U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[cybercoma]

China is almost certainly the worst in the world when it comes to electronic espionage. There are still Canadian government departments whose computer systems are unsafe several years after being penetrated by China. For them to whine about Americans doing it is a bit rich.

And they have a signed extradition agreement with the US. An honourable people would abide by their signed agreement. But the Chinese, let's face facts and history, have never been an honourable people. They sign agreement after agreement and then cheat on them before the ink is dry. Maybe Snowden should stay with them. He has the same concept of integrity.

China's the worst, so they can't complain. The United States was doing it first and also does it to China, so they can't complain either. You talk about honour in foreign policy and the United States sure as hell hasn't been honourable with their completely lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations. Or hey, maybe the paperwork actually wasn't filed properly, so the Chinese had no legal right to detain Snowden and didn't.

[Argus]

And you say this because you assume he's selling information to the Chinese and Russians?

No, though it wouldn't surprise me. His initial statement was he did this because nothing mattered more to him than freedom, and he cared so much about people's freedom, and then he went to Hong Kong because "they have such a proud tradition of protecting freedom of speech". Wha...what!? Huh!? Riiiight. He'd be perfectly happy there, he said. Then it's off to Russia, another wonderful land of freedom. And eventually where? Ecuador maybe? Another place where the government keeps its iron heel on the media and anything critical of itself.

Do you think he's maybe stuck between a rock and a hard place with the US aggressively looking to attack him, despite Obama promising to protect whistleblowers,

He's not a whistleblower. Whistleblowers are those who go to the media about illegal government activities which are harmful to the public. There was nothing illegal about this program nor is it harmful to the American public.

He's not a whistleblower, he's a traitor who violated his oath of secrecy and should be in prison.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

You watch. It'll be Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela next. You're possibly quite right. The issue isn't so cut and dry as him being a traitor though. The countries that the US has terrible relations with are the obvious countries one would escape to if they're trying to elude the US authorities. You don't flee to Canada, if you're being pursued by the US government. Then the problem becomes those countries blackmailing him and threatening to turn him in if he doesn't turn over information. I think that's just as likely as him fleeing to those countries in order to give them information because he's a traitor and it was all part of his plan. If he does do the full tour, then it's much more likely that you're correct. I grant you that.

[kimmy]

I don't think the framers of the Fourth Amendment were worried about metadata being processed by computers. It's not like they're reading your email, you know, not without a warrant anyway.

I think that there's a strong argument to be made that plowing through peoples' phone records is exactly the kind of unwarranted search they had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment. But I'm certainly no legal scholar. There's people much more qualified people from all across the political spectrum who are making that assertion. That's why I want the pro-surveillance people to be forced to confront the issue instead of trying to make it about Edward Snowden.

I thought that you and I had a lot in common in that we've both lost a lot of faith in the people who we trust with power. And I'm sure that you haven't fallen for this "if you aren't talking on the phone with terrorists, you have nothing to fear!" line that the President has been peddling. "If you don't have anything to hide, you've got nothing to be afraid of!" is a phrase that ought to strike terror into the heart of any citizen if it's being said to them by a police officer asking to come inside their home.

One of the reasons that "if you aren't on the phone with terrorists you have nothing to fear!" isn't a very reassuring answer is that declaring people to be terrorists appears to be something of a trend in the US. Consider new laws being promoted by ALEC and considered in a number of US states that declare filming animal cruelty at factory farms to be an act of eco-terrorism and a matter of Homeland Security. On Friday there was a news item where the Deputy Director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation informs a citizen that complaining about water quality could be an act of terrorism. TransCanada Pipeline is apparently collaborating with law enforcement authorities in several US states to look into ways of pursuing Keystone XL protestors as terrorists.

If you give the authorities extraordinary powers in the name of "fighting terrorism", it doesn't take a wild imagination to anticipate people who are inconvenient to the state's biggest interests be labeled as terrorists. If states with powerful agriculture lobbies can decide that somebody who films a calf being skinned alive is an "eco terrorist", how long before somebody who blogs photos of open-top mining is deemed a terrorist in states where coal mining has a powerful lobby?

The supporters of this program say that it's just monitoring people who make phone calls to foreign terrorists, but the rules also say that if the NSA turns up relevant domestic information, they forward it to the FBI. So if the program turns over information about domestic terrorism to domestic agencies, and states have arbitrary authority to decide who they consider a terrorist, the president's assurance that "you don't need to worry unless you're on the phone with terrorists" rings hollow.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

So your position is that Hong Kong is lying?

A government lying. That would be a first, eh?

My position is that Hong Kong was likely stalling to let Snowden out of the country to avoid a sensitive political situation. So in effect, yes, I do believe Hong Kong is lying.

Why do you suppose that is?

As I said, it's a sensitive political situation, and what better way to avoid it?

Do you think it has anything to do with the cyber espionage that the United States has been conducting against them that also just recently came to light? The Hong Kong authorities also asked the US to elaborate on that. If these claims of cyber espionage are true, why should they co-operate with a state that has been attacking them electronically?

Yeah, because China would never do that, right? I wonder if they were relieved to get Snowden out of their country to protect their own butts? Or does Snowden only care about such freedoms in the U.S.? - as he cozies up to other questionable governments? Anyway, the reason they'd cooperate is because of extradition agreements between the countries.

I would love to see Snowden questioned. It's easy to make accusations and then run. This is someone who broke an oath and doesn't seem to mind creating deeper tensions between the U.S. and China. Perhaps his priorities are mixed up. The problem I have with WikiLeaks is that some things are supposed to remain secretive.

As for selling information to China or Russia or whatever - I certainly think he was giving away secrets. Seems to me, too, that the U.S. is the only one being put in a bad light, as if these other countries are all goodness and light. I just don't see it as a good thing that he's cozying up to these countries - as he tears into the U.S. Talk about selective ethics.

If one of these countries does let him in, will he care about how they are treating his freedoms? Will he do to them what he did to the U.S.? And if not, why not?

Edited June 24, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

All of that's certainly, possible, AW. But it's kind of like the Rob Ford video. Where's your proof? When is balance of evidence good enough and when isn't it?

Edited June 24, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

All of that's certainly, possible, AW. But it's kind of like the Rob Ford video. Where's your proof? When is balance of evidence good enough and when isn't it?

It's not at all like the Rob Ford video.

[cybercoma]

That wasn't my question. What I'm asking is what evidence you have that makes you believe it. In the discussion about the Ford video, absolute proof seemed to be the benchmark for being convinced. I've yet to see that about Snowden selling info to foreign enemies, but you're convinced. Sure it's possible that he's doing this. There's no denying that. Hell, anything is possible. As I said to Argus above, if he's making the world tour of enemies, it's quite likely that this is exactly what he's doing. Then again, he may just be going to nations hostile to the US because it's more difficult to get him extradited without selling any information at all. That's also possible.

None of this really matters though. Kimmy already pointed out exactly what's going on here. The discourse is being flipped from what Snowden exposed and any discussion about the pros and cons of such sweeping, secretive, and intrusive record-keeping and surveillance to a discussion about Snowden himself and his character. These kinds of ad hominems are utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand and not the least bit interesting. Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but Snowden could be Hitler himself and it would still be completely beside the point. The more we talk about Snowden and not the issue of privacy, surveillance, and record-keeping, the better it is for the government agencies involved in this espionage because it takes the focus off them.

[Guest American Woman]

I've yet to see that about Snowden selling info to foreign enemies, but you're convinced.

Really? I'm convinced of something I've never said or thought? Interesting.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, sorry about that. Argus was the one who thought that. You were just saying that they're liars in Hong Kong. So I'm still wondering what evidence has convinced you of that.

Edited June 24, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, sorry about that. Argus was the one who thought that. You were just saying that they're liars in Hong Kong.

That's not what I said either. I don't know why you feel a need to speak for me, but I'd appreciate it immensely if you didn't, as it's not your strong suit.

[cybercoma]

That's not what I said either. I don't know why you feel a need to speak for me, but I'd appreciate it immensely if you didn't, as it's not your strong suit.

I'm sorry. Could you be a little clearer with what you're arguing then? Because it seems like you said that they're lying in Hong Kong.

I do believe Hong Kong is lying.

And now I'm asking what evidence has convinced you of that and you're saying that I'm speaking for you. I'm not. I'm trying to understand your argument by asking what evidence drew you to the conclusion you made in the quote above.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sorry. Could you be a little clearer with what you're arguing then? Because it seems like you said that they're lying in Hong Kong.

First of all, I said I believe they are lying. I didn't say they are lying. This is what I believe. I also clearly implied that all governments lie at times. Do you think otherwise? Furthermore, everyone tells the occasional lie, which doesn't make everyone "liars." In my book, "liars" repeatedly lie. Therefore, even though I believe Hong Kong is lying about this, I do not believe the Hong Kong government is "liars," which is why I would appreciate your refraining from speaking for me.

And now I'm asking what evidence has convinced you of that and you're saying that I'm speaking for you. I'm not. I'm trying to understand your argument by asking what evidence drew you to the conclusion you made in the quote above.

I believe Hong Kong is lying because the U.S. says that the request was complete and included all information needed to arrest and extradite Snowden to the U.S.; I believe Hong Kong is lying because in spite of continual contact between the countries, Hong Kong didn't say the request for extradition was insufficient until days later - at which time Hong Kong allowed Snowden to leave for Moscow, with a revoked passport; I believe Hong Kong is lying because of sensitivities between China and the U.S. - this was certainly a way for them to avoid a difficult political situation.

One last note. I said this is what I "believe." I didn't say I'm "convinced." Again. Try not to put words in my mouth.

be·lieve: To have an opinion; think

con·vinced: Completely certain about something.

Edited June 24, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry you feel like I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm having a hard time understanding the point that you'e trying to make. You say Hong Kong are not liars, but that they're lying and you say you're not convinced but you believe this. I guess I can't really have a discussion about this with you because I don't understand what you're posting and when I ask for clarification, the discussion seems to get very confrontational. I was hoping that I could perhaps see your point of view and understand why Hong Kong is lying. In order to do that, I need to be able to evaluate the evidence that led you to that conclusion. So it seems the evidence is as follows. Hong Kong is lying about the extradition papers because,

1) The United States says so

the U.S. says that the request was complete and included all information

2)Hong Kong took too long to respond

Hong Kong didn't say the request for extradition was insufficient until days later

3)Hong Kong and the US have a poor relationship

I believe Hong Kong is lying because of sensitivities between China and the U.S. - this was certainly a way for them to avoid a difficult political situation.

Do I understand you correctly? Because I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm simply trying to reiterate your arguments to make sure I've understood them.

[dre]

Its bizzare that gutless little authoritarian sycophants are actually calling for this guy to get strung up because he revealed to Americans that their government is spying on THEM!.

Its a bizzaro world folks!

[kimmy]

A point worth considering:

It’s important to keep in mind that Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who absconded to Hong Kong and started blabbing the spy agency’s secrets, has thus far disclosed the existence of two separate clandestine programs. One, known internally as PRISM, involves the international harvesting of emails and other electronic communications. The other involves the domestic collection of phone call “metadata” — a vast, pointillist record of our contacts and movements.

The NSA’s defenders have consistently — and, I believe, deliberately — blurred the distinction between the two. When they talk about the would-be terrorists who have been nabbed and the devastation that has been prevented, they lump the programs together.

(...)

But it is becoming clear that we should consider “these programs” separately. Privacy concerns aside, PRISM at least seems to produce results. Unless we’re flat-out being lied to, PRISM — which does not target Americans — has produced substantial quantities of useful information about bad people overseas who seek to do us harm. The phone-call tracking, on the other hand, is a huge infringement on Americans’ privacy that has not been shown to have much investigative value, if any.

-k

[cybercoma]

kimmy, this is the conversation we should have. We should be discussing the value of the programs versus the limits on freedoms and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuses. A key point that you've pointed out earlier is how the US government (and indeed our government too) plays fast and loose with the term "terrorism".

Moreover, while they've surely stopped terrorists with the electronic program, they haven't done anything to prevent rampage killers like James Holmes (13 dead), Jiverly Wong (12 dead), and Michael McLendon (10 dead). That's not to mention school massacres that were perpetrated by people like Adam Lanza (27 dead) and Seung-Hui Cho (32 dead); workplace killers like Nidal Hasan (13 killed); or religious/politically motivated killers that aren't labelled terrorists, such as Wade Page (6 dead). Those are just the mass murderers in the US since 9/11, lest we forget the rampant violence and murder rates in some of their cities. For 2011 the murder rates in some cities is appalling. Per 100,000 people New Orleans had a murder rate of 57.6, Detroit 48.2, St. Louis 35.3, Newark 33.8, and Baltimore 31.3. Those are non-negligent murders in a single year.

At some point, you would think that people would begin to question why they don't go after these kinds of murders with the same fire and rhetoric as they do with terrorism. It's quite obvious that domestic murderers are a vastly greater threat to Americans than foreign terrorists.

[GostHacked]

Thanks Kimmy for some perspective on this and I agree that there is a lot of concentration on Snowden instead of the deliberate spying on American citizens. Does it show that people still really do not understand what is taking place here? Snowden gives information about how the USA is doing it's citizens wrong and people want to make Snowden the bad guy?

The picking on Snowden going to Hong Kong based on their human rights and privacy stuff is deplorable and nothing more than a detraction from what the US government is doing to it's own people. We know China does that stuff, sure it does not make it right, but this is now about China or Russia, this is about the deliberate spying on US citizens by the US government. The so called Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Well America, time to act like it.

We don't seem to have many true constitutionalists among the membership here. Some who support the 2nd Amendment regarding arms do not seem to support the 4th, or the 1st. No consistency here.

The constitution of the USA is one of the best documents on the planet, and we have seen it eviscerated by new laws and executive orders and signing statements that have incrementally marginalized the constitution since 9/11. The PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA are two huge documents that work against the constitution. America is no longer the shining beacon of freedom it claims to be when it marginalizes the document that built the nation to begin with. Shameful.

This is exactly what people like Ron Paul warned about YEARS ago. But only now that is has come this far, some people (not enough though) are starting to make a stink about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Snowden has only brought wider attention to an issue that was already in the public domain. Like the Bush Administration, President Obama and the U.S. Congress have played fast and loose with domestic and international surveillance with and without court oversight, but nobody (thinking) seriously doubts that the intercepts are/were taking place. Government spying on Americans citizens and other nationals is nothing new....the very term "wiretap" harkens back to an era when it was physically necessary to connect monitoring devices to telephone lines, with or without a warrant.

Politically it is a no brainer to take the heat for such surveillance instead of the widespread criticism that would/does result from more "terrorism". The funny part is that Obama supporters thought they were electing/re-electing a candidate that would stop such government activity, which was pure fantasy.

The best that critics can hope for is more judicial oversight of the "spying", because it sure isn't going to stop. Spooks have always done this, and always will.

[Michael Hardner]

The best that critics can hope for is more judicial oversight of the "spying", because it sure isn't going to stop. Spooks have always done this, and always will.

They have also done it for far more tenuous reasons, like the "threat" of the Russians.

[bush_cheney2004]

They have also done it for far more tenuous reasons, like the "threat" of the Russians.

Agreed.....all that has really changed is the medium and scale of such surveillance. During the Cold War, intelligence collection was actually hampered by so much public/civilian clutter and interference in the radio spectrum. Even public organizations (e.g. fire, police) had to go to more secure trunked/digital networks for reliable comms and information security, with only partial success. Back in the good 'ol days, hacks like me with a $200 scanner and a tape recorder could collect all kinds of neat stuff after modifying the radio for cell band coverage. Expecting "privacy" while using such communications networks is a bit naive. Doesn't mean that government always should do it, but it does, and will continue to do so.

[dre]

A point worth considering:

-k

I so far dont see any reason to find that point worthy of consideration...

The terrorism threat/risk is so astronomically remote and low that its not even statistically significant. You are 70 times more likely to get struck by lightening than become the victim of a terrorist attack. And as far as all the claims these people have made about how successful their program is... well... they are liars that have been lying about this for a decade, who have an obvious interest in keeping their shiny new powerful toy. Zero credibility.

I personally feel like this is the safest we have EVER been. If we are going to surrender our right to privacy now for no good reason at all, what are we going to do if theres a REAL danger in the future?

The conversation we SHOULD be having is how we can put these people in prison. If the government can do this in secret with no consequences what-so-ever, then we are basically telling them that they can do absolutely anything they want in the future, and they dont have to follow any rules at all. If we dont start standing up for ourselves, we will end up living in a police state.

Edited June 24, 2013 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

I personally feel like this is the safest we have EVER been. If we are going to surrender our right to privacy now for no good reason at all, what are we going to do if theres a REAL danger in the future?

What right to privacy? Which jurisdiction (US or Canada or ???) ? Today's perceived relative safety is due in part to widespread data and information facilitated by modern communications technology and networks.

A so called "right to privacy" is an altogether different matter from government spying. Courts will start from the position of "reasonable" expectation of privacy in the former, and national security in the latter. Apples & Oranges.

Edited June 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

I personally feel like this is the safest we have EVER been. If we are going to surrender our right to privacy now for no good reason at all, what are we going to do if theres a REAL danger in the future?

That is a good point and very scary, yet realistic outcome.

The conversation we SHOULD be having is how we can put these people in prison. If the government can do this in secret with no consequences what-so-ever, then we are basically telling them that they can do absolutely anything they want in the future, and they dont have to follow any rules at all. If we dont start standing up for ourselves, we will end up living in a police state.

The police state is already here in my view. The scope and scale goes beyond this spy tapping bit. Big brother has been here for about a decade and it seems that people are starting to wake up to the fact that it actually exists and is actually in place.

Funny how some Canadians also give more of a crap about American's rights than some Americans we have posting in on this forum.

However, better late than never, and by that, I'll stand with you.

[Argus]

I think that there's a strong argument to be made that plowing through peoples' phone records is exactly the kind of unwarranted search they had in mind when they wrote the Fourth Amendment.

My understanding of how this is done is that what the system does is analyze data streams which indicate communication activity searching out particular criteria. As an example, a set of phone numbers or internet origins in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or a set of reference words 'ie the nuclear bomb is almost ready', or people who repeatedly access jihadi web sites, or, getting into non-terrorist activities, emails between various Chinese agencies or 'independent' corporations, or cell phone calls made by Russian big shots riding in their limos.

Let's say you start accessing a jihadi web site. After a bit, they might start watching what else you're doing on-line, but if you're an American that would require, as far as I know, a warrant. I don't have much of an issue with any of that. I agree that this all could be turned to more sinister uses, though whatever laws they bring in would ultimately have to be okayed by the courts.

I thought that you and I had a lot in common in that we've both lost a lot of faith in the people who we trust with power.

I don't know as I've ever really had a lot of faith in anyone with power. I tend to rely more on human nature and the more basic scientific and fiscal realities. There are billions on-line. The NSA can't monitor more than a small fraction of them, nor will they ever get the money to do so. They don't even have the funds to monitor systems for crime in general, let alone what you or I might be doing, and aren't allows to anyway since that would be monitoring Americans. That means they have to have tightly focused parameters for their monitoring, which basically involves espionage and terrorism

And I'm sure that you haven't fallen for this "if you aren't talking on the phone with terrorists, you have nothing to fear!"

I don't want people reading my emails or listening to my phone calls, regardless of how innocuous the might be, but my understanding of the NSA monitoring is that is not what they're doing. Oh, I'm sure they do that to specifically targeted individuals, but those would be very few people, given the funds and man-hours required.

If you give the authorities extraordinary powers in the name of "fighting terrorism", it doesn't take a wild imagination to anticipate people who are inconvenient to the state's biggest interests be labeled as terrorists.

I don't disagree, but such legislation would have to be ultimately passed in public and then approved by the courts. I frankly don't see the courts agreeing that someone who took a video camera into a slaughterhouse should be labelled a 'terrorist' and punished appropriately. Some of those hick states are always passing anti-abortion laws, for example, which the federal courts promptly overturn. Texas just passed another last week. So what some loudmouthed Tea Party wacko says doesn't necessarily wind up becoming law, or at least, not for long.