Government likely to open criminal probe into NSA leaks(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Government likely to open criminal probe into NSA leaks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-leaks-idUSBRE95700C20130608
29 comments
Apparently, they do. FISA spying has been found unconstitutional since 2011, but they are keeping it a secret:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
This is happening in the "beacon of democracy" of the world.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
This is happening in the "beacon of democracy" of the world.
For the record, the only people who see the USA as the "beacon of democracy" are Americans.
I'm not saying this to start a flame war, but to simply point out that the USA is no more democratic than many other Western nations.
(My personal opinion is that the USA is much more of a beacon of imperialism than of democracy. But that's neither here nor there.)
I'm not saying this to start a flame war, but to simply point out that the USA is no more democratic than many other Western nations.
(My personal opinion is that the USA is much more of a beacon of imperialism than of democracy. But that's neither here nor there.)
s/americans/american government and media(for a lot of us at least)
To be fair, those people are exclusively Americans.
Not all Americans think of America as a "beacon of democracy", but pretty much anyone who does is themselves American. Also, rectangles are not squares, though squares are rectangles.
Not all Americans think of America as a "beacon of democracy", but pretty much anyone who does is themselves American. Also, rectangles are not squares, though squares are rectangles.
Nearly every American __wants__ our country to be a beacon of democracy, however, which is why this type of behavior by our government is so frustrating.
Nearly every person wants their country to be a beacon of democracy (and freedom). Except those in power, of course (in America and elsewhere).
The United States, despite what it may now be, has a historical foundation as the "beacon of democracy". The seeds of philosophies from antiquity and the enlightenment took root in the founding of the country, and the United States pioneered modern western democracy.
I don't think "beacons" work through time like that. I don't think you would say that Damascus is a "beacon of medical science", though there was once a time (preceding and during the Islamic Golden Age) that you could have certainly said that.
The US was never a beacon of democracy. That's not a desirable goal.
It was a Constitutional Republic.
It was a Constitutional Republic.
This semantic argument is completely tiresome. There's no contradiction between being a democracy and being a republic. The US is a democratic republic. Non-democratic republics include ancient Rome and 18th-century America (where slaves couldn't vote). Democratic non-republics include the UK, Canada, and Holland (which are monarchies).
"Republic" doesn't actually mean anything aside from "not a monarchy". When the founders of the United States wrote movingly about being a republic, they were firstly trying to emulate Rome and secondly trying to emphasize the then-popular Enlightenment ideal that monarchies were outdated and it was better to govern explicitly in the name of the people.
(The word "republic" emulates Rome because it's the term used by and for the Roman state. It's derived from the Latin "res publica", for "public property", which is exactly synonymous with the English word "commonwealth".)
"Republic" doesn't actually mean anything aside from "not a monarchy". When the founders of the United States wrote movingly about being a republic, they were firstly trying to emulate Rome and secondly trying to emphasize the then-popular Enlightenment ideal that monarchies were outdated and it was better to govern explicitly in the name of the people.
(The word "republic" emulates Rome because it's the term used by and for the Roman state. It's derived from the Latin "res publica", for "public property", which is exactly synonymous with the English word "commonwealth".)
I'll also add that democracy does not imply elections.
Actually, in Athenian democracy, decision makers were elected through sortition [1] (drawing of lots). They considered elections to be the very mark of an oligarchic system, which is what (in my opinion) most so-called "modern democracies" have become. (As illustrated by the importance of parties and of a class of professional decision makers, namely politicians, who have incentives to increase their own power and limit the number of people who reach their status. Usually this is done by rigging the electoral system.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Actually, in Athenian democracy, decision makers were elected through sortition [1] (drawing of lots). They considered elections to be the very mark of an oligarchic system, which is what (in my opinion) most so-called "modern democracies" have become. (As illustrated by the importance of parties and of a class of professional decision makers, namely politicians, who have incentives to increase their own power and limit the number of people who reach their status. Usually this is done by rigging the electoral system.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
To be fair, pure democracy in Athens led to all kind of disasters as the crowd was easily swayed by demagogues like Alcibiades, leading to disastrous foreign adventures like the sicillian expedition in the Peloponnesian war (A war like no other is a great book on this). It's hardly a model we should emulate.
I prefer the mediated kind of democracy (in spite of the tendency to oligarchy) as at least it tempers the rule of the mob.
I prefer the mediated kind of democracy (in spite of the tendency to oligarchy) as at least it tempers the rule of the mob.
There is no contradiction between being a democracy and being a republic however, as you add "constitutional" in front of "republic" it becomes a constitutional republic, which is not a democracy.
That's absolute nonsense by any meaningful definition of the word.
Can you elaborate? It's pretty simple in my opinion: democracy is the power of people and in a democracy (which would be also a republic, since it's not a monarchy or a theocracy) the people is the ultimate source of power. That could be either a direct democracy (where all people get to decide) or representative democracy, where the people choose representatives to decide everything. There is no power above the people's in a democracy.
In the USA the ultimate source of power is the Constitution of the US. It rules over the power of the people. Since the ultimate source of power in the USA is not the people it cannot possibly be a democracy.
In the USA the ultimate source of power is the Constitution of the US. It rules over the power of the people. Since the ultimate source of power in the USA is not the people it cannot possibly be a democracy.
> In the USA the ultimate source of power is the Constitution of the US
...which starts with "We the people, for a number of good reasons, establish the following Constitution." So you're kind of stuck there.
If you're willing to draw these kinds of distinctions, no country is a democracy and the word is meaningless.
...which starts with "We the people, for a number of good reasons, establish the following Constitution." So you're kind of stuck there.
If you're willing to draw these kinds of distinctions, no country is a democracy and the word is meaningless.
I will skip the nonsense point of me being somehow stuck, if you think more than 5 seconds I believe you can figure out how this works yourself.
As for your second point: it contradicts reality. There had been even direct democracies (ancient Athens among many others) and, judging by the frequency that constitutions change around the world in most democratic countries you need just a referendum to entirely repeal the constitution.
As for your second point: it contradicts reality. There had been even direct democracies (ancient Athens among many others) and, judging by the frequency that constitutions change around the world in most democratic countries you need just a referendum to entirely repeal the constitution.
Since the American democratic process is capable of passing arbitrary Constitutional amendments into law, and since the Constitution itself says its establishment derives from the will of the people, your interpretation is completely untenable.
Of all the hundreds of democracies established throughout history, almost all of them had governance through elected representatives and almost all of them had some kind of legal limits on what could be done through the democratic process (at least not without using some other democratic process to revise those limits). At that point, if you don't want to count them as real democracies, feel free to continue inventing your own language because you're not speaking the same English as the rest of us.
Of all the hundreds of democracies established throughout history, almost all of them had governance through elected representatives and almost all of them had some kind of legal limits on what could be done through the democratic process (at least not without using some other democratic process to revise those limits). At that point, if you don't want to count them as real democracies, feel free to continue inventing your own language because you're not speaking the same English as the rest of us.
Sorry, this is just too silly. No wonder you are arguing so vigorously - your ignorance is astounding.
I will bow myself out.
"You are free, because this is what freedom looks like."
US is actually less democratic than many countries - Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2012_gree...
[2] http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm
If we're talking about economic freedom or the freedom of press, it's even worse:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2012_gree...
[2] http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm
If we're talking about economic freedom or the freedom of press, it's even worse:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
The notion of democratic itself is a flawed one - meaningful representation left the building a long time ago.
It is often used to evoke some sense of greater social justice.
Notice though, how notions such as 'willingness to invade other sovereign nations' or 'laws on books against fundamental human rights' or 'presence of any constitution or meaningful court of higher appeal' or 'centralization of media ownership' or 'measured trajectory of higher educational capacity' or 'number of excuses government can use to spy on or detain citizens' also seem conveniently out of scope.
Simply put, the notion we are sold of western democracy as some all-solving wonderland of equality and transparent empathetic good-governance is a farce. The more people lend rankings like these ones credence, the harder that is for people to see. (Though they certainly do have some utility, it is important also to see them critically.)
It is often used to evoke some sense of greater social justice.
Notice though, how notions such as 'willingness to invade other sovereign nations' or 'laws on books against fundamental human rights' or 'presence of any constitution or meaningful court of higher appeal' or 'centralization of media ownership' or 'measured trajectory of higher educational capacity' or 'number of excuses government can use to spy on or detain citizens' also seem conveniently out of scope.
Simply put, the notion we are sold of western democracy as some all-solving wonderland of equality and transparent empathetic good-governance is a farce. The more people lend rankings like these ones credence, the harder that is for people to see. (Though they certainly do have some utility, it is important also to see them critically.)
Why don't you create a better ranking and see how it does?
I bet the results will be nearly identical, if not worse for the US.
I bet the results will be nearly identical, if not worse for the US.
So basically, trying to engage in a debate about such gives something (like the president suggests), that shouldn't have legs to stand on constitutional grounds, is just more fuel for the machine? Good to know.
I tried to parse your comment way too many times.
Yeah it reads weird because I should have put the comma after such (with the parenthetical reference before it). At least entering comments doesn't work like a complier so I don't have to spend hours trying to figure out where all my syntactical errors are haha.
Time for Americans to wake up to the tyranny they have been subjecting the rest of the world to since WWII. If foreigners don't have rights, then sooner or later those same rules will get applied to Americans. In fact that's already happened, just not on American soil yet.
Governments have a legitimate need for secrecy in some situations. If FBI investigations of white collar crimes were posted on a public website, for example, there would be a dramatic rise in both flights and wire transfers to Belize.
The blame here lies squarely with legislators that have drafted laws that are intentionally worded to give the public a false sense of privacy while enabling agencies like NSA to run amok. We elect these representatives precisely for this reason - they are supposed to protect our rights in situations where we can't. Not only did they create these laws, but they were apparently overseeing the mass-surveillance programs established under them and had no problem with the extraordinary Constitutional violations they enabled. Our own President has come in in strong support of these programs. Whether you voted for him or not, you should not be OK with that.
Every senator or congressman that has anything to do with intelligence oversight, along with those that had anything to do with the drafting of these laws, and all other elected officials that have or will come out in support of these programs, must never be reelected. This, unfortunately, is the only realistic defense that US citizens have against their tyrannical government.
The blame here lies squarely with legislators that have drafted laws that are intentionally worded to give the public a false sense of privacy while enabling agencies like NSA to run amok. We elect these representatives precisely for this reason - they are supposed to protect our rights in situations where we can't. Not only did they create these laws, but they were apparently overseeing the mass-surveillance programs established under them and had no problem with the extraordinary Constitutional violations they enabled. Our own President has come in in strong support of these programs. Whether you voted for him or not, you should not be OK with that.
Every senator or congressman that has anything to do with intelligence oversight, along with those that had anything to do with the drafting of these laws, and all other elected officials that have or will come out in support of these programs, must never be reelected. This, unfortunately, is the only realistic defense that US citizens have against their tyrannical government.
> Governments have a legitimate need for secrecy in some situations. If FBI investigations of white collar crimes were posted on a public website, for example, there would be a dramatic rise in both flights and wire transfers to Belize.
I think this argument is based on a strawman. The 'secrecy' most people assume and that the government wants is 'keeping secrets indefinitely at their sole discretion'. The 'secrecy' needed by your or any other scenario is merely a time-limited secret, ie. that all information must be released publicly once investigations are completed. The former is intrinsically harmful, the latter shouldn't harm anyone.
I think this argument is based on a strawman. The 'secrecy' most people assume and that the government wants is 'keeping secrets indefinitely at their sole discretion'. The 'secrecy' needed by your or any other scenario is merely a time-limited secret, ie. that all information must be released publicly once investigations are completed. The former is intrinsically harmful, the latter shouldn't harm anyone.
Outrageous! they break the law by violating our fourth amendment and then they launch a "criminal investigation" to punish those that came forward to report the violation.
Secret laws and secret courts are illegal.
Secret laws and secret courts are illegal.
So which is it? Is he "welcoming a debate over spying on Americans" or is he prosecuting the whistleblowers (again) and requesting state privileges to protect themselves against further scrutiny? I don't think the two can really co-exist. And if all of this was "already known" what's there to prosecute then? The amount of double-speak from the Obama administration astonishes me.
I have trouble deciding whether people intentional misunderstand him, simple can't, or just prefer to be outraged.
The program is classified. Its more effective if it remains so. Since it is now public, though he wishes it wasn't, he's happy and willing to publicly debate the issue of privacy vs security. He's made it quite clear that he struggles with the issue himself.
Leaking classified information is illegal, thus it generally should be prosecuted. Though we also have whistleblower laws that protect people who are leaking evidence of criminal conduct.
The program is classified. Its more effective if it remains so. Since it is now public, though he wishes it wasn't, he's happy and willing to publicly debate the issue of privacy vs security. He's made it quite clear that he struggles with the issue himself.
Leaking classified information is illegal, thus it generally should be prosecuted. Though we also have whistleblower laws that protect people who are leaking evidence of criminal conduct.
We're in the midst of several legal cases that are trying to argue that the NSA spying program is criminal conduct.
Well that the flip side of "innocent until proven guilty" is that merely having an open case is not enough.
How can we prove something guilty when we don't even know it exists?
We knew PRISM existed though. It's even mentioned in job postings, and we already knew about FISA and Section 702 as well.
We just didn't know we cared.
We just didn't know we cared.
The parent poster should have been more specific. The reason lawsuits have largely be stymied has been the claim of state secrets (whether or not everyone in the room knew the program existed, the executive branch argued that details would reveal things that would be detrimental to the state) and because no one who sued could prove they had standing to sue because no one knew who was actually being monitored.
So, yes, we knew section 215, FISA, etc existed, but no one has been able to (yet) successfully challenge them fully because any legal basis for challenging has been (in many cases actively) kept secret.
So, yes, we knew section 215, FISA, etc existed, but no one has been able to (yet) successfully challenge them fully because any legal basis for challenging has been (in many cases actively) kept secret.
Curiously, the UK government made an argument to the contrary just recently when talking about when an alleged sex offender should have their name disclosed, which has been a big issue here of late after a wave of allegations about inappropriate behaviour by high profile media personalities going back many years. The argument was essentially that if you disclose the identity of a suspect before they have their day in court, you might encourage other victims to come forward with evidence that will build the case, which is presumably favourable if the suspect actually is guilty but obviously has severe potential consequences if in fact they are innocent but publicly associated with sex crimes anyway.
I'm not sure what the parallel with whistleblowing should be in a case of allegation but not yet a conclusive decision in court, but I'm pretty sure governments shouldn't be entitled to more protection against potential damage to their reputation than an alleged but not convicted sex offender.
(Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of the policy toward disclosure of suspected sex offenders, just the double standard that would arise if the UK government objected to this kind of whistleblowing using your "innocent until proven guilty" argument.)
I'm not sure what the parallel with whistleblowing should be in a case of allegation but not yet a conclusive decision in court, but I'm pretty sure governments shouldn't be entitled to more protection against potential damage to their reputation than an alleged but not convicted sex offender.
(Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of the policy toward disclosure of suspected sex offenders, just the double standard that would arise if the UK government objected to this kind of whistleblowing using your "innocent until proven guilty" argument.)
Well the US definitely "has their cake and eats it too" on your example. We will oftentimes (incl. for alleged sex offenders) publicly mention the name of a suspect, mug shot, general details, etc. even while the case is ongoing. In fact I'm convinced that's the only reason Americans know about "innocent until proven guilty", to remind them that the suspect hasn't been convicted yet.
But here we go, perhaps the whistleblower technically broke the letter of the law. It doesn't sound like he was leaked illegal activities so he doesn't have the benefit of that particular shield. And just the other day a few on HN were arguing that a prosecutor should not be able to use prosecutorial discretion.
I think we can all definitely agree his heart is in the right place though (and all the previous elements of my ode to him still apply), so I wonder what we would think of prosecutorial discretion after this?
But here we go, perhaps the whistleblower technically broke the letter of the law. It doesn't sound like he was leaked illegal activities so he doesn't have the benefit of that particular shield. And just the other day a few on HN were arguing that a prosecutor should not be able to use prosecutorial discretion.
I think we can all definitely agree his heart is in the right place though (and all the previous elements of my ode to him still apply), so I wonder what we would think of prosecutorial discretion after this?
Discretion is good in the short term and bad in the long term. It's something that ideally would almost never be needed.
Ideally we wouldn't need crypto, locks, weapons, or legally-binding contracts either though. :-/
What's the point of classified information if you don't punish those that leak it?
Don't get me wrong, the treatment of Bradley Manning is absurd, and there shouldn't be any sort of prosecution of the journalists involved (which has been happening recently), so it's fair to complain that they are coming down too hard on whistle-blowers. However, you have to expect some sort of investigation into who did the original leaks.
We can also have the debate about whether they overly classify things and should be more open in the first place, but that's not the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, the treatment of Bradley Manning is absurd, and there shouldn't be any sort of prosecution of the journalists involved (which has been happening recently), so it's fair to complain that they are coming down too hard on whistle-blowers. However, you have to expect some sort of investigation into who did the original leaks.
We can also have the debate about whether they overly classify things and should be more open in the first place, but that's not the same thing.
So the whistleblower law is just a "pretend-law"? Whistleblowers are needed for a healthy democracy, unless we have a pretend-democracy at this point, too. How do you uncover dirt on the government if every single act of whistleblowing and investigative journalism on the government is being prosecuted? Not only does that create a very chilling effect, but it also takes out everyone who did it, "before they cause too much damage". And doesn't this begin to resemble a little too much with some of those oppressive regimes?
The government classifies everything it doesn't want the public to know these days, and then tries to arrest everyone who leaks those documents. I think we need to stop thinking about what's legal and what's illegal, and start thinking about what moral and immoral. Many of these laws are immoral.
The government classifies everything it doesn't want the public to know these days, and then tries to arrest everyone who leaks those documents. I think we need to stop thinking about what's legal and what's illegal, and start thinking about what moral and immoral. Many of these laws are immoral.
> So the whistleblower law is just a "pretend-law"?
Not sure why you used the phrase 'pretend-law' in scare quotes, since the post you responded to said no such thing.
Either way, there isn't really such a thing as the whistleblower law (IANAL). Aside from the first amendment, the closest thing I could find was the Whistleblower Protection Act [1]. It's a young law by any standard (1989), so you'd be hard pressed to argue that we didn't have a functioning democracy in its absence.
Your central point is well received, but you rebutted a partial straw man.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
Not sure why you used the phrase 'pretend-law' in scare quotes, since the post you responded to said no such thing.
Either way, there isn't really such a thing as the whistleblower law (IANAL). Aside from the first amendment, the closest thing I could find was the Whistleblower Protection Act [1]. It's a young law by any standard (1989), so you'd be hard pressed to argue that we didn't have a functioning democracy in its absence.
Your central point is well received, but you rebutted a partial straw man.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
I found this which explains a variety of protections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_Uni...
Additionally it would be interesting if the leakers leaked more to get a softer punishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
Also, I have to add, I'm a little ashamed of my country today. But I feel vindicated as a programmer that we were right! We knew it all along. Things like this have been reported for years. But no one cared. Finally this is plastered on every major publication and people no longer think it's some conspiracy theory or exaggeration of normal security measures. So now's the real test. What do we do? How do we fix this? Our innate liberties have been trampled and threatened. Have some self-respect and speak your mind at work, people.
Additionally it would be interesting if the leakers leaked more to get a softer punishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
Also, I have to add, I'm a little ashamed of my country today. But I feel vindicated as a programmer that we were right! We knew it all along. Things like this have been reported for years. But no one cared. Finally this is plastered on every major publication and people no longer think it's some conspiracy theory or exaggeration of normal security measures. So now's the real test. What do we do? How do we fix this? Our innate liberties have been trampled and threatened. Have some self-respect and speak your mind at work, people.
> We can also have the debate ... but that's not the same thing
Yes, it is. The whole thing is cohesive. Penetration at the source is the only thing that will halt government secrecy, and condemning those who leak classified information is egregious and a grave disservice to those people.
Classified information should only pertain to anything with national security at stake. The in-country data mining obviously did not.
Yes, it is. The whole thing is cohesive. Penetration at the source is the only thing that will halt government secrecy, and condemning those who leak classified information is egregious and a grave disservice to those people.
Classified information should only pertain to anything with national security at stake. The in-country data mining obviously did not.
I believe that "national security" reasoning has been expanded to cover the country's reputation. The security being protected is that of a portrayed image.
We can't have that debate if we aren't informed about what's being kept from us.
We barely even need to have that debate, we know our Government are using classified information to cover their own asses and for political reasons. Transparency is pretty much the only weapon we have against Government corruption, thus we really should to be doing more to help protect legitimate whistle blowers and to stop documents being classified or redacted without some overseeing from a party without skin in the game.
It's one thing to oppose a system such as PRISM in the legal abstract, quite another thing to hear about the wanton details of a real one, and see the CEO's of Microsoft, Facebook and Google publicly fib under FISA gag orders.
The process of classifying material is uncontroversial because in general parlance, we assume that material is specific intelligence of people, place, and times.
The extension of that definition to include classified courts with classified rulings used as the legal basis for programs like this... is not the generally accepted one.
The extension of that definition to include classified courts with classified rulings used as the legal basis for programs like this... is not the generally accepted one.
I don't know why you'd assume it's specific intel of that. Classified info is literally anything that would be a risk to national security if released in an uncontrolled fashion. The 3 different tiers of U.S. classification are literally just the 3 different levels of damage that would accrue to U.S. national security, nothing more.
So in the case of programs like this, if the hypothetical terr'ists know about it, that lets them know services to avoid, or communications methods to avoid, etc., which might enable them to form networks that the NSA would otherwise have been able to unravel before their next terrorist attack.
So it's not completely inconceivable that there's a valid reason to apply classification standards.
I happen to think that the importance of transparency is such that we need to at least have that public discussion about what types of records NSA would be storing, searching, and examining.
But at the same time the NSA has literally been doing this for decades, Congress has had classified hearings for longer, and the Republic has refused to fall. I don't know for sure about classified courts, but neither would that surprise me too much.
So in the case of programs like this, if the hypothetical terr'ists know about it, that lets them know services to avoid, or communications methods to avoid, etc., which might enable them to form networks that the NSA would otherwise have been able to unravel before their next terrorist attack.
So it's not completely inconceivable that there's a valid reason to apply classification standards.
I happen to think that the importance of transparency is such that we need to at least have that public discussion about what types of records NSA would be storing, searching, and examining.
But at the same time the NSA has literally been doing this for decades, Congress has had classified hearings for longer, and the Republic has refused to fall. I don't know for sure about classified courts, but neither would that surprise me too much.
There is no Salafi army capable of achieving military victory against the United States. The existential threat is zero.
Therefore, I see no reason why our sacred liberties should be secretly sacrificed as "tactics" in an eternal, global war.
Better to declare global perpetual war against pools, bathtubs, or uncooked food. It would be cheaper and save more lives. Oh, and, preserve the sacrifice of those who died fighting for our freedom.
Or, is a life lost to a one who has claimed jihad worth more than one from uncooked food?
It may be that Bush was right, that terrorists wish us to abandon our liberties. So, too do the disciples of Leo Strauss who want to elevate to warriors the ideology of people who are merely sad, pathetic men no different from the killers of random school shootings, and deserve no more.
Therefore, I see no reason why our sacred liberties should be secretly sacrificed as "tactics" in an eternal, global war.
Better to declare global perpetual war against pools, bathtubs, or uncooked food. It would be cheaper and save more lives. Oh, and, preserve the sacrifice of those who died fighting for our freedom.
Or, is a life lost to a one who has claimed jihad worth more than one from uncooked food?
It may be that Bush was right, that terrorists wish us to abandon our liberties. So, too do the disciples of Leo Strauss who want to elevate to warriors the ideology of people who are merely sad, pathetic men no different from the killers of random school shootings, and deserve no more.
I can't speak for you (I'm immersed in a bunch of "privilege" already), but the actual concrete effect on my civil liberties, even since 9/11, has been exactly zero.
Remember we oppose tools such as these based on what the government might be able to do with them to abuse their citizens, just like we field militaries based on what other nations might be able to do.
So far your Salafi army example applies in reverse as well: The U.S. government hasn't been running around actually repressing the citizenry. Certainly we should take measures to ensure they can't, but as long as we're worrying about what people might do then I don't see why it's shameful to worry about what Islamists might do as well.
Remember we oppose tools such as these based on what the government might be able to do with them to abuse their citizens, just like we field militaries based on what other nations might be able to do.
So far your Salafi army example applies in reverse as well: The U.S. government hasn't been running around actually repressing the citizenry. Certainly we should take measures to ensure they can't, but as long as we're worrying about what people might do then I don't see why it's shameful to worry about what Islamists might do as well.
As wikileaks has shown the government tends to classify EVERYTHING.
That this doublespeak surprises anyone shows the tragedy of the small size of Glenn Greenwald's readership. He has been writing on Obama's abuses and misdirection since Obama admin has been in power; and before that, he's written about Bush's (published three books about Bush, in fact)
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that he does the direct opposite of whatever he promises. He promised to end all this when he was elected, yet expanded on what Bush had started.
I have had to consider the possibility that the military has gone rogue and it's not his decision to make.
Greenwald replies to a Twitter user asking "when do we see the full redacted deck?"
"@markskogan @nycsouthpaw You won't - it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did." - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770
Everyone should be keeping their eye on @ggreenwald's twitter, reveals much about the debate and what's going on with him. He gives bits and pieces of background info..
Everyone should be keeping their eye on @ggreenwald's twitter, reveals much about the debate and what's going on with him. He gives bits and pieces of background info..
Greenwald of all people should just redact and spill it. He's under no legal bar toward publishing that material (OBVIOUSLY, as he's already published TS) and he can simply redact anything he's that worried about.
By Greenwald's own logic I shouldn't have to "just trust him" either, no? Be transparent, spill the beans! Or is there an ulterior motive?
By Greenwald's own logic I shouldn't have to "just trust him" either, no? Be transparent, spill the beans! Or is there an ulterior motive?
The Guardian as a news outlet could be prosecuted/gone after for releasing certain things. It isn't just him making the decisions. On Twitter he seems to express the desire to release as much as he can without earning himself a Disappearance; I feel that once this is all over, he might just release the docs the Guardian won't publish somehow.
Neither the Guardian nor Greenwald are "read in" to the U.S. national security information apparatus. They literally have no legal requirement to avoid publishing what they have.
As far as being Disappeared, even Greenwald can't possibly be that dumb, can he? If he has information that the NSA would want to remove him for, and he hasn't already deleted it, it is by far in NSA's best interests to "disappear him" right now.
If they wouldn't find it politically possible to disappear him now then it wouldn't be politically possible to disappear him then.
Does he just think he's going to string NSA along and that they're simultaneously angry enough to kill him and dumb enough to let him choose to leak it after all?
The very fact that you (and surely many others) feel that Greenwald might release this "super sensitive material" later should be all the reasoning you need to understand why NSA will have to remove him now or not remove him at all.
Obviously I'm saying the latter will happen, but this means that Greenwald is acting like a tinfoil-hat conspiracy nutter. Hell, even if the former will happen Greenwald is acting like a nutter; his logic is all wrong even for the world he thinks he lives in.
Once he releases the information he can pose no further risk to NSA for now, which would make harming him far more politically damaging (as it would be revenge, and not to protect further disclosure).
I don't think he's stringing NSA along at all, I think he's stringing the rest of us along.
As far as being Disappeared, even Greenwald can't possibly be that dumb, can he? If he has information that the NSA would want to remove him for, and he hasn't already deleted it, it is by far in NSA's best interests to "disappear him" right now.
If they wouldn't find it politically possible to disappear him now then it wouldn't be politically possible to disappear him then.
Does he just think he's going to string NSA along and that they're simultaneously angry enough to kill him and dumb enough to let him choose to leak it after all?
The very fact that you (and surely many others) feel that Greenwald might release this "super sensitive material" later should be all the reasoning you need to understand why NSA will have to remove him now or not remove him at all.
Obviously I'm saying the latter will happen, but this means that Greenwald is acting like a tinfoil-hat conspiracy nutter. Hell, even if the former will happen Greenwald is acting like a nutter; his logic is all wrong even for the world he thinks he lives in.
Once he releases the information he can pose no further risk to NSA for now, which would make harming him far more politically damaging (as it would be revenge, and not to protect further disclosure).
I don't think he's stringing NSA along at all, I think he's stringing the rest of us along.
Check again: The Guardian US is an American LLC. [1]
It would be in their best interest to disappear him ASAP? Maybe that's why The Atlantic's Washington Editor-at-Large just tweeted that he overheard four government officials on a plane (I believe that's where he was) discussing loudly that the leakers and Greenwald should be "disappeared". [2] He recorded the conversation and is getting together an article as we type.
Greenwald has been writing on NSA abuses and other government fraud and corruption for years. He poses a (the biggest) threat ideologically and now he is a source that leakers can release actual classified information through, if they want. He is obviously very thorough with what he has been doing; he had his computer physically rigged (in the sense of software and probably hardware too) to allow for most secure communications by "someone familiar with those matters" who came to his house to do it for him. He's probably in Hong Kong for safety reasons, or at least reasons related to this story. Who else can travel to Hong Kong at will just to leak stuff?
Try reading his actual articles and Twitter posts. He doesn't actually fear disappearing, he fears being sought-after or... I don't know, maybe he doesn't fear anything from acting alone and will release it all himself later! I just interpreted what I have read, "earning [myself] a Disappearance" is not a quote from him at all.
If you care that much about Greenwald, might want to read the Frequently Told Lies list he has compiled [3] so you don't get tripped up. He usually lives in Brazil but pays U.S. taxes as an American citizen (which is what he is, more than most of us). He can not move because the U.S. does not recognize bi-national same-sex partnerships upon immigration.
[1] http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Guardian-News/1127261...
[2] https://twitter.com/SCClemons/status/343392529913356289
[3] http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li...
It would be in their best interest to disappear him ASAP? Maybe that's why The Atlantic's Washington Editor-at-Large just tweeted that he overheard four government officials on a plane (I believe that's where he was) discussing loudly that the leakers and Greenwald should be "disappeared". [2] He recorded the conversation and is getting together an article as we type.
Greenwald has been writing on NSA abuses and other government fraud and corruption for years. He poses a (the biggest) threat ideologically and now he is a source that leakers can release actual classified information through, if they want. He is obviously very thorough with what he has been doing; he had his computer physically rigged (in the sense of software and probably hardware too) to allow for most secure communications by "someone familiar with those matters" who came to his house to do it for him. He's probably in Hong Kong for safety reasons, or at least reasons related to this story. Who else can travel to Hong Kong at will just to leak stuff?
Try reading his actual articles and Twitter posts. He doesn't actually fear disappearing, he fears being sought-after or... I don't know, maybe he doesn't fear anything from acting alone and will release it all himself later! I just interpreted what I have read, "earning [myself] a Disappearance" is not a quote from him at all.
If you care that much about Greenwald, might want to read the Frequently Told Lies list he has compiled [3] so you don't get tripped up. He usually lives in Brazil but pays U.S. taxes as an American citizen (which is what he is, more than most of us). He can not move because the U.S. does not recognize bi-national same-sex partnerships upon immigration.
[1] http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Guardian-News/1127261...
[2] https://twitter.com/SCClemons/status/343392529913356289
[3] http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li...
It doesn't matter that the Guardian is an American LLC.
If you walked up to some dude on the street, who hasn't already agreed to protect NSI, give him a confidential sheet, he's under no legal obligation to protect it (though, see below).
That's one of the surreal effects of our 1st Amendment rights is that for whatever reason J. Random Citizen (and especially the press) are not bound by classification requirements (with the exception of actual national defense information such as war plans, military designs, etc.) unless they've already agreed to be.
So is Greenwald sitting on military secrets? If so he'll never be able to disclose it, so there's no point mentioning it. If not he could disclose it today, if he felt like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U...
If you walked up to some dude on the street, who hasn't already agreed to protect NSI, give him a confidential sheet, he's under no legal obligation to protect it (though, see below).
That's one of the surreal effects of our 1st Amendment rights is that for whatever reason J. Random Citizen (and especially the press) are not bound by classification requirements (with the exception of actual national defense information such as war plans, military designs, etc.) unless they've already agreed to be.
So is Greenwald sitting on military secrets? If so he'll never be able to disclose it, so there's no point mentioning it. If not he could disclose it today, if he felt like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_U...
Can you explain the labeling of WikiLeaks as an enemy organization and fears that Assange has? Why don't you tell these things to Greenwald himself on Twitter or in an email?
The release of any secret through a media outlet could be considered a "threat to national security"; James Rosen, the New York Times, AP, and Antiwar.com all know this now that they've all been indicted and some of their phone records have been targeted and seized. Glenn has written extensively on this topic, almost daily. I think he has a better understanding of this issue than most people.
The release of any secret through a media outlet could be considered a "threat to national security"; James Rosen, the New York Times, AP, and Antiwar.com all know this now that they've all been indicted and some of their phone records have been targeted and seized. Glenn has written extensively on this topic, almost daily. I think he has a better understanding of this issue than most people.
The current incarnation of the U.S government has _tortured people_, I doubt they'd have any problem with disobeying their own laws and just going after Greenwald and figuring out the justification later. If you disagree, then we differ there and on more fundamental issues as well, probably.
Not surprising. This is an incredibly opaque administration that's prosecuted more whistleblowers under the espionage act than every other administration combined.
The contrast between campaign Obama and president Obama is staggering. One would not be too far off the mark in calling him a liar, as simply an objective observation. I say this as someone who campaigned for him in 2008, which I now regret immensely.
The contrast between campaign Obama and president Obama is staggering. One would not be too far off the mark in calling him a liar, as simply an objective observation. I say this as someone who campaigned for him in 2008, which I now regret immensely.
It's incredible how the presence of the word "leaks" turns the whole headline from promising to sinister. Why can't they investigate the NSA for once? Isn't that what a democratic country would do?
> Isn't that what a democratic country would do
An informed democratic country, yes. But people in the United States are misled, misguided, and taught not to question government.
I know this from personal experience. My parents taught me to be afraid of government. Many of my friends were also taught the same thing. Everywhere I go, everyone in my age group either worships the government or fears it.
There is absolutely no democratic attitude here; it's frightening and totalitarian.
An informed democratic country, yes. But people in the United States are misled, misguided, and taught not to question government.
I know this from personal experience. My parents taught me to be afraid of government. Many of my friends were also taught the same thing. Everywhere I go, everyone in my age group either worships the government or fears it.
There is absolutely no democratic attitude here; it's frightening and totalitarian.
It appears this was justified by a specific law that was passed by the representatives of the people for the people, so why should they investigate the NSA, especially in a democratic country?
Are you saying they should investigate Congress instead?
(I noticed that nobody has specified who the "they" is. In a democracy, maybe the "they" is supposed to be "us"?)
(I noticed that nobody has specified who the "they" is. In a democracy, maybe the "they" is supposed to be "us"?)
[deleted]
Well, representatives of the gerrymanders for the gerrymanders.
"The law enforcement and security officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said the agencies that normally conduct such investigations, including the FBI and Justice Department, were expecting a probe into the leaks to a British and an American newspaper."
So basically the fact the NSA leaker was going to be prosecuted was leaked, how can the the security officials who leaked this piece of information not see the irony ?
So basically the fact the NSA leaker was going to be prosecuted was leaked, how can the the security officials who leaked this piece of information not see the irony ?
The government (especially prosecutors/police) routinely leak information to serve their own ends.
The author of the original WaPo story said yesterday that the source was expecting to be caught. "I don't even think [the source] wants to stay masked forever."
Good interview if this is a story you care about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/nsa-leak-source-...
Good interview if this is a story you care about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/nsa-leak-source-...
anyone else notice there's been none of the usual China-bashing going on ever since this whole thing broke?
which is funny because it should be at an all time high, what with the meeting of the Chinese president Xi and Obama.
maybe they're sharing tips on how best to spy on and kill their own citizens! it is the most important economic and political bilateral relationship in the world, after all.
i kid, i kid.
but seriously, wasn't one of the talking points of the meeting going to be Obama redressing Xi on how the Chinese hack/spy on american companies and citizens' communications?
LOL x 10.
which is funny because it should be at an all time high, what with the meeting of the Chinese president Xi and Obama.
maybe they're sharing tips on how best to spy on and kill their own citizens! it is the most important economic and political bilateral relationship in the world, after all.
i kid, i kid.
but seriously, wasn't one of the talking points of the meeting going to be Obama redressing Xi on how the Chinese hack/spy on american companies and citizens' communications?
LOL x 10.
1. A small group of people violate the privacy of people everywhere around the world.
2. Another, even smaller group of people violate the privacy of the above group.
3. The first group says, "Hey, trust us. It's for your own good", and then promptly hunts down the second group for being dirty-stinking-traitor-terrorist criminals.
4. Profit?
2. Another, even smaller group of people violate the privacy of the above group.
3. The first group says, "Hey, trust us. It's for your own good", and then promptly hunts down the second group for being dirty-stinking-traitor-terrorist criminals.
4. Profit?
Read Top Secret America by Dana Priest. These are among the highest paying government jobs. The strongholds of NSA are in the wealthiest counties in the nation. And we don't even know what they do... I think it's reasonable to call it profiting.
Remove the power to classify long term information from the executive branch and put it into the judicial. It is obvious that it is abusing it currently with classifying everything. If they have to compelling interest to classify something that can jump at least the standard for a warrant.
This makes me wonder how we have the balls to go into other countries and yell about all their problems with surveillance & censorship when we do it more & arguably, better than all of them combined.
I didn't know the WaPo story had been authored by someone working with Assange to make a documentary on WikiLeaks. That would at least explain why "data directly from" was misinterpreted to mean "backdoor direct access" since I doubt she had the training to disambiguate the terms used.
Not that it matters too much anyways, I'm assuming it wasn't an OpEd and therefore she'd still have received the normal editing and source-checking services. But I do wonder if there is any reporting that was done by those who don't hold quite as much of a bias as Poitras and Greenwald, for the same reason I would be suspicious of a history of the Iraq invasion authored by Rumsfeld...
Not that it matters too much anyways, I'm assuming it wasn't an OpEd and therefore she'd still have received the normal editing and source-checking services. But I do wonder if there is any reporting that was done by those who don't hold quite as much of a bias as Poitras and Greenwald, for the same reason I would be suspicious of a history of the Iraq invasion authored by Rumsfeld...
The Washington Post story was double-bylined (and also credited several other reporters and researchers), and the lead byline went to Barton Gellman, who used to be full-time at the WP but (AFAIK) is at TIME magazine. Not sure what the publishing process for this story was about (it seems unusual to have a story lead-bylined by only non-staff members), but I imagine it had something to do with the Guardian dropping their bombshells and the WP deciding that it also should publish (perhaps this story had been in the works, but wasn't originally going to be published this week).
disclosure: I know Gellman as an acquaintance through a colleague and consider him to be a great reporter...but I'd probably say that anyway just based on him wining the Pulitzer for his reporting on Dick Cheney (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2008-National-Reporting)
disclosure: I know Gellman as an acquaintance through a colleague and consider him to be a great reporter...but I'd probably say that anyway just based on him wining the Pulitzer for his reporting on Dick Cheney (http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2008-National-Reporting)
There are many reporters working on this, not just Greenwald or Poitras. The most recently released slide directly contradicts the statements by Google and Facebook:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...
Given that they used the same phrases in their denials, it would seem they have been fed talking points, and are are using a novel interpretation of direct access. For example if Google or FB interpret a real-time mirror as 'not direct access', their statements are technically true, while at the same time being misleading. Doubtless the truth will come to light eventually, but for now we'll have to wait for more information and denials.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...
Given that they used the same phrases in their denials, it would seem they have been fed talking points, and are are using a novel interpretation of direct access. For example if Google or FB interpret a real-time mirror as 'not direct access', their statements are technically true, while at the same time being misleading. Doubtless the truth will come to light eventually, but for now we'll have to wait for more information and denials.
No, if anything it supports the Google/FB interpretation.
From this slide it appears the distinction between the two types of data collection are between "indirect" on-the-wire intercepts and "direct" where the data's obtained from the company holding it. Given the context it could be referring to FISA obtained documents.
From this slide it appears the distinction between the two types of data collection are between "indirect" on-the-wire intercepts and "direct" where the data's obtained from the company holding it. Given the context it could be referring to FISA obtained documents.
It's not really a "novel interpretation" of direct access if all access to a company's servers have to go through the company. That's a subpoena-on-steroids and not much more, and this additional slide which the Guardian was so kind as to decide to provide to the masses doesn't really dispute that interpretation.
It's not yet clear that anything in the original piece is actually wrong, despite some carefully worded denials. I think it's unfair to judge him as misinterpreting something (yet).
As best as I can tell Greenwald was claiming that the NSA managed to backdoor most major Internet PIM service providers for the unbelievably low cost of $20 million.
You couldn't really do that for $20 million just on labor cost alone, so it was clear there was more to the story, it was just a question of what.
To be clear the story is important enough that I don't think it should be required to overstate or mislead either. Transparency of data collection and intelligence services is a conversation that America should at least have, whether it's backdoors or not.
You couldn't really do that for $20 million just on labor cost alone, so it was clear there was more to the story, it was just a question of what.
To be clear the story is important enough that I don't think it should be required to overstate or mislead either. Transparency of data collection and intelligence services is a conversation that America should at least have, whether it's backdoors or not.
Out of curiosity, has anyone's opinion of Bradley Manning, Julian Assange or Wikileaks changed over the last few days?
From the previous times the topic has come up, my impression is that this community is more or less whether they're doing good work or not.
From the previous times the topic has come up, my impression is that this community is more or less whether they're doing good work or not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
What is there to investigate? The criminals has clearly been found thanks to the whistleblowers. The whistle blower is the hero while the criminals are NSA and the government for doing such acts against democracy. A democracy needs to be transparent. Otherwise it is a system that you can put no trust in.
US justice system in ‘calamitous’ collapse
I'm just hoping that Greenwald doesn't "get in a car crash."
But google, facebook and microsoft all they never heard of PRISM and no such thing exist, why would there be a criminal probe about a work of fiction?
[deleted](1)
This should give a perfect opportunity for mass protests at the trial of whoever did the leak.
Is it time to start a petition that asks that this leak not be prosecuted?
So much for not looking back and only looking forward
This was not a leak. It was a dare.
Expected, unless the leaked doc said "ignore court order" or "kill the Presi..." leaking is illegal.
The person that leaked this knew that he /she would be prosecuted, if... Let's hope that he took care not to leave any crumbs as he gave the info to the Guardian
The person that leaked this knew that he /she would be prosecuted, if... Let's hope that he took care not to leave any crumbs as he gave the info to the Guardian
More seriously, some amount of surveillance is probably necessary, but they need to be a lot more open and transparent about it. Secret laws and secret courts are not the stuff a free society is made of.