NSA Whistle-blower Ed Snowden

[George Wallace]

Cupper makes the extremely relevant point that they don't have the processing power to separate the fly-sh*t from the peper

They run programs that look for "key words" in conversations, text, etc.  Those programs cut down on the fly shit in the pepper. 

At the same time, don't forget; they are Government personnel, and as such face the same bureaucratic hurtles and hoops to jump through as any other Government employees. 

 

[Inquisitor]

Thanks George - The way I understand it most are not Government employees. I think that point you are trying to make is that they would be paid anyway.

Most are, the way I understand it, Contractors working for Firms like Booz-Allen-Hamilton. As such, just like contracted services here, their services receive a very healthy markup.

I also suggest that any committed evil-doer is not likely to use these means of communication. 

 

[muskrat89]

So you can go back and start checking out Tranny Panda Porn, rest assured that the Men in the Black SUVs won't be busting your door down.

But they will if your house Googles "backpacks" and "pressure cookers" at the same time....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/family-visited-by-joint-t_n_3690806.html

 

[SupersonicMax]

I think somebody famous sais this: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Having said that, he signed his clearance and agreef to not disclose classified information.  He was aware of the consequences.  He should be prosecuted for this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think somebody famous sais this: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Having said that, he signed his clearance and agreef to not disclose classified information.  He was aware of the consequences.  He should be prosecuted for this.

The "somebody famous" is alleged to have been Abraham Lincoln, but there is no evidence he ever said that. What he did say, in 1838, was:

    "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or
      make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

      At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and
      finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

          (from "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois," 27 January 1838)

 

[a_majoor]

While the benign interpretation is that the data is mined for links to terrorism, the fact of the matter is we are living in a time where everything is politicized and "it is worth everything to win".

Consider the example of IRS harassment of the press and political groups, using (or abusing) tax data. Now imagine if the powers that be really wanted to us politicized data to harm their political opponents: how difficult would it be to create a slanderous twisted narrative (think of Rob Ford, for a Canadian example), or even create a civil or criminal case based on information revealed by this sort of data mining? (People have been charged with federal crimes for getting lost in a snowstorm and crossing an arbitrary boundary, no "mens rea" was even implied here, but the charges went ahead anyway...).

The other thing to consider is your personal data could end up in the hands of people like Edward Snowden.

So while the way he went about it was wrong, the principle is correct.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Calvin Coolidge
Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia, Pa.
July 5, 1926

 

[Nemo888]

The question is who gets access. Upper echelon NSA analysts or random lowest bidder contractors who misuse the database for kicks or profit? Snowden would be the second variety and obviously felt quite a bit bothered by how much power he had. Enough to throw his life away. He is a right leaning Republican and former military. What freaked him out so much? Something must be rotten.

Can it be used by conventional law enforcement? With the new releases we can admit that they basically vacuum up everything and retain it indefinitely. They have enormous amounts of computer power. More than enough to analyze everything. The electricity bill at a single NSA server location is 25 million dollars annually. What are the limits on the use of this dubious data? We don't know and we can't debate it because it's a secret. Giving secret organizations that can murder people based on the data mined no oversight is rather risky. Eventually political opponents disappear. Obama is the poster boy for what can happen. Lovely speeches about freedom and liberal values all while done striking American citizens with no trial.

Lastly why do we need so much expensive surveillance? Not many terrorists use Hotmail. Why do you fear your own citizens so much? This only makes sense if you plan on treating them in ways that might make them upset enough to want to change who is in charge.

 

[Inquisitor]

"Obama Promise to Protect Whistleblowers Scrubbed From Website"
Link here http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/16184-obama-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-scrubbed-from-website

snippet reproduced here under the fair use policy of the coyright act
"Memory hole: a hole in a small chute leading to an incinerator. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, information — printed evidence of history — that contradicted the ruling party’s official version of events from the past was sent down the memory hole

...

Specifically, in its analysis, Sunlight noticed:

While the front splash page for Change.gov has linked to the main White House website for years, until recently, you could still continue on to see the materials and agenda laid out by the administration. This was a particularly helpful resource for those looking to compare Obama's performance in office against his vision for reform, laid out in detail on Change.gov.

...

Sunlight suggests that this artifact from the website might hold the key:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process."

Comment: Wow, just Wow

Posted on the snowden thread as well

 

[Inquisitor]

I'll post the punchline  from the article first, under the fiar use provision of the copyright act

“We’re not going to subpoena reporters in the future. We don’t need to. We know who you’re talking to.” The Risen victory notwithstanding, recalling that statement sends chills down my spine

Mine too, Yours as well I hope

BTW its at the bottom of the article

Link here http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/lessons-wye-river

 

[George Wallace]

You two are really grasping at straws and really have no idea of what you are talking about.  That only adds to the nonsense that you are spewing.   

 

[Nemo888]

You two are really grasping at straws and really have no idea of what you are talking about.  That only adds to the nonsense that you are spewing. 

Trust us because we are the government is the best you can do?

 

[George Wallace]

Trust us because we are the government is the best you can do?

I didn't say that; but the trash you are spouting is good enough to qualify you for the Tin Foil Hat Brigade.  You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, as demonstrated in your not even knowing the legalities of what this subject is about.  As already pointed out to you, you have thrown Red Herrings into this discussion which have nothing at all to do with the topic. 

And as a matter of record, as this is cyber space, this will float around in cyberspace for many a millennium.  Generations will wonder what level of paranoia you two may have had.  Frankly, I highly doubt the government gives a damn about your posts, so you should have nothing to worry about.  Well.......other than what the future readers may opinionate about you; you are safe.

 

[Inquisitor]

George - Please I do not mean this as an insult - it is not directed at you.

For those of you who did live in the era, as George and I did - The US government used every legal means and some not legal to suppress domestic dissent in the 60's and early 70's.

They did the same thing during the "Red Scare" in the 50's.

Now, with the benefit of history most would say that these events were at best an ham-handed overreaction.

I was hoping to provide a link to Buffalo Springfild and "Somethings Happening" this is the best I could do.

You know what I find even more ironic???? I was serving in Militia at the time.

School was a b*tch at first, then the other kids settled down.

Uniform in public? Never a problem.

Fond memories of wandering over to Ontario Place after parade in combats for  beer and  oom pa pa band .  Prozit!

Matter of fact when we had Americans up we invited them to go drinking with us in uniform, never a problem.

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

 

[Nemo888]

I didn't say that; but the trash you are spouting is good enough to qualify you for the Tin Foil Hat Brigade.  You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, as demonstrated in your not even knowing the legalities of what this subject is about.  As already pointed out to you, you have thrown Red Herrings into this discussion which have nothing at all to do with the topic. 

And as a matter of record, as this is cyber space, this will float around in cyberspace for many a millennium.  Generations will wonder what level of paranoia you two may have had.  Frankly, I highly doubt the government gives a damn about your posts, so you should have nothing to worry about.  Well.......other than what the future readers may opinionate about you; you are safe.

Instead of attacking our character could you come up with some factual arguments?

The legalities of the US murdering citizens without trials is very worrisome. Death by presidential fiat for talking shite on the internet is too much power for a President to hold IMO. Before Obama no President did this as far as I know. They certainly didn't go on the news to crow about it.

If you want to talk legalities in Canada lets talk about the Minister for Public Safety. He can use any and all government resources for a threat he deems conventional law enforcement "unable to handle" whatever that means. The law doesn't give any details. It is actually that broad. Let's think about that. Military, JTF, CSE, etc can be legally used on Canadian citizens now. If he tells the CSE track down a group of kiddie porn peddlers I can maybe get my head around it. Even if he believes the world is only 7000 years old. But what if the next Minister wants all the neonazis out of the military and searches all our internet and phone histories to find out who even once supported those ideas. What if he decides that certain pornography makes you unfit for service?  Maybe eventually it will be your politics.

Government is at it's very best mediocre. At it's worst it is the most terrifying force in human history. I like my government on a tight leash as they inevitably fall into the wrong hands. Why can't the powers of the security state be scaled back to what they were pre 9/11 Mr. Wallace? Why do they need unlimited power and unlimited secrecy?

 

[George Wallace]

Instead of attacking our character could you come up with some factual arguments?

OK.  How about you explain the following and give us one example of:

The legalities of the US murdering citizens without trials is very worrisome.

I find you very ignorant in your thinking on this statement, verging on the extreme paranoid:

If you want to talk legalities in Canada lets talk about the Minister for Public Safety. He can use any and all government resources for a threat he deems conventional law enforcement "unable to handle" whatever that means. The law doesn't give any details. It is actually that broad. Let's think about that. Military, JTF, CSE, etc can be legally used on Canadian citizens now. If he tells the CSE track down a group of kiddie porn peddlers I can maybe get my head around it. Even if he believes the world is only 7000 years old. But what if the next Minister wants all the neonazis out of the military and searches all our internet and phone histories to find out who even once supported those ideas. What if he decides that certain pornography makes you unfit for service?  Maybe eventually it will be your politics.

:  There are laws in place that prevent your delusional musings of what could be.  They can't happen.

Government is at it's very best mediocre. At it's worst it is the most terrifying force in human history. I like my government on a tight leash as they inevitably fall into the wrong hands. Why can't the powers of the security state be scaled back to what they were pre 9/11 Mr. Wallace? Why do they need unlimited power and unlimited secrecy?

:  You really are grasping at straws. 

If you do not like the government, and you are a registered voter, then use your franchised rights and vote them out.  If you are not a Canadian citizen, go home to where you came from.  Seriously.  We have a democracy and we get the government we elect.  You have two options:  Elect another Government; or Leave.

 

[Inquisitor]

George - you asked for an example  of :

OK.  How about you explain the following and give us one example of:

Quote from: Nemo888 on Today at 23:17:59

The legalities of the US murdering citizens without trials is very worrisome.

Here is an example The speech came one day after the Obama administration declassified information about the 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar Awlaki, an American citizen who led external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as strikes that killed three other American citizens.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-when-its-okay-to-kill-americans-drone-strikes-2013-5#ixzz2ayBJMYF7"

Reproduced under the fair use provision of the copyright act

I think most us would be hard pressed to disagree with the following statement from President Obama

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-when-its-okay-to-kill-americans-drone-strikes-2013-5#ixzz2ayBcwJ6i

So far so good?

The list has been expanded.  It's late and rather than me ramble on - let me point out potential problems for abuse ala  "Minority report" for just one example

 

[Nemo888]

OK.  How about you explain the following and give us one example of:


I find you very ignorant in your thinking on this statement, verging on the extreme paranoid:

:  There are laws in place that prevent your delusional musings of what could be.  They can't happen.

:  You really are grasping at straws. 

If you do not like the government, and you are a registered voter, then use your franchised rights and vote them out.  If you are not a Canadian citizen, go home to where you came from.  Seriously.  We have a democracy and we get the government we elect.  You have two options:  Elect another Government; or Leave.

Anwar Awlaki is the perfect example of an American citizen murdered for talking shite on the internet by presidential order.

What are these limits on the Minister of Minister for Public Safety as I know of none.  The pretend ones in your head don't count.

I think of future generations. I don't think I am the last generation in history and screw everyone else. Leaving laws of convenience on the books leads to bizarre outcomes 50 or 100 years down the road.

 

[armyvern]

...

Government is at it's very best mediocre. At it's worst it is the most terrifying force in human history. I like my government on a tight leash as they inevitably fall into the wrong hands.

...

Why can't the powers of the security state be scaled back to what they were pre 9/11 Mr. Wallace? Why do they need unlimited power and unlimited secrecy?

Because the sun rose on 09/12 and it was the dawn of a new age; they be on our soil now.  Or, did you miss that bit?



Not that anyone actually has "unlimited power and unlimited secrecy" as you claim.  :

 

[Nemo888]

The problem is that the statute gives the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorneys General of all the Provinces too much power with minimal oversight. Eventually this will bite us in the ass. It's a bad law and needs to be repealed or rewritten. Unlike those ridiculous security certificates to lock up people who had committed no crimes for years this one didn't expire.

I can't get over that we locked up a 73 year old Egyptian for writing books about overthrowing Hosni Mubarak in Innes Rd for years. We did our ally a solid and locked up this scumbag fermenting revolution in Egypt. That is some serious police state overkill. Old men writing books. I feel like a real man now.

 

[Good2Golf]

What are these limits on the Minister of Minister for Public Safety as I know of none.  The pretend ones in your head don't count.

As for all Canadians, at its most restrictive, the Criminal Code of Canada.

...or do you have an issue with the Criminal Code of Canada not having enough checks and balances?


Anwar al Alwaki....for just talking shite?  Or, also for being tried in his second country of citizenship for coordinating terrorist acts against foreigners and acting as an Al Qaeda agent.  Perhaps the US Government had an agreement with the Yemeni Government to assist in the Yemeni court order to capture al Alwaki dead or alive...

The positive thing in all this is that you are able to have the opinion you have, notwithstanding the apparently 'limited' rights or privileges you have in this country...