse and claims to know nothing about anything. We know Rice was sent out to lie question is why? If you have to lie about things then something is not on the up and up.

Now if it is okay to collect peoples DNA (creepy), and keep taps on Americans private lives how about we properly have this guy vetted. Why the hell is his whole life sealed? Where is his family? No one at the Collage he went to ever saw him......isn't this a little creepy to anyone?

I think someone has their foil cap on too tight...

I think you make some valid points, but I agree with the person who said that if this was happening under Bush, it would not be getting as much backlash.

Here is how I see it:

I'm pissed this was happening, although I pretty much already knew something like this was happening cuz of the Patriot Act.

However, to fight modern terrorism, you need tactics like this, because they use a wide variety of technology. To fight technology you need technology. Their tapping and trying to listen to something that involves terrorism is valid, but it sucks it violates our civil liberties.

But now that terrorists definitely know all of how the gov't was listening to them, they now know not to use phones or do anything technological anymore. It may slow them down, but they will be hard to catch.

I imagine most Americans thought the Government was listening to SUSPICIOUS people the could be terrorist...Not every American in the country.....on the other hand if Americans did know it than the Terrorist already knew it also....Then government does not need to keep records of everyone in this country.....

Guitar92player

Godfather. wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Amid the furor in Washington over government leaks and media exposés, a little-known executive order signed by President Obama in October of 2011 could fuel the paranoia.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06 ... z2XEZOQ3gO

Godfather.

'As an example of the order's broad sweep, a Department of Education security systems webinar describes how, "certain life experiences can alter a person's normal behavior and cause them to act illegally or irresponsibly."

It points to "stress, divorce, untreated mental illness, financial problems, frustrations with co-workers or the organization" as warning signs that must be reported.'

So now having a conscience, and acting on it, is synonymous with mental illness?

I was thinking that all those "disorders" affect about 99.9% of the worlds population at some point and time
so now it's a executive order to keep an eye on your co-worker and rat them out for personal problems ?

Godfather.

I just want to say that Fox News isn't the best thing to source.

But it kind of makes sense. Say someone in charge of missiles has just lost this whole family in some accident and sees no hope of living. He does not care what happens to him. So he just decides to launch missiles at the building he works in.

Don't be like, "Look at this guy trying to "defend" his government again."

I am not defending anyone, I am just saying it makes sense to let higher officials know that someone is really depressed/angry/sad, etc, and it may effect their job. I bet some may "rat" on others, but they wouldn't do anything unless they knew for sure they wouldn't be able to do their job.

lcusick

unsung wrote:

Citizens should never give up liberties. We have the Constitution for a reason.

Many people do not even know what is in our constitution, they are uninformed, therefore, these liberties are being taken away and people are complacent because it does not immediately affect their daily lives.

Godfather.

lcusick wrote:

unsung wrote:

Citizens should never give up liberties. We have the Constitution for a reason.

Many people do not even know what is in our constitution, they are uninformed, therefore, these liberties are being taken away and people are complacent because it does not immediately affect their daily lives.

:thumbup:

Godfather.

Cosmo

aerial wrote:

I imagine most Americans thought the Government was listening to SUSPICIOUS people the could be terrorist...Not every American in the country.....on the other hand if Americans did know it than the Terrorist already knew it also....Then government does not need to keep records of everyone in this country.....

...
See... that's just it... you imagined.
in this case, your imagination betrayed you and kept you from the facts. Those facts being, the data mining was going on prior to 2006 and the NSA was gathering phone record data on all of us... same as they are today.
The biggest difference being, in 2006, FOX News was broadcasting out how this type of operation was good for us because it also captured the 'terrorists' in its massive dragnet.
...
I beg of you... when considering political matters and those things that deal with our rights, the Constitution and law enforcement... use the facts to form your opinions, not your imagination on what you want to believe to be the facts.
Trusts me... facts beat imagined fear every time.

chadwick

what about getting into pm boxes? do you think our pm boxes are safe?

hedonist

chadwick wrote:

what about getting into pm boxes? do you think our pm boxes are safe?

I'd hope so, but in case of doubt, I (try to) keep 'em clean :P

Idris

Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks, Get a Visit from the Feds

Michele Catalano was looking for information online about pressure cookers. Her husband, in the same time frame, was Googling backpacks. Wednesday morning, six men from a joint terrorism task force showed up at their house to see if they were terrorists. Which begs the question: How'd the government know what they were Googling?



http://news.yahoo.com/google-pressure-cookers-backpacks-visit-feds-140900667.html

(My bad if this has already been posted on the Train, not even sure if it belongs in this thread)

Jason P

The story sounds fishy.

First, this would mean that the US Government has actually built something that works. Second, there is no way they are doing this 100 times a week and this is the first we have heard of it. Not in iAmerica.

And lastly, the way she describes their behaivior ... nice, cordial, and being put on a verbal defensive a few times ... that's not typical of someone who is on a joint terrorism task force. They would be forceful, direct, and would not give back any answers or information.

Idris

Jason P wrote:

The story sounds fishy.

First, this would mean that the US Government has actually built something that works. Second, there is no way they are doing this 100 times a week and this is the first we have heard of it. Not in iAmerica.

And lastly, the way she describes their behaivior ... nice, cordial, and being put on a verbal defensive a few times ... that's not typical of someone who is on a joint terrorism task force. They would be forceful, direct, and would not give back any answers or information.

Well if they are doing it 100 times a week and 99 times out of the 100 are a waste of time, Maybe that's why they seem the way they do (the joint task force)

I dunno,

Jason P

I need to know if she is any relation to Manti Te'o.

one other thing ... the photo next to the story is clearly not of the incident per the way she described the force to be in plain clothes. wtf, yahoo and atlantic wire? do you still have to earn a degree in journalism or can you win one in a cracker jack box these days?

Guitar92player

Jason P wrote:

The story sounds fishy.

First, this would mean that the US Government has actually built something that works. Second, there is no way they are doing this 100 times a week and this is the first we have heard of it. Not in iAmerica.

And lastly, the way she describes their behaivior ... nice, cordial, and being put on a verbal defensive a few times ... that's not typical of someone who is on a joint terrorism task force. They would be forceful, direct, and would not give back any answers or information.

I agree.

Reading it I pictured in my head them sitting around a table drinking tea and politely asking them questions.