http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rc=flyouts
The NSA has only themselves to blame for this. I predict heads will be rolling..if they haven't already.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
You're just realizing this now? The seeds of this were planted back when the PATRIOT Act was signed into law...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I was honestly hoping that this wasn't the case... But it turns out that not only it is so... but President Obama is trying to brush this aside as a necessary evil. Argh!
We know one thing now for certain...
At least on branch of the US government actually listens to the people.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
*rimshot*
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
I will say this much... I appreciate that this man released his findings to American news before going other places with it... unlike the other guy that felt he had to be so anti-establishment that he had to go to wikileaks.
I'm noticing that the people most loudly proclaiming this man a traitor and calling for him to be prosecuted and locked away are the ones most in favor of big government. And that's both Democrats AND Republicans.
There's PLENTY of folks on the conservative/libertarian side of the political spectrum who think this guy is a hero more than a traitor, and I'm one of them.
And yeah - good point about Wikileaks.
Quote:I appreciate that this man released his findings to American news before going other places with it...
I thought the
Guardian was a British paper...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
I thought he went to American press before the Guardian interviewed him. Did the Brits actually get their hooks into him fist?
The Register backs you up, BA -
it says he went to the Washington Post first.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:
I thought he went to American press before the Guardian interviewed him. Did the Brits actually get their hooks into him fist?
Ah, sorry, BA -- misunderstood what you meant.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Quote:Rod H wrote:
And the Australian media has been mentioning that our own version of the NSA, is helping them implement PRISM in return for information on what ever they want.
Up to the point of needing a new datacenter to hold & process it all.
That's not surprising. It's the inevitable extension of
Echelon, so I'd expect all the same countries to be involved in it.
Nonetheless, now that the US government has acknowledged that the PRISM data collection program actually exists, there are other implications that are rearing their head:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 4900.story
A suspect on trial for a 2010 bank robbery claims to have been somewhere else at the time of the robbery, and that the cell phone records would prove it. The phone company has already destroyed those records. So he is now demanding that the NSA releases their copy of the relevant records to the court.
Quote:nemonowan wrote:
Nonetheless, now that the US government has acknowledged that the PRISM data collection program actually exists, there are other implications that are rearing their head:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 4900.story
A suspect on trial for a 2010 bank robbery claims to have been somewhere else at the time of the robbery, and that the cell phone records would prove it. The phone company has already destroyed those records. So he is now demanding that the NSA releases their copy of the relevant records to the court.
Congratulations Uncle Sam. You just bought yourself a whole SEAPORT load of trouble, wholesale, and with no customers to pass the savings to. Good luck!
Say, are these records available via the Freedom of Information Act? Could I ask for records on myself? Others? (Very doubtful about the last one)
-----
Stand between the Silver Crystal and the Golden Sea.
"Youngsters these days just have no appreciation for the magnificence of the legendary cucumber." --Krityan Elder, Tales of Vesperia.
Now that they've admitted to their existence, that may very well be possible.
I doubt that any of us could get our own records.
Consider:
- The NSA has stated that PRISM does not spy on US citizens.
- Earlier this week, it came out in the Canadian Parliament that CSEC has a similar program, that does not spy on Canadian citizens.
- NSA and CSEC share data, as part of the "Five Eyes" program.
- Information provided by friendly governments' intelligence agencies is normally not subject to disclosure in FoI requests, because that might cause the friendly governments to cease being friendly. (At least, that's how it works in Canada; I assume the same applies in the USA.)
So, even if you somehow already know exactly which file to ask for, you probably won't get it for reasons of national security.
(I've assumed that CSEC, CSIS, or both have had a file on me for at least a decade, and possibly longer. They did the background work for my security clearance, after all, and it went through very quickly compared to everyone else in the office.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I actually wonder if that isn't just outright lipservice. After all, they've hid the existence of this all along... (Okay, I'm a little loopy right now, so if what I say right now sounds outrageous, it's just the sleep deprivation talking.) The politically sound thing to do would be to admit to its existence, but lie about what information is collected - such as, "We do not collect information on our citizens."
But, playing devil's advocate here, I can't help but think about the ridiculous amounts of data storage that wiretapping the online activity of everyone would require. Is it even possible for the US Government to securely hold on to that much data?
blackaeronaut Wrote:But, playing devil's advocate here, I can't help but think about the ridiculous amounts of data storage that wiretapping the online activity of everyone would require. Is it even possible for the US Government to securely hold on to that much data?
Given a decent compression format - say, MP3 - it wouldn't take too many petabytes to store a week's worth of phone calls.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
And let us not forget the monstrous NSA datacenter built out in the Southwest a few years back...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Quote:In the story of Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, a good deal of the
context is still missing, and what remains is peculiar. Certainly
Snowden styles himself a martyr: "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that
because I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy
privacy, Internet freedom, and basic liberties for people around the
world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
And yet some of the key facts of the case are still in doubt. Does the
NSA really have full access to private companies' Internet servers as
first implied? Or was that, as it now seems, an exaggeration?
Some details now appear to be wrong as well. Snowden might not, for
example, have stolen four laptops as originally and flamboyantly
reported, but instead—less glamorously—removed information on a thumb
drive.
His methods are curious as well. There is a tradition of
whistle-blowing in the United States, even among people who work with
classified information—and there are long established ways to do it.
Snowden might have approached a member of Congress, perhaps one of those
with intelligence oversight. He might have written to his
organization's lawyers, to clarify the legality of his work. He might
have argued his case from within. The legal expert Jack Goldsmith, then
working in the Department of Justice, fought against the use of torture
by the Bush administration. Eventually he resigned and wrote about it.
There were setbacks, but ultimately, Goldsmith was successful: The
policy was reversed.
Snowden chose a different path. He stole a hoard of documents—and
fled to Hong Kong. Thus did he place his ultimate fate in the hands of a
government that exerts total control over its own national Internet,
and which spares no expense in its attempts to penetrate ours. His
decision to speak from there, in public, is also noteworthy: It means
his interest in publicity trumps his stated fear of arrest.
This is to me the curious thing: There are established channels for whistle blowing. The agency I work for is dependent on it. Why he chose not to choose that option is for me the greater mystery? If he really wanted to to be a martyr, he could have exposed the whole thing here in the U.S. and accepted the consequences of his actions. Instead he fled to a country that is actively trying to penetrate our internet.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell