risking his life to tell you about NSA surveillance [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 2361 - 2380 of total 2788 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jghedge

climber
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:29pm PT
"and BullSh#t - Hoover could do NOTHING like this. I call you out on that."


No, he was doing pretty much the same thing. There's more info on you out there now, and better ways to collate it, but it's essentially the same.

And if you're suggesting that the people we elect aren't "making theses decisions", then what recourse do you suggest?
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:42pm PT
what were you reading last night ?

oh wait - we prolly already know...
jghedge

climber
Aug 3, 2013 - 08:03pm PT

Recourse?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 4, 2013 - 06:04pm PT
Hey, they all want in on it now!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/us/other-agencies-clamor-for-data-nsa-compiles.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
jghedge

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 06:12pm PT


"Hey, they all want in on it now!"


Gee, only a matter of time before non-gov't agencies like telco's and the ISP's get access as well.

Oh wait...they're providing it in the first place...GASP!!! Now What?


Hahahaha, dipsh#t.
Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Aug 4, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
From the American Library Association website

Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. The courts have established a First Amendment right to receive information in a publicly funded library.1 Further, the courts have upheld the right to privacy based on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.2 Many states provide guarantees of privacy in their constitutions and statute law.3 Numerous decisions in case law have defined and extended rights to privacy.4

In a library (physical or virtual), the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one’s interest examined or scrutinized by others. Confidentiality exists when a library is in possession of personally identifiable information about users and keeps that information private on their behalf.5

Protecting user privacy and confidentiality has long been an integral part of the mission of libraries. The ALA has affirmed a right to privacy since 1939.6 Existing ALA policies affirm that confidentiality is crucial to freedom of inquiry.7 Rights to privacy and confidentiality also are implicit in the Library Bill of Rights’8 guarantee of free access to library resources for all users.

The same protections should be afforded us on our computers in the privacy of our own homes.
FRUMY

Trad climber
Bishop,CA
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:12pm PT
^^^ that be right ^^^
jghedge

climber
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:56pm PT

"The same protections should be afforded us on our computers in the privacy of our own homes."


Should the ISP's, then, also be forbidden from tracking your browsing? Or does your concern for privacy exclude all but the gov't?

I keep asking this over and over on this thread, and never get an answer - why trust the telco's and ISP's, but not the gov't? What is it about AT&T and Google that inspires such faith and devotion?

Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Aug 5, 2013 - 03:53am PT
The ISPs , telcos, and social media sites should have the same responsibilities as libraries, and the sames kinds of laws that protect library usage records should be codified to protect the privacy of our internet usage records. The internet is effectively the modern library.

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 5, 2013 - 05:50am PT
Should the ISP's, then, also be forbidden from tracking your browsing? Or does your concern for privacy exclude all but the gov't?

Yes they should be forbidden to buy, sell or trade personal information with any other entity, corporate, person, government.

If a person elects, she could opt-in to explicitly share some personal data. That data should not be in turn made available to anyone else.

Simple as that. Stop the trade in personal data, cold.

DMT
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 5, 2013 - 08:00am PT
WASHINGTON (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.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-directs-agents-cover-program-used-investigate-091643729.html

I guess this is just fine with the Obamunists.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:45pm PT
A gripping read:

Welcome to Post-Constitution America
    Peter Van Buren


Government officials concerned over possible wrongdoing in their departments or agencies who “go through proper channels” are fired or prosecuted. Government whistleblowers are commanded to return to face justice, while law-breakers in the service of the government are allowed to flee justice. CIA officers who destroy evidence of torture go free, while a CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture is locked up.

Secret laws and secret courts can create secret law you can’t know about for “crimes” you don’t even know exist. You can nonetheless be arrested for committing them. Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, citizens, even librarians, can be served by the FBI with a National Security Letter (not requiring a court order) demanding records and other information, and gagging them from revealing to anyone that such information has been demanded or such a letter delivered. Citizens may be held without trial, and denied their Constitutional rights as soon as they are designated “terrorists.” Lawyers and habeas corpus are available only when the government allows.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
... why trust the telco's and ISP's, but not the gov't?


I don't trust the telco's and ISPs, but the gov't has militarized police. See the above post (and read the article) and you might begin to get an idea of why trusting the gov't with this type of data might not be in our own best interest.
crøtch

climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:51am PT
I'm not sure if this has already been posted. PBS interview with two NSA whistleblowers and an NSA official who have wildly different claims about the amount of information that is being collected on US citizens.

Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:58am PT
Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA

Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance

"Members of Congress have been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA court which authorizes its activities, documents provided by two House members demonstrate.

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 members of Congress, including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them. 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."


But it is not merely that members of Congress are unaware of the very existence of these programs, let alone their capabilities. Beyond that, members who seek out basic information - including about NSA programs they are required to vote on and FISA court (FISC) rulings on the legality of those programs - find that they are unable to obtain it.

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."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/04/congress-nsa-denied-access
jghedge

climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 09:47am PT

"The internet is effectively the modern library."

So you could do anything you like in a library, including plotting terrorism and communicating with fellow terrorists, and any attempt to surveil that is 4th amendment infringement.
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
i'm genuinely curious. those of you who defend nsa mass surveillance as being necessary in a post 9/11 world, does the following cross a line for you or are you down with this too:

"As the NSA scoops up phone records and other forms of electronic evidence while investigating national security and terrorism leads, they turn over "tips" to a division of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") known as the Special Operations Division ("SOD"). FISA surveillance was originally supposed to be used only in certain specific, authorized national security investigations, but information sharing rules implemented after 9/11 allows the NSA to hand over information to traditional domestic law-enforcement agencies, without any connection to terrorism or national security investigations.

But instead of being truthful with criminal defendants, judges, and even prosecutors about where the information came from, DEA agents are reportedly obscuring the source of these tips. For example, a law enforcement agent could receive a tip from SOD—which SOD, in turn, got from the NSA—to look for a specific car at a certain place. But instead of relying solely on that tip, the agent would be instructed to find his or her own reason to stop and search the car. Agents are directed to keep SOD under wraps and not mention it in "investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony," according to Reuters."



in sum we now have reuter's reporting that the nsa sometimes sends tips and evidence gleaned from their surveillance programs, about non-terrorism "crimes" to the dea who then continue the chain by sometimes informing the irs.

and then both the dea and the irs hide the fact that the original tip and or evidence came from the nsa.



i'm certain, they keep this hidden because it's completely legal and done with congress' oversight. /s
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Aug 8, 2013 - 06:03am PT
Simple as that. Stop the trade in personal data, cold.

DMT I could not agree more. Private investigators can screw up your life just as much as the govt can. You just hire them to get dirt on your enemies, what a dirtbag job. (no offense intended to dirtbags) I've had people try to hire me just to harrass their enemies, not what I want to do. Now just figure out how to do it, what's the law supposed to say and what are the objections to it going to be? Maybe something like, if you amass info about someone, and its misused, you're strictly liable for whatever bad outcome occurs, maybe even criminally liable.

Note there is another article like the DEA one, IRS is also scooping the NSA info. Basically there is no electronic privacy of any kind.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 9, 2013 - 07:27am PT
Fears over NSA surveillance revelations endanger US cloud computing industry

Companies say they could lose billions as customers become wary about their data being turned over to US authorities


"Daniel Castro, author of the ITIF survey, said that it seemed reasonable to suggest that US cloud businesses could lose between 10% and 20% of the overseas market to rivals.

The effect has already been felt, Castro said. The ITIF survey found that of those outside the US, 10% had cancelled a project with a US-based cloud computing provider, and 56% would be "less likely" to use a US-based cloud computing service.

Of those surveyed inside the US, 36% said that the NSA leaks had "made it more difficult" for them to do business outside the US."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/08/nsa-revelations-fears-cloud-computing
nah000

climber
canuckistan
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2013 - 09:52am PT
interesting week.

so, now we have both lavabit and silent circle shutting down their encrypted email services. in lavabit's case this is presumably because they are unwilling to comply with secret court orders to provide the government access to its users' content. this can only be presumed as there is a gag order and the founder can't discuss the details of what has actually happened.

fortunately, unlike the rest of the spineless behemoths [google, apple, microsoft, yahoo, facebook, etc.] rather than just secretly complying with the "legal" requests he took a stand and closed down his services, leaving an in some ways cryptic, but in other ways entirely clear message on his website.

this cynical use of gov't secrecy prerogatives is in line with the tactic that was used in the aclu's previous 2008 nsa lawsuit. in that case the suit was dismissed because there was no way to prove whether or not the aclu had been targeted by surveillance. post-snowden that argument will have to be replaced with some new down the rabbit hole version of "it's legal, we just can't defend it in a court of law, because then the terrorists will win" type argument.

remember citizens: always trust secret courts, remotely controlled flying robots, and those making secret and unchallengeable judgements regarding future crimes [including permanent banishment to no fly lists and/or solitary confinement on an island off the tip of florida.]

i guess if you're going to embrace the tactics of an orwellian dystopia, no sense half-assing it.

we should see if gorbachev is willing to come out of retirement and bring a little perestroika, and more specifically a little of that good old fashioned glasnost to the member countries of the "five eyes."
Messages 2361 - 2380 of total 2788 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews