PR battle! Dammit (and despite my thinking you're correct here) but I hate that term.
Also...this guy is only 29 and has a DECADE of intelligence experience under his belt? How the hell does an 18 or 19-year-old even get their foot in the door at that age?
Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the US, but China has the power to veto any extraction if they see fit. I pretty sure this guy won't see an American jail anytime soon.
He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.
"Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world," he says. "I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good."
He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.
First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.
...Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".
He described how he once viewed the internet as "the most important invention in all of human history". As an adolescent, he spent days at a time "speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own".
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."
Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.
...For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.
Let's see how many of the posters on this forum who bleat the loudest about 'freedom' have anything to say about this.
You know, for me, I don't tend to respond to you much because you're fairly unpleasant to have a discussion with, not because I don't know what to say or think about what you post. Just sayin'.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You know, for me, I don't tend to respond to you much because you're fairly unpleasant to have a discussion with, not because I don't know what to say or think about what you post. Just sayin'.
You know, for me, I don't tend to respond to you much because you're fairly unpleasant to have a discussion with, not because I don't know what to say or think about what you post. Just sayin'.
Feel free to put me on 'ignore' then.
No, I don't put people on ignore; I like to read what everyone has to say. I was just explaining why I, at least, don't always comment on your posts, since you seemed to be wondering.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America
Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution
Daniel Ellsberg
guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 June 2013
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.
...Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
...Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
...Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect.
You know, for me, I don't tend to respond to you much because you're fairly unpleasant to have a discussion with, not because I don't know what to say or think about what you post. Just sayin'.
Feel free to put me on 'ignore' then.
No, I don't put people on ignore; I like to read what everyone has to say. I was just explaining why I, at least, don't always comment on your posts, since you seemed to be wondering.
I didn't wonder anything of the sort. This is what I wondered:
byrnzie---does it ever bother you that the chinese government has doing the same thing to it's citizens for years...or are you only concerned with the usa's government?
byrnzie---does it ever bother you that the chinese government has doing the same thing to it's citizens for years...or are you only concerned with the usa's government?
Yes. The difference being that the Chinese government don't pretend to be a Democracy.
byrnzie---does it ever bother you that the chinese government has doing the same thing to it's citizens for years...or are you only concerned with the usa's government?
Yes.
i find it humorous that you hail from a country with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, yet you only seem to care about the corruption in another country on the ofher side of the world.
byrnzie---does it ever bother you that the chinese government has doing the same thing to it's citizens for years...or are you only concerned with the usa's government?
Yes.
i find it humorous that you hail from a country with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, yet you only seem to care about the corruption in another country on the ofher side of the world.
Except I don't hail from China.
But don't let that stop you from trying to turn this discussion into being all about me.
"If the seizure and surveillance of Americans' phone records – across the board and with little to no discrimination – is now considered a legitimate security precaution, there is literally no protection of any kind guaranteed anymore to American citizens...In their actions, more outrageous and numerous by the day, this administration continues to treat the US constitution as a dead letter." - Rand Paul
No, I don't put people on ignore; I like to read what everyone has to say. I was just explaining why I, at least, don't always comment on your posts, since you seemed to be wondering.
I didn't wonder anything of the sort. This is what I wondered:
This broad surveillance of metadata doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I applaud it.
I don't think Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor. He did what he thought was right. He was just wrong to think it's right and he's a fool to think Americans will be bothered by this.
There's already a new poll to show Americans are not bothered by it... http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... rveillance
...what's comical is how opinions by both Democrats and Republicans change depending on who's President.
Does anyone have a link or pages that show what documents were leaked? I've heard that the only data being collected was telephone bills, not conversations. Is this true, did the Government only keep tabs on what numbers were calling, length of time for each call and to who it was made and not the contents of the conversations....?
Does anyone have a link or pages that show what documents were leaked? I've heard that the only data being collected was telephone bills, not conversations. Is this true, did the Government only keep tabs on what numbers were calling, length of time for each call and to who it was made and not the contents of the conversations....?
basically you are correct....
As for the phone info it was ....number calling and where it was calling from,,,, number called and the location of that receiver,,,,,length of call,,,thats it
Does anyone have a link or pages that show what documents were leaked? I've heard that the only data being collected was telephone bills, not conversations. Is this true, did the Government only keep tabs on what numbers were calling, length of time for each call and to who it was made and not the contents of the conversations....?
basically you are correct....
As for the phone info it was ....number calling and where it was calling from,,,, number called and the location of that receiver,,,,,length of call,,,thats it
not what was being said
But, if we asked about it a month ago would would have been told that it wasn't happening...now we are being told it is happening, but only faceless metadata that is so minuscule it couldn't possibly matter...So if it came out in a year that they indeed did tape conversations and store the data, that they in fact do record conversations, would the answer by some that it doesn't matter be the same? probably, unless George Bush was president.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor. He did what he thought was right. He was just wrong to think it's right and he's a fool to think Americans will be bothered by this.
There's already a new poll to show Americans are not bothered by it... http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... rveillance
...what's comical is how opinions by both Democrats and Republicans change depending on who's President.
I take it you didn't watch the video interview with him then.
Snowden: "The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."
"And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
As for the phone info it was ....number calling and where it was calling from,,,, number called and the location of that receiver,,,,,length of call,,,thats it
Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?
A former FBI counterterrorism agent claims on CNN that this is the case
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 May 2013
Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
...Glenn Greenwald: "Why should people care about surveillance?"
Edward Snowden: "Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."
A.C.L.U. Sues to Bar ‘Dragnet’ Collection of Phone Records
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its “dragnet” collection of logs of domestic phone calls, contending that the once-secret program — whose existence was exposed by a former National Security Agency contractor last week — is illegal and asking a judge to both stop it and order the records purged.
The lawsuit, filed in New York, could set up an eventual Supreme Court test. It could also focus attention on this disclosure amid the larger heap of top secret surveillance matters that were disclosed by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who came forward on Sunday to say he was the source of a series of disclosures by The Guardian and The Washington Post.
The program “gives the government a comprehensive record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of detail about our familial, political, professional, religious and intimate associations,” the complaint says, adding that it “is likely to have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers and others who would otherwise contact” the A.C.L.U. for legal assistance.
The Justice Department did not respond immediately.
The A.C.L.U. has frequently assisted other plaintiffs in challenges against national security policies, but the government has generally persuaded courts to dismiss such lawsuits without any ruling on the legal merits after arguing that litigation over any classified program would reveal state secrets or that the plaintiffs could not prove they were personally affected and so lacked standing to sue.
This case may be different. The government has now declassified the existence of the program on domestic call record “metadata.” And the A.C.L.U. itself is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services — the subsidiary of Verizon Communications that was the recipient of a secret court order for all its domestic calling records — which it says gives it direct standing to bring the lawsuit.
The call logging program is keeping a record of “metadata” from domestic phone calls, including which numbers were dialed and received, from which location, and the time and duration of the communication, officials have said.
The program began as part of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 programs of surveillance without warrants, and, it is now known, it has continued since 2006 with the blessing of a national security court, which has ruled in still-secret legal opinions that such bulk surveillance was authorized by a section of the Patriot Act that allows the F.B.I. to obtain “business records” if they are relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.
Congress never openly voted to authorize the N.S.A. to collect logs of hundreds of millions of domestic phone calls, but the administration notes that some lawmakers were briefed on the program. Some members of Congress have backed it as a useful counterterrorism tool, while others have denounced it.
“The administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can,” Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Sunday. “I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law.”
Over the weekend, in hope of preventing a backlash, James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, also disclosed details about privacy protections built into the program. Among them, officials may access the database only if they can meet a legal justification — “reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.” To deter abuse, queries are audited under the oversight of judges on a national security court.
Timothy Edgar, who recently left the government after serving as a privacy and civil liberties official on intelligence matters in both the Bush and Obama administrations and who worked on building safeguards into the phone log program, said the notion underlying the limits was that people’s privacy is not invaded by having their records collected and stored in government computers, but only when a human extracts and examines them.
“When you have important reasons why that collection needs to take place on a scale that is much larger than case-by-case or individual obtaining of records, then one of the ways you try to deal with the privacy issue is you think carefully about having a set of safeguards that basically say ‘O.K., yes, this has major privacy implications, but what can we do on the back end to address those?'” he said.
Still, even with such restrictions, privacy advocates say the mere existence of the database will inevitably erode the sense of living in a free society: from now on, whenever Americans pick up a phone, before dialing they now face the consideration of whether they want the record of that call to go into the government’s permanent files.
Moreover, while use of the database may currently be limited to terrorism, history has shown that new powers granted to the government for one purpose often end up being applied to others. An expanded search warrant authority that Congress granted in the Patriot Act justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, for example, was used far more often in routine investigations like suspected drug, fraud, tax, weapons and extortion offenses.
Executive branch officials and lawmakers who support the program have hinted in public that some terrorist plots have been foiled and intelligence leads have been identified by using the database. In private conversations, they have also explained how it is used: investigators start with a specific phone number that is already believed to be linked to terrorism, and scrutinize the ring of people who have called that number — and other people who in turn called those in the first ring, and so on — in an effort to identify any co-conspirators.
Still, that kind of analysis may generally be performed without keeping a wholesale library of call records, since investigators can instead use retail-scale subpoenas to obtain relevant calling logs from telephone companies. Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who issued cryptic warnings about the program before its existence was revealed and who have examined it in classified hearings, have claimed that the evidence is thin that the program provided uniquely available intelligence.
But supporters of the program privately say the database’s existence is about more than convenience and speed. They say it can also help in searching for networks of terrorists who may be taking steps to shield their communications with one another, for instance by using different phone lines; if calls are going to and from a different number at the same address or cellphone towers as the number that is known to be suspicious, for example, having the comprehensive database may be helpful in a way that subpoenas for specific numbers cannot match.
It remains unclear, however, whether there have been any real-world instances in which a terrorist network that tried to evade detection was identified in that way, and so the existence of the database prevented an attack that otherwise would have occurred, or whether that advantage is to date only theoretical.
A 1979 ruling over a small-scale collection of calling “metadata,” Smith v. Maryland, held that such records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment since people have revealed such information to phone companies and so have no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, in a 2012 case involving GPS trackers placed by the police on cars, the Supreme Court suggested that the automated collection of people’s public movements may raise Fourth Amendment privacy issues in a way that nonbulk surveillance does not. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/ac ... l?hp&_r=1&
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
i find it humorous that you hail from a country with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, yet you only seem to care about the corruption in another country on the ofher side of the world.
Except I don't hail from China.
But don't let that stop you from trying to turn this discussion into being all about me.
Next...
you think this discussion is turning into something all about you because of one question? really? "next?".... alright dude. you reside in a country that has been doing precisely what this thread is about for as long as anyone can remember, yet you only have a problem with the u.s doing it.
so just think of this as just a quick little hypocritical side bar....
With the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program still highly controversial, just last week, USA Today revealed that the President has authorized yet another secret surveillance program. Under this program, the NSA - apparently without the benefit of any court order -- has been compiling millions of Americans' phone records into a giant database.
It also appears - based on the facts that have become public so far -- that the phone companies that cooperated with the NSA may have violated a statute that Congress previously passed specifically addressing the issue: the Stored Communications Act.
The Administration's defense is the same as for warrantless wiretapping: The President claims that the NSA is trying to ferret out terrorist activity -- this time, not by listening in on calls, but rather by searching through U.S. phone call logs to detect possible patterns. According to USA Today, the relevant records show which number was called, when the call was placed, and where the call originated and terminated (geographically).
Administration officials stress that the program does not involve listening to the contents of communications. At the same time, the phone records ostensibly allow the government to track where calls are being placed, and to uncover data patterns which might show signs of terrorist communications.
The Facts on the Program - Insofar as They Are Known
Little is known about the phone-log program, but here is what we do know thus far: Three telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- have reportedly provided the NSA with phone records for over ten million Americans. The companies seem not to have questioned whether the NSA had legal authority to obtain the records - and certainly did not go to court over the matter.
One company, Qwest, apparently did investigate the legal situation, however. And after it did so, it refused to comply with the NSA's requests. Qwest had two reasons for balking: It believed warrants (or at least court orders) were necessary to make such requests legal, and it was concerned about who would have access to the information, and how it might be used.
The Law Applicable from 2001 to March 2006 Appears to Prohibit The Program
Based on what we know now, it seems Qwest was entirely correct to refuse to comply. A federal statute specifically forbade it - and the other companies - from doing what the government asked. While this law restricts the companies - not the government -- the government surely should not be secretly putting pressure on the companies to break the law.
That law is the 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA), which specifically and clearly forbids phone companies from turning over records to the government without a warrant or court order: Under the law, providers of "electronic communications ... shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity." (Emphasis added.)
There is one particularly relevant exception to this rule: Companies, under the law applicable until March 2006 (when the SCA was amended), could only turn over records if they "reasonably" believed there was an "immediate danger of death or serious physical injury" that disclosure might help prevent. So for instance, if there were a specific investigation of an imminent terrorist act, the companies could instantly - without a court order or warrant - turn over the suspects' records.
It appears that the NSA program predated the March 2006 SCA amendment (which coincided with the renewal of the USA Patriot Act). Indeed, the program may have existed since shortly after September 11. If so, then the pre-amendment "reasonable" belief of "immediate" danger standard applied.
It's unlikely that the phone companies can argue that they had a "reasonable" belief of "immediate" danger throughout the entire period from whenever the program began, until the date of the amendment. Perhaps in the months just after the September 11th attacks, or during periods when the threat level was most elevated, a belief in "immediate" danger was conceivably warranted - even "reasonable." But even the government has only claimed that there was immediate danger in particular places, and during particular time periods.
Yet there is no suggestion by the government that the NSA's phone-log monitoring was restricted by place, time period or threat level. Instead, it appears to have been a continuing program, which undermines any claim that it was justified by "immediate" danger.
Moreover, the way the program has been described suggests that it is preventive, not responsive. According to the government, the NSA is scanning vast databases of phone records and trying to find patterns indicating future attacks; it is not seeking phone records because it has had, at particular times, knowledge of a specific and impending threat.
The "Customer Consent" and "Business Necessity" Exceptions Do Not Apply
In addition, it appears that the phone-log program does not fit under the other exceptions to the SCA's non-disclosure rule. The SCA allows records to be turned over with a customer's "lawful consent" - but it appears that there was no such consent here.
Reportedly, government lawyers may intend to argue that small print in companies' Terms of Service agreements allowing the company to share customer information for law enforcement purposes counts as "consent." But experts in the area believe that small print can't count as consent.
For example, Professor Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and an expert on the Fourth Amendment points out that, although there are no cases interpreting what counts as "consent" under the SCA, the SCA's "consent" exception is "clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act," 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510-22. Kerr adds that consent, as defined under the Wiretap Act, requires that "the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice."
The SCA also allows records to be turned over as may be "necessarily incident to the rendition of the service, or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." For instance, records could be turned over to law enforcement to catch hackers who've broken into the network.
Here, however, neither the companies' rights nor their property had been imperiled - and the turnover was hardly incident to the rendition of the phone services; it had nothing to do with the companies' provision of phone services, and everything to do with the government's goals.
Does the Recent SCA Amendment in March 2006 Change the Situation?
The March 2006 amendment to the SCA modified the emergency exception. Companies may now turn over records to a governmental entity if they in "good faith believe[] that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency."
How does this differ from the original emergency exception? Basically, the company need not be reasonable; it just has to act in good faith. And there need not be an "immediate" danger - just an emergency that poses a risk to life or limb.
It may well be that this recent amendment shields the phone companies for their post-amendment disclosures of phone records to the NSA - but not for those during the time period from when the program began, to when the amendment was passed.
The Consequences If the Law Was Indeed Violated
With strong evidence of probable violations of the law, what happens next?
The SCA gives consumers the right to sue, and several lawsuits have already been filed against the phone companies. The SCA sets damages at a minimum of $1,000 for each violation.
Accordingly, one suit is demanding up to $5 billion from the three companies that reportedly turned over records -- Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth - on the theory that each record improperly turned over to the NSA counts as a separate violation.
The SCA also allows recovery of punitive damages, and if the plaintiffs prevail, the phone companies will have to pay their attorneys' fees. Punitive damages may be unlikely, however, in light of the fact that polls show that a majority of Americans are comfortable with the Administration's review of phone records - suggesting some jurors may be, too.
Government employees who participated in a violation may face administrative discipline. And Congressional hearings may - and should - begin.
Why Congressional Hearings Are Urgently Needed
As noted above, most Americans don't seem too upset by news of the NSA's secret phone-log requests.
What will the government do when it uncovers possible terrorist phone calls through its data mining? Will it go back to a court such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to obtain more specific authority to listen in on certain phone calls? The Administration has not provided answers to those questions.
Hearings can underline how the results of such surveillance can be - and have been in the past - misused. I wrote earlier about the dangers of "digital dossiers." Phone logs, which can easily be matched to names, can allow the government to further fill out those dossiers - providing an extensive picture of citizens' business and personal associations and patterns of daily life.
It is important for Congress to press the Administration to reveal more about its plan and the safeguards it has in place. Will our phone records be on file forever? When will the government choose to peek at our records?
The public should learn whether the phone-log program might inadvertently lead to racial-profiling, for example, or target certain groups for further surveillance, without real probable cause. .
Suppose there is a pattern of calls from a particular number to numbers in the Middle East, or Afghanistan. Then that number is matched with a name. If the name simply "sounds Arab," will the person have a higher probability of being investigated - even though a person of Arab descent may also be very likely to be merely calling relatives abroad?
Congress has the power and the means to examine the scope and legality of the government's actions here - as in the case of the warrantless wiretapping program -- without compromising national security. Indeed, national security demands that there be a full understanding of how the government is invading the privacy of Americans and whether that snooping is properly focused.
Finally, even if the phone-log program is ultimately held to be legal, it is still wrong as a matter of policy, and a matter of privacy. Hearings can, at a minimum, help Congress ensure that proper safeguards are in place for governmental collection of such data.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
you think this discussion is turning into something all about you because of one question? really? "next?".... alright dude. you reside in a country that has been doing precisely what this thread is about for as long as anyone can remember, yet you only have a problem with the u.s doing it.
so just think of this as just a quick little hypocritical side bar....
China doesn't pretend to be a democracy. And as for the Chinese monitoring and recording everyone's phone calls, feel free to provide evidence of it. Then maybe you can start another China thread in which to parade your phoney shock and indignation.
In the meantime, I suggest you try losing that obvious hard-on you have for me.
you think this discussion is turning into something all about you because of one question? really? "next?".... alright dude. you reside in a country that has been doing precisely what this thread is about for as long as anyone can remember, yet you only have a problem with the u.s doing it.
so just think of this as just a quick little hypocritical side bar....
China doesn't pretend to be a democracy. And as for the Chinese monitoring and recording everyone's phone calls, feel free to provide evidence of it. Then maybe you can start another China thread in which to parade your phoney shock and indignation.
In the meantime, I suggest you try losing that obvious hard-on you have for me.
At least, I'pretty sure that last line is a joke!
Do you really find it necessary for someone to prove that China monitors phone calls? We know that they restrict and monitor internet activity on an extreme level, so phone monitoring or not, the point is that China not only monitors, but also censors, yet you jump.down another country's throat for it while having a history of defending China in comparison. However, your point about China not declaring itself a democracy is well taken.... On the other hand, so what? China is an international player, and does try to pretend it's more free than it actually is (although does a poor job of it). Still kind of comes off as somewhat hypocritical.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Also...this guy is only 29 and has a DECADE of intelligence experience under his belt? How the hell does an 18 or 19-year-old even get their foot in the door at that age?
This whole thing is an odd story all around.
Feel free to put me on 'ignore' then.
Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America
Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution
Daniel Ellsberg
guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 June 2013
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.
...Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were "briefed" on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
...Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that's why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America's intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – "at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left."
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former "democratic republic" of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
...Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect.
I didn't wonder anything of the sort. This is what I wondered:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you really don't feature that highly in my scheme of things.
Yes. The difference being that the Chinese government don't pretend to be a Democracy.
i find it humorous that you hail from a country with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, yet you only seem to care about the corruption in another country on the ofher side of the world.
Except I don't hail from China.
But don't let that stop you from trying to turn this discussion into being all about me.
Next...
I don't think Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor. He did what he thought was right. He was just wrong to think it's right and he's a fool to think Americans will be bothered by this.
There's already a new poll to show Americans are not bothered by it...
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... rveillance
...what's comical is how opinions by both Democrats and Republicans change depending on who's President.
doesn't bother me either
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
As for the phone info it was ....number calling and where it was calling from,,,, number called and the location of that receiver,,,,,length of call,,,thats it
not what was being said
But, if we asked about it a month ago would would have been told that it wasn't happening...now we are being told it is happening, but only faceless metadata that is so minuscule it couldn't possibly matter...So if it came out in a year that they indeed did tape conversations and store the data, that they in fact do record conversations, would the answer by some that it doesn't matter be the same? probably, unless George Bush was president.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I take it you didn't watch the video interview with him then.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2 ... view-video
Transcript:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355 ... aked-prism
Snowden: "The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."
"And the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather then a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... fbi-boston
Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?
A former FBI counterterrorism agent claims on CNN that this is the case
Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 4 May 2013
Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/47355 ... aked-prism
Edward Snowden Interview Transcript
...Glenn Greenwald: "Why should people care about surveillance?"
Edward Snowden: "Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer."
:geek:
I've seen that doc. It's great!
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
you think this discussion is turning into something all about you because of one question? really? "next?"....
so just think of this as just a quick little hypocritical side bar....
It also appears - based on the facts that have become public so far -- that the phone companies that cooperated with the NSA may have violated a statute that Congress previously passed specifically addressing the issue: the Stored Communications Act.
The Administration's defense is the same as for warrantless wiretapping: The President claims that the NSA is trying to ferret out terrorist activity -- this time, not by listening in on calls, but rather by searching through U.S. phone call logs to detect possible patterns. According to USA Today, the relevant records show which number was called, when the call was placed, and where the call originated and terminated (geographically).
Administration officials stress that the program does not involve listening to the contents of communications. At the same time, the phone records ostensibly allow the government to track where calls are being placed, and to uncover data patterns which might show signs of terrorist communications.
The Facts on the Program - Insofar as They Are Known
Little is known about the phone-log program, but here is what we do know thus far: Three telecommunications companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- have reportedly provided the NSA with phone records for over ten million Americans. The companies seem not to have questioned whether the NSA had legal authority to obtain the records - and certainly did not go to court over the matter.
One company, Qwest, apparently did investigate the legal situation, however. And after it did so, it refused to comply with the NSA's requests. Qwest had two reasons for balking: It believed warrants (or at least court orders) were necessary to make such requests legal, and it was concerned about who would have access to the information, and how it might be used.
The Law Applicable from 2001 to March 2006 Appears to Prohibit The Program
Based on what we know now, it seems Qwest was entirely correct to refuse to comply. A federal statute specifically forbade it - and the other companies - from doing what the government asked. While this law restricts the companies - not the government -- the government surely should not be secretly putting pressure on the companies to break the law.
That law is the 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA), which specifically and clearly forbids phone companies from turning over records to the government without a warrant or court order: Under the law, providers of "electronic communications ... shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity." (Emphasis added.)
There is one particularly relevant exception to this rule: Companies, under the law applicable until March 2006 (when the SCA was amended), could only turn over records if they "reasonably" believed there was an "immediate danger of death or serious physical injury" that disclosure might help prevent. So for instance, if there were a specific investigation of an imminent terrorist act, the companies could instantly - without a court order or warrant - turn over the suspects' records.
It appears that the NSA program predated the March 2006 SCA amendment (which coincided with the renewal of the USA Patriot Act). Indeed, the program may have existed since shortly after September 11. If so, then the pre-amendment "reasonable" belief of "immediate" danger standard applied.
It's unlikely that the phone companies can argue that they had a "reasonable" belief of "immediate" danger throughout the entire period from whenever the program began, until the date of the amendment. Perhaps in the months just after the September 11th attacks, or during periods when the threat level was most elevated, a belief in "immediate" danger was conceivably warranted - even "reasonable." But even the government has only claimed that there was immediate danger in particular places, and during particular time periods.
Yet there is no suggestion by the government that the NSA's phone-log monitoring was restricted by place, time period or threat level. Instead, it appears to have been a continuing program, which undermines any claim that it was justified by "immediate" danger.
Moreover, the way the program has been described suggests that it is preventive, not responsive. According to the government, the NSA is scanning vast databases of phone records and trying to find patterns indicating future attacks; it is not seeking phone records because it has had, at particular times, knowledge of a specific and impending threat.
The "Customer Consent" and "Business Necessity" Exceptions Do Not Apply
In addition, it appears that the phone-log program does not fit under the other exceptions to the SCA's non-disclosure rule. The SCA allows records to be turned over with a customer's "lawful consent" - but it appears that there was no such consent here.
Reportedly, government lawyers may intend to argue that small print in companies' Terms of Service agreements allowing the company to share customer information for law enforcement purposes counts as "consent." But experts in the area believe that small print can't count as consent.
For example, Professor Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and an expert on the Fourth Amendment points out that, although there are no cases interpreting what counts as "consent" under the SCA, the SCA's "consent" exception is "clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act," 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510-22. Kerr adds that consent, as defined under the Wiretap Act, requires that "the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice."
The SCA also allows records to be turned over as may be "necessarily incident to the rendition of the service, or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." For instance, records could be turned over to law enforcement to catch hackers who've broken into the network.
Here, however, neither the companies' rights nor their property had been imperiled - and the turnover was hardly incident to the rendition of the phone services; it had nothing to do with the companies' provision of phone services, and everything to do with the government's goals.
Does the Recent SCA Amendment in March 2006 Change the Situation?
The March 2006 amendment to the SCA modified the emergency exception. Companies may now turn over records to a governmental entity if they in "good faith believe[] that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency."
How does this differ from the original emergency exception? Basically, the company need not be reasonable; it just has to act in good faith. And there need not be an "immediate" danger - just an emergency that poses a risk to life or limb.
It may well be that this recent amendment shields the phone companies for their post-amendment disclosures of phone records to the NSA - but not for those during the time period from when the program began, to when the amendment was passed.
The Consequences If the Law Was Indeed Violated
With strong evidence of probable violations of the law, what happens next?
The SCA gives consumers the right to sue, and several lawsuits have already been filed against the phone companies. The SCA sets damages at a minimum of $1,000 for each violation.
Accordingly, one suit is demanding up to $5 billion from the three companies that reportedly turned over records -- Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth - on the theory that each record improperly turned over to the NSA counts as a separate violation.
The SCA also allows recovery of punitive damages, and if the plaintiffs prevail, the phone companies will have to pay their attorneys' fees. Punitive damages may be unlikely, however, in light of the fact that polls show that a majority of Americans are comfortable with the Administration's review of phone records - suggesting some jurors may be, too.
Government employees who participated in a violation may face administrative discipline. And Congressional hearings may - and should - begin.
Why Congressional Hearings Are Urgently Needed
As noted above, most Americans don't seem too upset by news of the NSA's secret phone-log requests.
What will the government do when it uncovers possible terrorist phone calls through its data mining? Will it go back to a court such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to obtain more specific authority to listen in on certain phone calls? The Administration has not provided answers to those questions.
Hearings can underline how the results of such surveillance can be - and have been in the past - misused. I wrote earlier about the dangers of "digital dossiers." Phone logs, which can easily be matched to names, can allow the government to further fill out those dossiers - providing an extensive picture of citizens' business and personal associations and patterns of daily life.
It is important for Congress to press the Administration to reveal more about its plan and the safeguards it has in place. Will our phone records be on file forever? When will the government choose to peek at our records?
The public should learn whether the phone-log program might inadvertently lead to racial-profiling, for example, or target certain groups for further surveillance, without real probable cause. .
Suppose there is a pattern of calls from a particular number to numbers in the Middle East, or Afghanistan. Then that number is matched with a name. If the name simply "sounds Arab," will the person have a higher probability of being investigated - even though a person of Arab descent may also be very likely to be merely calling relatives abroad?
Congress has the power and the means to examine the scope and legality of the government's actions here - as in the case of the warrantless wiretapping program -- without compromising national security. Indeed, national security demands that there be a full understanding of how the government is invading the privacy of Americans and whether that snooping is properly focused.
Finally, even if the phone-log program is ultimately held to be legal, it is still wrong as a matter of policy, and a matter of privacy. Hearings can, at a minimum, help Congress ensure that proper safeguards are in place for governmental collection of such data.
Hail, Hail!!!
China doesn't pretend to be a democracy. And as for the Chinese monitoring and recording everyone's phone calls, feel free to provide evidence of it. Then maybe you can start another China thread in which to parade your phoney shock and indignation.
In the meantime, I suggest you try losing that obvious hard-on you have for me.
Do you really find it necessary for someone to prove that China monitors phone calls? We know that they restrict and monitor internet activity on an extreme level, so phone monitoring or not, the point is that China not only monitors, but also censors, yet you jump.down another country's throat for it while having a history of defending China in comparison. However, your point about China not declaring itself a democracy is well taken.... On the other hand, so what? China is an international player, and does try to pretend it's more free than it actually is (although does a poor job of it). Still kind of comes off as somewhat hypocritical.