Edward Snowden

[Shady]

Mention anything about the constitution, that should put you on their radar right quick.

Or have constitution in your political groups name, and the IRS won't approve you.

[kimmy]

On the subject of oversight of these programs:

From the beginning of the NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President Obama said the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone records was published in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up."

But the elected officials that President Obama claims are providing oversight say they didn't know about these programs, and can't obtain information about them either.

On MSNBC on Wednesday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct) was asked by host Chris Hayes: "How much are you learning about what the government that you are charged with overseeing and holding accountable is doing from the newspaper and how much of this do you know?" The Senator's reply:

"The revelations about the magnitude, the scope and scale of these surveillances, the metadata and the invasive actions surveillance of social media Web sites were indeed revelations to me."

Two House members, GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, have provided the Guardian with numerous letters and emails documenting their persistent, and unsuccessful, efforts to learn about NSA programs and relevant FISA court rulings.

One bright side of all of this is that for the first time in a decade, Democrats and Republicans in Congress are working together for a common cause.

-k

[GostHacked]

Now looking back I see how important this battle was.

Years ago there was a battle between the US and the EU for control over DNS (domain name services). When you type in mapleleafweb.com he DNS checks the IP address and then brings you the information. The global ability to control this service may have been key in the US's ability to monitor everything online.

It was controlled by the US government but now a California based 'private' company has been handling this process.

[kimmy]

But hey, it's only "metadata", right? They're only using it to catch terrorists, right?

(Reuters) - A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.

After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."

Knowing which vehicle to stop sounds awfully specific for "metadata", Argus.

"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."

What they're saying is, they're feeding information they've obtained through "terrorism surveillance" to the police, and they're instructing the police to invent false pretexts so that they can act on this information without admitting that it was obtained through warrantless surveillance.

-k

[kimmy]

So yesterday I posted that the "warrants" these contractors need to snoop into your email and search history and other online activities are actually just a broadly general pop-up form on the computer screen that's not actually reviewed by a judge or any other personnel.

And today we've learned that information they gain from their snooping passed along to police officers in the form of anonymous tips that they don't reveal, and invent false pretexts as a means of using this information.

So... do the surveillance supporters here have any response to this? I mean, don't these two pieces of information combine to prove that this surveillance system is exactly as bad as "alarmists" have been saying it could be?

-k

[cybercoma]

elected officials that President Obama claims are providing oversight say they didn't know about these programs, and can't obtain information about them either.

-k

This is what I mean about Argus and others' point claiming that they "knew about these programs all along." Congress didn't even know about them. So it's complete BS for anyone to say they knew about these programs. They might have suspected, but the public certainly didn't know until Snowden revealed them. More to the point, if everyone already knew, then he didn't commit any crime because the programs would have already been public knowledge. So it's complete nonsense^TM for people to say they knew about them all along.

Edited August 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

This is what I mean about Argus and others' points about how they "knew about these programs all along." Congress didn't even now about them. So it's complete BS for anyone to say they knew about these programs. They might have suspected, but the public certainly didn't know until Snowden revealed them. More to the point, if everyone already knew, then he didn't commit any crime because the programs would have already been public knowledge. So it's complete nonsense^TM for people to say they knew about them all along.

The first time some of this was expose in 2005 with Mark Klein former AT&T wistleblower who revealed the NSA spyrooms of their major hubs. So yes it was known, but now it's more of the admitted extent in which it is done. For a tech person like me the new information is a lot to take in. The scope is enormous!! But to say that people did not know about this stuff is quite false. It is the scope and scale of the whole thing.... very very very large. Ubiquitous in a sense. Everything you do with the technology is tracked, traced, stored, archived, indexed, cross referenced, verified, authorized, and now contextualized to the point where they know all about you.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. The information was there if one cared to look.

[Albert_Einstein]

One bright side of all of this is that for the first time in a decade, Democrats and Republicans in Congress are working together for a common cause.

-k

Although the specifics of the NSA surveillance are a surprise and shock to most of us, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that senior lawmakers, national security agencies, law enforcement agencies and a host of private companies who benefit from these programs are all in this together. They play an elaborate game of 3 card monte with the public, releasing just enough information to maintain the sense of public fear that they need to keep the public funds flowing. And if anyone is brazen enough to demand information that could actually drive accountability, the club of national security is brandished. If anyone is foolhardy enough to actually provide real information to the citizens (Bradley, Snowden, et al), it is wielded without mercy.

An interesting aspect of this situation is the degree to which these agencies, companies and powerful individuals are dependent on the villains that they purportedly are trying to eliminate. The NSA needs terrorists to support its budget demands. The FBI would be a much smaller organization if organized crime were to disappear. And where would the DEA be if drug prohibition were abandoned as a strategy (as it should be)? Right wing economists who agonize over "perverse incentives" when it comes to single parents on welfare or "moral hazard" when it comes to the GM bailout seem to be strangely silent regarding the behaviour of national security and law enforcement organizations.

If you want to actually solve problems, the first step you need to take is to remove the control and policy setting abilities from those who are dependent on the problem continuing. Or, as my namesake once said, "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them."

A powerful statement from a brilliant man.

[kimmy]

So... do the surveillance supporters here have any response to this? I mean, don't these two pieces of information combine to prove that this surveillance system is exactly as bad as "alarmists" have been saying it could be?

...

-k

Edited August 6, 2013 by kimmy

[kimmy]

"It's my understanding… that the Department of Justice is looking at some of the issues raised in the story."

-White House spokesman and local dumb-ass made good Jay Carney.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-reaction-idUSBRE97412S20130805

This has apparently been happening since the Clinton administration, according to the DEA who swore up and down that it's on-the-level. And it's been reviewed by every Attorney General since.

But apparently it's up for re-review. Why is it up for re-review? What has changed since the last time the DoJ re-reviewed it?

What has changed? Just one thing: people know about it now.

The review criteria have changed because people know about it now.

I think it's clear that Edward Snowden is a true whistleblower who has exposed genuine wrongdoing.

I think that AG Holder should send him a thank-you note saying "thanks for reminding me to re-review that illegal program, Ed!"

-k

[kimmy]

I understand that President Obama is taking to the airwaves to defend the NSA in an in-depth interview with noted hard-hitting journalist ... Jay Leno.

Let's turn it into a drinking game!

Take a shot every time Mr President says a variation on each of:

-"keeping America safe"

-"law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from the NSA."

-"Congressional oversight"

-"judicial oversight"

-"healthy dialog"

-"I understand that people value privacy, but..."

-"finding the right balance"

Take two shots if Obama mentions Snowden's age or refers to Snowden as a "hacker".

Take three shots if Obama calls Snowden a "narcissist", "troubled", or "misguided".

Pound the whole bottle if Obama mentions that Snowden's girlfriend is a stripper.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

This is what I mean about Argus and others' point claiming that they "knew about these programs all along." Congress didn't even know about them. So it's complete BS for anyone to say they knew about these programs. They might have suspected, but the public certainly didn't know until Snowden revealed them. More to the point, if everyone already knew, then he didn't commit any crime because the programs would have already been public knowledge. So it's complete nonsense^TM for people to say they knew about them all along.

Really......I seem to recall having a similar conversation with Waldo nearly a year and a half ago, a conversation in which the (legal) ways and means were discussed:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/20413-anonymous-gives-toews-7-days/page-9

A couple points/posts that I made to Waldo:

My point exactly, all that C-30 will do is allow further Canadian resources to be directly used on Canadians……Opposition to C-30 is clearly a wasted effort……If the RCMP/CSIS wants transcripts of Derek L or Waldo’s cellphone conversations, internet usage etc without obtaining a warrant, they already have them indirectly.

All C-30 will do is “streamline” the process.

….If the Government suspects you or I are terrorists, ChiCom spies, downloading child porn or illegally pirating Lady Gaga music they already have the “tools” to check…….C-30, as mention above, will just skip several steps in the process……..No more queuing the Americans or British for domestic information, followed by going through the motions of obtaining a warrant so as to inable the use of said information.

CSEC doesn’t obtain or store any information on Canadians citizens, within Canada, without a warrant……..If, for example, the RCMP wanted information pertaining to a Canadian citizen, they would make use of our long standing, bilateral agreement (As mentioned by Argus) that allows for a reciprocal transfer of signals intelligence. In this instance, the American NSA would provide said intelligence.

As was mentioned prior by myself and Argus, the Government, if it so desired, via foreign Governments (Namely the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand directly, and via working relationships with Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Norway, Denmark and the Dutch) are capable of “listening” and storing the cell phone conversations and internet traffic of any individual within Canada. As for the “agents” involved, quite clearly, the equivalent agencies of the RCMP, CSIS and CSEC from all the above mentioned countries.

As was mentioned by Argus though, they don’t monitor every person due to lack of need and resources, and are generally concerned with Terrorism and the actions of other “unfriendly nations”………but that’s not to say if a individual or group became, as I said, more than a nuisance, they are quite capable of monitoring them.

And a passage on how the guberment does it, in this case, a hypothetical example relating to hackers like Anonymous:

For example, and since they are mentioned in the OP, let’s use a group like Anonymous. Now every couple of months local (Greater Vancouver FYI) members of the group perform a legal protest in front of the Church of Scientology in downtown Vancouver. They come wearing their best Guy Fawkes garb, armed with signs and slogans, but are namely peaceful, but they do draw local uniformed (usually bicycle) cops to ensure everyone stays safe and peaceful (and doesn’t interrupt traffic on West Hastings street)

Unknown to the Anonymous members, they also draw plain clothed members of the RCMP “E” Division. Some of these RCMP members might be dressed as city workers, businessmen/women, curious on looking families or tourists or even Anonymous members themselves.

Once the protest has ended, and the Anonymous members head off to their cars, public transit, Starbucks or the local pub, they are quite obviously trailed by the RCMP, photographed and/or followed home so as (with the aid of a facial recognition system) to be Identified.

Now fast forward to the next couple of protests of the Church of Scientology, or even your standard protest of a visiting Foreign dignitary (Let’s say Bush or Cheney, since they’ve both recently visited Vancouver), the Olympics, Oil pipeline,G8/20 and the Occupy movement……….. “E” Divisions starts a process of trending protestors and identifying those that are most vocal and never miss one. Up to now, the RCMP doesn’t require a warrant or conduct any actions that would be worthy of Jack Bauer.

Now fast forward to the next headline grabbing action undertaken by Anonymous, be it hacking a public/private website and obtaining credit card information, leaking damning information of a Government official etc……..Now a senior member of “E” division, acting on a request from a senior official in Ottawa, with all the previously compiled information on person’s of interest heads down to the American consulate (several blocks away from the Church of Scientology and location of Occupy Vancouver funny enough) and gives said information to the resident CIA/FBI/Homeland Security attaché with a formal requests for extensive electronic signals surveillance.

Said request, is forwarded to the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade Maryland, and once resources are available, the surveillance of said persons of interest begin. Their cellphone conversations are monitored as are their emails and internet usage, and in some case more importantly, with whom they are in contact with. Now obviously any contacts within the United States will not be legally monitored by the NSA, but a reciprocal requests is made to CSEC for the very same.

Now let’s say said persons of interests are in contact with numerous other members, located throughout Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Said member countries, if anything of real concern is found, will then create a “international taskforce” made up of various national police forces, intelligence agencies and most importantly, legal advisors.

Once said taskforce finds enough information, it’s handed over to local, parent nation, police forces, to conduct further local investigations to obtain enough evidence to either obtain a warrant or charges themselves.

If you believe the Congresscritters claims of ignorance, I’ve got some ocean front property I’ll sell you really cheap in Saskatchewan …………

[cybercoma]

And like I said, you were way off base on the scope and uses of these programs.

[kimmy]

"As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overbroad interpretation."

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

"I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. How could the phone records of so many Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation?"

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-secrecy-has-already-corroded-our-democracy-in-concrete-ways/278478/

If the guy that wrote the damned thing says that the Snowden leaks show that it's being used incorrectly and that the oversight requirements he wrote into the act are not being met, that to me appears to be a severe blow to the claim that it's all kosher.

-k

[Guest Derek L]

And like I said, you were way off base on the scope and uses of these programs.

How was I wrong?

[Guest Derek L]

"As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overbroad interpretation."

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

"I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. How could the phone records of so many Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation?"

-Rep. James Sensenbrenner.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-secrecy-has-already-corroded-our-democracy-in-concrete-ways/278478/

If the guy that wrote the damned thing says that the Snowden leaks show that it's being used incorrectly and that the oversight requirements he wrote into the act are not being met, that to me appears to be a severe blow to the claim that it's all kosher.

-k

Most of the laws the NSA operates under came into effect during the Nixon administration, but more importantly to this topic, FISA came into effect under the Peanut farmer………..The post 9/11 Patriot Act was only an Amendment to FISA.......

[jacee]

Most of the laws the NSA operates under came into effect during the Nixon administration, but more importantly to this topic, FISA came into effect under the Peanut farmer..The post 9/11 Patriot Act was only an Amendment to FISA.......

So ... "oversight" isn't required?

Is that your point?

Edited August 9, 2013 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

So ... "oversight" isn't required?

Is that your point?

I’ve no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post……..Something must be said though when both some Democrats and Republicans are claiming they knew nothing about it, all the while their other party members that sit on the same Congressional oversight committees, have all acknowledged that the information was shared with them, both in physical briefings and in written form……I suppose saying they knew nothing about it, though not a boldfaced lie, isn’t completely wrong when they didn’t attended (or have their staffers attend) these briefings.

[jbg]

Most of the laws the NSA operates under came into effect during the Nixon administration, but more importantly to this topic, FISA came into effect under the Peanut farmer………..The post 9/11 Patriot Act was only an Amendment to FISA.......

What people keep overlooking, forgetting or omitting is that the Court action required is supposed to be a deterrent against political abuse. Nixon abused his powers, using surveillance to harass his opponents. No Judge, even a "rubber stamp" judge for example would approve surveillance of Trudeau or Mulcair. That is the only actual function of judicial review of the warrants; not to police whether in particular cases they are justified.

[Guest Derek L]

What people keep overlooking, forgetting or omitting is that the Court action required is supposed to be a deterrent against political abuse. Nixon abused his powers, using surveillance to harass his opponents. No Judge, even a "rubber stamp" judge for example would approve surveillance of Trudeau or Mulcair. That is the only actual function of judicial review of the warrants; not to police whether in particular cases they are justified.

Exactly, hence due process.......With that said, if one takes the perspective that “nobody owns the internet” or the airwaves that ones cellular phones sends and receives signals, one has to ask, what should the expectations of individual privacy be? I mean, if you’re in McDonalds discussing a criminal act and a police officer overhears from the table beside you, is the officer invading your privacy?

What I find funny is that many suggest that your 2nd amendment is now outdated due to advancements in technology, yet the 1st amendment is somehow a living document……..Having your cake and eating it to perhaps?

[cybercoma]

Why is it that the same people that say gun laws don't stop criminals because they're not a deterrent are the same ones that advocate for other stricter penalties as a deterrent? Has anyone ever asked themselves this?

[Guest Derek L]

Why is it that the same people that say gun laws don't stop criminals because they're not a deterrent are the same ones that advocate for other stricter penalties as a deterrent? Has anyone ever asked themselves this?

I'm not sure I follow......To answer what I think you're asking, I'd have to say that many laws are not a deterrent for many criminals because many of the laws are not totally enforced.....

Edited August 10, 2013 by Derek L

[dre]

At the same time, Obama sought to assure the public that there are safeguards in place, while acknowledging the need for transparency

Among the steps being taken, according to the president: Working with Congress to pursue appropriate improvements of the telephone data program; reforming the secret court that approves that initiative; improving transparency to provide as much information as possible to the public, including the legal rationale for government collection activities; and appointing a high-level, independent group of outside experts to review surveillance technologies.

Thats from Obamas recent press interview. All of this is happening because of the whistleblower. Obama is suddenly talking about the need for transparency, and these programs are going to be looked at, and explained to Americans.

Great job, political refugee snowden! Anyone that thinks this is a bad thing has some serious issues.

[dre]

I'm not sure I follow......To answer what I think you're asking, I'd have to say that many laws are not a deterrent for many criminals because many of the laws are not totally enforced.....

Yup! Just build a police/surveillance state and everything will be great!

[Guest Derek L]

Yup! Just build a police/surveillance state and everything will be great!

Why would that be great? Frankly I sent thousands by way of the CPC, CSSA and NFA to help get rid of the LGR, and as many party members voiced their concern over Bill C-30 at their local riding & constituency level I too was among them........