# Really struggling with what to think of the NSA/phone story



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 9, 2013)

Now the dude has come forward. My instinct is to call him a traitor...so many secrets these days. Where is the line between national security and invasion of privacy?

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2405723


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 9, 2013)

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone," he said. "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail."

Bullshit......and YES he is a traitor.


----------



## TH15 (Jun 9, 2013)

1984? Really I think this guy just confirmed what most people thought was happening anyway.



> "Any analyst at any time can target anyone," he said. "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail."


 
While I question whether or not this statement is accurate based on this guy's willingness to sell himself and a top secret program out, if this is the case then that's incredibly unnerving. I would hope there would be some kind of checks and balances with something like this.

Edit: Just saw Kraut's post. So he is full of shit. Hang him.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 9, 2013)

Just questioning his statement that he had the "authority".....plus, "wiretaps" is a criminal thing, the intel side of that is quite different, with a ton of checks and balances......


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 9, 2013)

Sounds like the dude had a clearance and bounced around contract to contract; I'd like to know more background on the dude.  ie. What was his actual positions?  He could have been contracted to swap out hard drives or even sweep floors.  He had access and is a dick, so he stole classified documents.  There should be a team at the door of his hotel by now and that fucker should be wearing a hood on a one way trip to the cage he'll spend the rest of his life in.  Just my 2c.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 9, 2013)

Has anyone considered the possibility that his releasing the data is a diversion?

A guy (who looks like Shaggy from Scooby-Doo) with SCI access suddenly bolts for China?

I think he knew the jig was up, so he bolted.  Revealing the classified program takes the public pressure off of him.


----------



## Swill (Jun 10, 2013)

He's going to "ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy." and then flies to Hong Kong.

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck....


----------



## JBS (Jun 10, 2013)

Stolen documents include:


> • A sealed court order forcing Verizon to turn over millions of telephone call records;
> • A presentation on PRISM, a government system to collect communications from Internet companies like Google, Facebook and Apple;
> • And documents related to "Boundless Informant," a system to track, catalog and map the source of all the data that NSA brings in worldwide.
> In a video accompanying the _Guardian _story, Snowden said the NSA "targets the communications of everyone" — including American citizens — and routinely gathers vast amounts of data on everyday communications.
> "So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government, or someone that they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting your communications to do so," he said.


 
So yeah, it happened, is happening, and President Obama already came out and explained no need to worry because it's all legit and only being done for our security.

Interesting article describes concerns that the UK has worked with the US to bypass existing laws on domestic spying there as well:
http://www.businessinsider.com/bush...s-obama-expanded-surveillance-programs-2013-6



> "If you are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business and your personal life you have nothing to fear – nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the contents of your phone calls or anything like that. Indeed you will never be aware of all the things those agencies are doing to stop your identity being stolen and to stop a terrorist blowing you up tomorrow."


----------



## RetPara (Jun 10, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Has anyone considered the possibility that his releasing the data is a diversion?
> 
> A guy (who looks like Shaggy from Scooby-Doo) with SCI access suddenly bolts for China?
> 
> I think he knew the jig was up, so he bolted. Revealing the classified program takes the public pressure off of him.


 
If he had been turned and bolting; it would be very poor trade-craft for his controller to leave him in the wind like that.  Beyond that Very Possible. 

I'm smacking my cynicism down to wonder if his real motivations were of conscience or something else.


----------



## goon175 (Jun 10, 2013)

My opinion:

Should we have the capability? Yes.
Should we be using it for anything domestic? Only in the most dire of circumstances, but nothing even approaching what would be considered "routine".


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2013)

Ooh-Rah1069 said:


> Where is the line between national security and invasion of privacy?


 
SCOTUS has already ruled that there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY when going through a third party to establish communications ( Smith v Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979). The Court views electronic communications (including email) the same as old school voice telephone calls (Martha, get me "Pleasant 4574!") .

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735

Bottom line: if you dial a number or send an email and it goes through another entity for transmission or billing, there is ZERO expectation of privacy of data that is has been collected as per the press reports as well as POTUS press conference. Just as Kraut783, this fuck face is full of shit as far as his ability to "wiretap" anyone. The traitor was a sys admin guy and not an analyst therefore he couldn't have done what he claimed PERIOD.

As least in his interview he didn't say "Pakistan is not our enemy". I hope Obama launches an armed Pred on his ass.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Jun 10, 2013)

lindy said:


> I hope Obama launches an armed Pred on his ass.


 

+eleventy for necro crossthreading


----------



## Scotth (Jun 10, 2013)

The guy worked less than 3 months for Booz and started leaking a lot of information.  I obviously don't know him but my gut feeling is he is a little like Manning.  Probably a little immature and he was driven by a desire to become famous.

Lindy you had a great post.

I have certainly enjoyed the spectacle in Washington watching so many Democrats and Republican's defending the programs and others trying trying to run like cockroaches when the lights were turned on trying to distance themselves.  Still others won't even acknowledge they knew about the program.

It's far from a government only programs.  If the privacy laws in the US allows private entities to collect terabytes of data each day on American's that they have no business collecting someone else will use the data.  If grocery stores are allowed to collect data on your shopping habits and the Onstar on your car can track your daily commute recording everything from fluid levels to the routes you traveled and how fast you drove.  What privacy can people expect?

This is a congressional problem and not a Presidential problem IMHO.  While I think everyone's shock at these realizations are pretty naive, point the finger at the people who wrote the law giving these powers to any administration.


----------



## JBS (Jun 10, 2013)

lindy said:


> SCOTUS has already ruled that there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY when going through a third party to establish communications ( Smith v Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979). The Court views electronic communications (including email) the same as old school voice telephone calls (Martha, get me "Pleasant 4574!") .
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735
> 
> ...


There's a substantial difference between a legitimate, isolated police action involving a warrant on an individual suspect, and then applying that SCOTUS ruling to everyone on the planet. The SCOTUS ruling is regarding law enforcement, and a handheld recording device used to intercept comms on an individual suspect. It is doubtful that in 1979, the SCOTUS could have ever even dreamed that we'd have the capability of digitally archiving almost every communication on the planet thanks to exponential increases in computing power and yottabytes of cheap digital storage. It's also not likely that they could have forseen taking a ruling about an isolated police / law enforcement action, and allowing it to then be stretched and distorted to unfathomable degrees, so that everyone who communicates in any way now has no "reasonable expectation of privacy". Almost ALL communication today goes through a third party, therefore ALL communications on the planet is subject to government eavesdropping, and this is Constitutional now? LOL.

I posted on this before, and it's the reason I believe the population must resist small infringements every step of the way, because each tiny infringement and erosion of privacy forms the body of justification for what constitutes, or eventually will constitute "reasonable expectations" for this or that. First we allow breaches in little things 10 years ago, and today we wake up to news that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Gmail, and every other swinging dick has a pipeline to the NSA where everything is archived for future terror investigations (or IRS fun...).

As for no expectation of privacy in email and phone calls, that's utterly absurd. You have a password on your email don't you? Do you post your private cell phone number or address on Craigslist? Probably not, because you want the content of your email and the use of your personal phone to remain private. That's a "reasonable expectation" in common man's language, and yet another disconnect between big government, and where the rest of us live and work.


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2013)

JBS said:


> There's a substantial difference between a legitimate, isolated police action involving a warrant on an individual suspect, and then applying that SCOTUS ruling to everyone on the planet. The SCOTUS ruling is regarding law enforcement, and a handheld recording device used to intercept comms on an individual suspect. It is doubtful that in 1979, the SCOTUS could have ever even dreamed that we'd have the capability of digitally archiving almost every communication on the planet thanks to exponential increases in computing power and yottabytes of cheap digital storage. It's also not likely that they could have forseen taking a ruling about an isolated police / law enforcement action, and allowing it to then be stretched and distorted to unfathomable degrees, so that everyone who communicates in any way now has no "reasonable expectation of privacy". Almost ALL communication today goes through a third party, therefore ALL communications on the planet is subject to government eavesdropping, and this is Constitutional now? LOL.
> 
> I posted on this before, and it's the reason I believe the population must resist small infringements every step of the way, because each tiny infringement and erosion of privacy forms the body of justification for what constitutes, or eventually will constitute "reasonable expectations" for this or that. First we allow breaches in little things 10 years ago, and today we wake up to news that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Gmail, and every other swinging dick has a pipeline to the NSA where everything is archived for future terror investigations (or IRS fun...).
> 
> As for no expectation of privacy in email and phone calls, that's utterly absurd. You have a password on your email don't you? Do you post your private cell phone number or address on Craigslist? Probably not, because you want the content of your email and the use of your personal phone to remain private. That's a "reasonable expectation" in common man's language, and yet another disconnect between big government, and where the rest of us live and work.


 
Firstly, read the ruling and the opinion that clearly states that when a caller dials a number and that call is routed to a third party (Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) switching center, there is no expectation of privacy in the calling party's number, dialed number, date of call, and time of call.  I believe that Obama called this information "metadata".  Secondly, we're talking data; NOT CONTENT (e.g. evesdropping, wiretapping, etc) which the Court has REPEATEDLY upheld that the 4th Amendment most definitely applies and therefore a warrant is required for collection and processing.

From the Smith v Maryland SCOTUS ruling footnotes:

"A pen register is *a mechanical device that records the numbers dialed on a telephone* by monitoring the electrical impulses caused when the dial on the telephone is released. It does not overhear oral communications and does not indicate whether calls are actually completed." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 161  n. 1 (1977). A pen register is "usually installed at a central telephone facility [and] records on a paper tape all numbers dialed from [the] line" to which it is attached. United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 549  n. 1 (1974) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S., at 162 ."

The purpose of a pen register in Smith v Maryland is to detect fraud, abuse, harassment, etc.  In my opinion, that's no different that how spammers collect DATA in address harvesting and dictionary attacks, both illegal as outlined in CAN SPAM act of 2003.

Where does press reporting say that "everything" has been collected and stored for future retrieval and analysis?

If this program is so outrageous, then WE really have problems.  The program is "run" by the Executive branch (IC agencies), provisions established by the Judicial branch (FISC), and overseen by the Legislative branch (SSCI and HPSCI).


----------



## 0699 (Jun 10, 2013)

Reinforces two of my beliefs.

1) The only private space is between your two ears. Might change soon, but true today.

2) It's not a secret if two people know it.


----------



## JBS (Jun 10, 2013)

lindy said:


> Firstly, read the ruling and the opinion that clearly states that when a caller dials a number and that call is routed to a third party (Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc) switching center, there is no expectation of privacy in the calling party's number, dialed number, date of call, and time of call. I believe that Obama called this information "metadata". Secondly, we're talking data; NOT CONTENT (e.g. evesdropping, wiretapping, etc) which the Court has REPEATEDLY upheld that the 4th Amendment most definitely applies and therefore a warrant is required for collection and processing.
> 
> From the Smith v Maryland SCOTUS ruling footnotes:
> 
> ...


Just FYI I was referring to Katz vs. US, a 1967 case that provided much of the precedent and legal grounds for Smith vs. Maryland. In Katz vs. US, comms were directly intercepted, not just stats.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347


...


----------



## goon175 (Jun 10, 2013)

I am learning so much in this thread it's not even funny.


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1c9-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2

Big Brother Isn't Watching You

(You may have to register (free)) to read the entire article which also cites Smith V MD)

The article closes with this sentence:

"And when those programs are exposed by leaks, it is not whistleblowing — it’s a felony."



JBS said:


> Just FYI I was referring to Katz vs. US, a 1967 case that provided much of the precedent and legal grounds for Smith vs. Maryland. In Katz vs. US, comms were directly intercepted, not just stats.
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347
> 
> ...


 
Correct and I'm in complete agreement especially when in the Katz case, the FBI was specifically going after conversations hence the recording devices. However, according to press reports (Snowden, DNI, POTUS, etc), this latest "scandal" was devoted strictly to third party released data and not private person-to-person communications. Yes?



goon175 said:


> I am learning so much in this thread it's not even funny.


 
If you would have BEAR'd to 35P, you'd have the keys to the castle...or probably just been given a copy of the latest Washington Post and received correspondence course credit. :blkeye:


----------



## goon175 (Jun 10, 2013)

> If you would have BEAR'd to 35P, you'd have the keys to the castle...or probably just been given a copy of the latest Washington Post and received correspondence course credit.


 
haha, I haven't given up on it, just a delay. My days in a uniform are not over yet - still have the itch.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 10, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> Just questioning his statement that he had the "authority".....plus, "wiretaps" is a criminal thing, the intel side of that is quite different, with a ton of checks and balances......


 
None of which mean a damn thing if the word comes from a high enough station. Just remember, the only interpretation of "lawful order" that matters is the one of the person, group, or party in charge.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 10, 2013)

lindy said:


> Big Brother Isn't Watching You
> 
> (You may have to register (free)) to read the entire article which also cites Smith V MD)


 
Wait.  So BB isn't watching, but I have to register (probably give them an email address?) to read the story?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 10, 2013)

I just made this.....might need some work but I am laughing...probably because I am retarded.....:blkeye:







Maybe it should say whistleblower at the top.....stupid brain....:wall:


----------



## surgicalcric (Jun 11, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> <<SNIP>>. There should be a team at the door of his hotel by now and that fucker should be wearing a hood on a one way trip to the cage he'll spend the rest of his life in.  Just my 2c.



I would that he spend the rest of his short life in a noose.

He is a traitor and deserves to die like one.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 11, 2013)

Looking back at some of the stuff released.  How could he of gotten access, even as a SysAdmin, to FISA Court ruling?   Those are pretty much national level policy documents.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 11, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Looking back at some of the stuff released. How could he of gotten access, even as a SysAdmin, to FISA Court ruling? Those are pretty much national level policy documents.


 

Access to someone's office and picking up stuff off desks.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Looking back at some of the stuff released. How could he of gotten access, even as a SysAdmin, to FISA Court ruling? Those are pretty much national level policy documents.


 
No document passwords, and not controlling the overall network access.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

The guy is looking more and more like Bradley Manning v2



> The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald said that the source of the recent National Security Agency leaks has provided him with "thousands" of documents and is at peace with his decision to shed light on top secret programs.
> 
> Greenwald told the New York Times that Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old government contractor who served as the source of the leaks reported on by both The Guardian and The Washington Post, understands that he could face the same fate as another prominent leaker.
> 
> ...


 
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/greenwald-snowden-knows-he-s-going-to-end?ref=fpb


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Looking back at some of the stuff released. How could he of gotten access, even as a SysAdmin, to FISA Court ruling? Those are pretty much national level policy documents.


 
You don't need SysAdmin or Domain Admin rights to do damage. The person that handles User Admin can see everything that is on the network. The person that hands out rights to others first has to have rights to that area. You don't need direct server access to be able to have access to everything on a file server. With his lack of education and limited experience I would bet money that the guy was handling user administration on the network and just started snooping around the file server grabbing any data he wanted.


----------



## Brill (Jun 11, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I just made this.....might need some work but I am laughing...probably because I am retarded.....:blkeye:
> 
> Maybe it should say whistleblower at the top.....stupid brain....:wall:


 
I'd replace the last photo with this to ensure 100% accuracy: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




"No shit, there I was armed with a red stapler and surrounded by emails..."


----------



## RetPara (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You don't need SysAdmin or Domain Admin rights to do damage. The person that handles User Admin can see everything that is on the network. The person that hands out rights to others first has to have rights to that area. You don't need direct server access to be able to have access to everything on a file server. With his lack of education and limited experience I would bet money that the guy was handling user administration on the network and just started snooping around the file server grabbing any data he wanted.


BTDT in the private sector and current agency.

In NDS or Active Directory, best practices would dictate that the two access levels/type should be separate (NOT the same person(s)).  Also there should be alarms/alerts run by a third group that alert the security folks when anyone access's or attempts to access a directory not specifically in their access groups.

The point I was originally trying to make is that Snowden may very well not be the only one involved in this.  He may be the designated fall guy.   There is also the possibility that he has been developing a collection of documents at home that Aldridge Ames would of envied.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 11, 2013)

So wait a tick.... are we more upset at the treason, or the fact that our own government is amassing a huge database of all our activity? The line between whistle blower and traitor is a very thin one. More of a matter of perspective really. Now I'll admit I am not as up to speed on the circumstances of this particular case as I would like to be. However, from what I have gleaned, comparing it to Manning is a bit of a stretch. One released classified documents during a time of war with the intent of hurting the effort to prosecute the war. The other released classified documents during a time of war (albeit on a much smaller scale) with the intent of notifying the public of domestic spying and violation of citizen rights. Pretty big differences there. The fact remains, the NSA has no business collecting all of that data. Need to focus on a group suspected of planning attacks? Great. Get a warrant within the pre established guidelines and go after them. There is no open-ended warrant out against the American public. That is not the country I signed up to defend. I'm all for giving government the ability to do its job. Within the confines of the law and without violating my rights.

I can understand the desire and the necessity for wanting to go after someone that has betrayed the country we all love and swore to protect. However, at what point do you say enough? What point do you realize something is wrong and you cannot be part of it? Where is that line drawn? How do you distinguish it from treason or whistle blowing? Faith in your country is not the same as faith in your government.  Oh, and to hit the whole pen register thing. Even when using a pen register, a court order is required AND it expires in 60 days (granted the legal standard is weaker than a tap). The court order does not grant unlimited use of ALL numbers for SIX years. I don't deny the benefits of collecting data during an investigation. It's critical. However, explain why the government needs to collect data on every citizen with NO LISTED end date of surveillance? I don't care if it's just data and not the actual conversations. Even though the stretch to including the other is not that difficult, and we all know what the agencies are being used for. There is no reason whats soever to collect that amount of data. We oppose a national firearms registry do we not? Why? So the government doesn't collect mass amounts of data on us to be used to take what is rightfully ours. Why would we be ok with a mass collection of our communications, free speech, social media info, and other bits of electronic information?


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2013)

ke4gde said:


> your post


 
Have to agree.  

I believe he may end up doing us a favor.

We now know there is a security lapse that can be fixed.
We know the administration is data mining the citizens (why needs to be determined).


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

ke4gde said:


> So wait a tick.... are we more upset at the treason, or the fact that our own government is amassing a huge database of all our activity? <snipped for size>


 
For me the distinction between whistle blower and leaker/treason is very simple.  What was your intent.  If Snowden had only leaked about the PRISM program I would call him a whistle blower.  Even though the program is legal he did what he did for the purpose of informing the American public.  When you grab 1000's of documents like Snowden and a 1/4 million like Manning your exposing all kinds of things for no real purpose and doing damage to the country.  When you stop trying to right a wrong you crossed the line.

These programs are subjected to regular court review every 90 days that why these programs appear to last forever.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 11, 2013)

ke4gde said:


> Whole Thing


 
This is the salient point of all of this.  I believe it was here I posted some time ago about those making "From My Cold Dead Hands" statements about gun control.  Most people will comply with gun control and offer no resistance because of tertiary impacts on their family. That to resist gun control/confiscation by force of arms would lead to the demonetization of the individual and a campaign that would paint the person in view that would make Hannibal Lector look good.

Snowden has made statements along the same lines of fear for his family.   The full blow demonetization of him is well underway. 

It is often a knee jerk reaction to defame whistleblowers and leaks.  I am certain that one reason I am alive today is a plan to attack Iran was leaked to the old Jack Anderson Washington Post column in the summer of  1980.  It was planned for October 1980, just before the Carter/Reagan election.....


----------



## RetPara (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> For me the distinction between whistle blower and leaker/treason is very simple. What was your intent. If Snowden had only leaked about the PRISM program I would call him a whistle blower. Even though the program is legal he did what he did for the purpose of informing the American public. When you grab 1000's of documents like Snowden and a 1/4 million like Manning your exposing all kinds of things for no real purpose and doing damage to the country. When you stop trying to right a wrong you crossed the line.
> 
> These programs are subjected to regular court review every 90 days that why these programs appear to last forever.


 
Valid point.  Who plays the 'devils advocate' at these reviews?  True it is the Federal Circuit Court of DC that sites on the FISA bench.   This sounds more like a Grand Jury that has voted to indict a Ham Sandwich.  A poor analogy, but after working on spreadsheets all damn morning it's all I got.......


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 11, 2013)

Traitor.  Attention whore.  Sellout. Take your pick, they're pretty much all the same as far as I'm concerned.

When you're a low-level analyst, you don't get to pick and choose what "should" be classified, you follow the rules.  If something is going on that is so conspicuously illegal, immoral, or unethical that it needs to be shut down, there are appropriate channels for that, starting with your local intel oversight officer and going all the way up to your member of Congress.  If after all of that no action is taken, then MAYBE, MAYBE I can see going public.

But normally "leakers" don't do that.  Most of the time they're disgruntled with the system and looking for revenge.  That was the case with Manning, and I'm not going to be surprised when it comes out to be the case here as well.  Anyone wonder why this guy bounced around from job to job?  Sounds a lot to me like everyone knew this guy was a dirtbag but no one was willing to pull the trigger and get him out of the IC (again, like Manning).  This guy saw an opportunity to get back at the system and to make himself famous in the process and he took it, at our expense.  He's no hero.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> your post


 
Agree for the most part, but I am losing my confidence in the oversight process.

That may need to get improved.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

Saw this linked today and it brings perspective to the issue of all those members of congress who are shocked by this disclosure.


http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Not to mention all the other stories out thereabout both public and private data collection to plead ignorance is a hard pill to swallow.  I went to an Oracle Database Administration course back in '07 or '08.  There was a guy that worked at OnStar and he told me his company back then was gathering 4 terabytes of data per day on peoples driving habits.

I don't like it but nothing is going to change until congress gets off their ass because the courts have already spoken on the issue.  Congress gave the power and it's their job to rein it in.


----------



## Dame (Jun 11, 2013)

So much of this has been out there for so long, maybe it's time for the government to drop its own "reasonable expectation" of privacy.

Now please excuse me while TSA inspects my "baggage."

ETA:


Scotth said:


> Saw this linked today and it brings perspective to the issue of all those members of congress who are shocked by this disclosure.
> 
> Not to mention all the other stories out thereabout both public and private data collection to plead ignorance is a hard pill to swallow. I went to an Oracle Database Administration course back in '07 or '08. There was a guy that worked at OnStar and he told me his company back then was gathering 4 terabytes of data per day on peoples driving habits.
> 
> ...




Most people just don't pay attention.


----------



## Brill (Jun 11, 2013)

ke4gde said:


> ...are we more upset at the treason...


 
Yes.  I pretty much blew off the rest of your post especially the garbage about "surveillance", which according to Webster is "close watch kept over someone or something (as by a dectective)" and then you threw in the "spying", which per Webster is "to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes" and I just stopped reading because I got annoyed.

Sorry folks but unless you know the rules, legal protections, and established precedence, this "argument" is futile.  (Why don't we discuss nuclear physics instead?)  Shit is legal whether you like it or not.  Upset?  Hit the ballot box and effect change via the democratic process, which fully supports the program that fuck face disclosed.  Please keep in mind that the briefing on Guardian carried the TS//NF classification and had the SI caveat.  Manning "only" gave up shit on SIPR that was "just" S//NF and they're talking life in Kansas.

This shithead deserves death IMO.


----------



## AWP (Jun 11, 2013)

Like it or not, we've spied on our own people going back to the 40's; most of it was legal. Probably. Maybe.

Regardless, to wake up and "OMG" over this is to be about 60 years behind the curve.

I'm far, far, far more concerned that this TRAITOR took TS documents and gave to them to the world at large. He was smart and covered with ass with "They are coming for me" which means he'll never see the death penalty. If he stays out of the US long enough he can more or less count on a nice life if he plays his cards right. I have to wonder what a fella must do for the death penalty in America anymore...we've become a Red, White, and Blue Waffle where punishment is concerned.

Look, the Fourth Amendment "ain't what it used to be" and for those of you just joining the party, Welcome.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 11, 2013)

lindy said:


> Yes. I pretty much blew off the rest of your post especially the garbage about "surveillance", which according to Webster is "close watch kept over someone or something (as by a dectective)" and then you threw in the "spying", which per Webster is "to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes" and I just stopped reading because I got annoyed.
> 
> Sorry folks but unless you know the rules, legal protections, and established precedence, this "argument" is futile. (Why don't we discuss nuclear physics instead?) Shit is legal whether you like it or not. Upset? Hit the ballot box and effect change via the democratic process, which fully supports the program that fuck face disclosed. Please keep in mind that the briefing on Guardian carried the TS//NF classification and had the SI caveat. Manning "only" gave up shit on SIPR that was "just" S//NF and they're talking life in Kansas.
> 
> This shithead deserves death IMO.


 
So I got my verbiage mixed up when writing. I didn't realize this was for a grade Professor. Before running off at the mouth with what you *think* is or is not legal... try learning some communications skills. Interpersonal Type. 1 Each.
Last I checked, your SOTA credentials don't extend to legal advice or interpretations. Your arm chair quarterbacking not withstanding, you are entitled to your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. However, since I annoy you I won't bother to point out the ways in which you are misinformed. I will say that what you claim is legal is not, and it has to hold up to being challenged in court. Otherwise it is always subject to being changed. Now crawl back into your arm chair, use the obvious brains and analytic powers I have seen you flex in other posts, and learn how to carry on a conversation without insulting anyone.

I spy something surveillance-y.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2013)

My Resident JAG thinks they may have over extended a bit.  Hopefully Congress will make the FISA Court release it's reasoning (but I won't hold my breath).


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 11, 2013)

People get upset when the government goes too far, but like the Boston attack, people were upset at the government (FBI) when their initial investigation did not go far enough in 2011.....you can't win with this topic.

There are valued points to all sides I have seen on this forum.....we'll have to see how this shakes out.


----------



## Brill (Jun 11, 2013)

ke4gde said:


> So I got my verbiage mixed up when writing. I didn't realize this was for a grade Professor. Before running off at the mouth with what you *think* is or is not legal... try learning some communications skills. Interpersonal Type. 1 Each.
> Last I checked, your SOTA credentials don't extend to legal advice or interpretations. Your arm chair quarterbacking not withstanding, you are entitled to your opinion. Misinformed as it may be. However, since I annoy you I won't bother to point out the ways in which you are misinformed. I will say that what you claim is legal is not, and it has to hold up to being challenged in court. Otherwise it is always subject to being changed. Now crawl back into your arm chair, use the obvious brains and analytic powers I have seen you flex in other posts, and learn how to carry on a conversation without insulting anyone.
> 
> I spy something surveillance-y.


 
You presume too much.   I don't have an arm chair.  

Please enlighten me how I am misinformed.  I may actually learn something!


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Jun 11, 2013)

He's a POS plain and simple, fry his ass.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 11, 2013)

lindy said:


> "No shit, there I was armed with a red stapler and surrounded by emails..."


 
CONCUR.....and DONE!!!!!








:die:


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 11, 2013)

This thread needs to be brought back to the subject/issue at hand rather than name calling.

We the S/S community are better than that.

/end.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 11, 2013)

Problem is Intel often has somethig perishable associated with it, the data, method of collection, source.

Giving details could derail another program; but that same level of secrecy allows the misuse of assets.

I still hope the program can be reined in without too much Congressional interference.


----------



## AngelsSix (Jun 11, 2013)

Why is some skinny white guy who is a worthless jerk getting any attention?  Because the American people have become a bunch of drama queens.
This isn't about the government reading your email, this is about mister-no-one-pays-attention-to-me-and-I-want-to-be-relevant-but-I-know-I-am-not.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 11, 2013)




----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

The biggest lesson learned for me in this whole thing? Now I know why the government has such a huge deficit. It is ridiculous what they paid that guy as a contractor. Not knowing labor markets in Washington and not knowing government contracting so maybe I'm naive. Also let me preface my future comments by saying government contracting in a foreign country is a completely different animal IMHO especially when it comes to pay.

We have basically a permanent government position that the government is paying some guy $122k a year plus what ever Booz's cut is for filling the position. The guy worked 9 to 5 and went home every night. The guy couldn't get a job in the Minnesota IT market making even 1/2 of what he was making with Booz. A couple community college coarses and a couple years of experience wouldn't get him beyond entry level administration or help desk at best making maybe 40-45k a year.

That's what I find shocking about this whole thing. Nobody even knows how many government contractors are employed so how will we ever know how much money gets wasted a year on over inflated compensation and duplication of duties.  People complain about the teacher, with a 4 year degree, making 40k as being over compensated.


----------



## Teufel (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> The biggest lesson learned for me in this whole thing? Now I know why the government has such a huge deficit. It is ridiculous what they paid that guy as a contractor. Not knowing labor markets in Washington and not knowing government contracting so maybe I'm naive. Also let me preface my future comments by saying government contracting in a foreign country is a completely different animal IMHO especially when it comes to pay.
> 
> We have basically a permanent government position that the government is paying some guy $122k a year plus what ever Booz's cut is for filling the position. The guy worked 9 to 5 and went home every night. The guy couldn't get a job in the Minnesota IT market making even 1/2 of what he was making with Booz. A couple community college coarses and a couple years of experience wouldn't get him beyond entry level administration or help desk at best making maybe 40-45k a year.
> 
> That's what I find shocking about this whole thing.


 
Here's my question.  It seems this guy was a high school drop out, got his GED, unsuccessfully tried out for the Special Forces, and got a job doing information assurance (ironic) with the NSA.  He was there for three months as a Booz Allen contractor and was given all sorts of access to stuff.  Is anyone else bothered by how underqualified this guy seems for that job and how quickly this dick bag was given access to our nation's secrets?  It seemed like it took an act of congress for me to get my clearance but this guy waltzes in off of a failed interview at McDonalds into a 200,000 dollar job as the IA manager (i.e. the guy who pesters everyone to turn in their Information Assurance online training certificates and maintains a roster of said certificates) for a top secret facility????


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

Well he worked for the CIA for a couple years and had the secret clearance in hand.  Beyond that I completely agree with you Teufel.


----------



## JBS (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> The biggest lesson learned for me in this whole thing? Now I know why the government has such a huge deficit. It is ridiculous what they paid that guy as a contractor. Not knowing labor markets in Washington and not knowing government contracting so maybe I'm naive. Also let me preface my future comments by saying government contracting in a foreign country is a completely different animal IMHO especially when it comes to pay.
> 
> We have basically a permanent government position that the government is paying some guy $122k a year plus what ever Booz's cut is for filling the position. The guy worked 9 to 5 and went home every night. The guy couldn't get a job in the Minnesota IT market making even 1/2 of what he was making with Booz. A couple community college coarses and a couple years of experience wouldn't get him beyond entry level administration or help desk at best making maybe 40-45k a year.
> 
> That's what I find shocking about this whole thing. Nobody even knows how many government contractors are employed so how will we ever know how much money gets wasted a year on over inflated compensation and duplication of duties. People complain about the teacher, with a 4 year degree, making 40k as being over compensated.


 
Concerned about out of control spending? Moving to the Right a bit there, Scott. There is hope for you yet.


AngelsSix said:


> Why is some skinny white guy who is a worthless jerk getting any attention? Because the American people have become a bunch of drama queens.
> This isn't about the government reading your email, this is about mister-no-one-pays-attention-to-me-and-I-want-to-be-relevant-but-I-know-I-am-not.


Sorry, boss. For me it's about a whole shitload more than that. There was a time when a President resigned in shame and for sending his yes-men to illegally record the conversations of reporters and abusing the power of his office. Today, besides the 732 different scandals going on, the IRS being used to repress political opposition, we have an out-of-control domestic security apparatus that's about 8 times larger than it should be, gathering data on millions of Verizon customers, and working with Google and Yahoo to (not) read your private email. Tomorrow, the violation of privacy will be even more egregious.

If there is a single realization that needs to hit the American people, it is that liberty is lost by the tiniest increments, one small infringement at a time.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> The guy worked 9 to 5 and went home every night. The guy couldn't get a job in the Minnesota IT market making even 1/2 of what he was making with Booz. A couple community college coarses and a couple years of experience wouldn't get him beyond entry level administration or help desk at best making maybe 40-45k a year.


Don't forget being assigned an on call rotation, and stuck in his position for at least 2-3 years.


----------



## JBS (Jun 11, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Like it or not, we've spied on our own people going back to the 40's; most of it was legal. Probably. Maybe.
> 
> Regardless, to wake up and "OMG" over this is to be about 60 years behind the curve.
> 
> ...


Many people have talked about this sort of thing for years, albeit without many of the facts to fill in the whole picture. Until the "whistleblowers" come forward, it's all conspiracy theory. Then the leaks come and the conversation becomes some variation of "it's not as bad as they said it was", or "it's worse".

To me, the most troubling thing about this entire topic is that a huge percentage of the American population absolutely does not care if they have zero privacy. There's a total disconnect and a lack of appreciation for what privacy really is and what it's value is.

True privacy is a form of liberty. If you have a personal conversation with your wife/girlfriend/closest friend, you will speak and communicate with a total freedom of expression. Now, if I walk in, pull up a bar stool, and sit down smack dab in front of you while you have your personal chat and scratch my beard as you attempt to recover your train of thought, then assuming you don't immediately throw me out of your house, you are NOT going to have the same conversation as if you were still in "private". That incursion in restricting your privacy is also a restriction on your freedom of expression. The reason is simple. People speak differently in private than they ever would in public. Also, this false argument that "if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't care" is total bullshit. Of COURSE we have things to hide. We hide things from each other all the time. Anybody want to post just exactly how many times they jerked off this week, or what their true opinion is of their boss / employee / neighbor / coworker? Anybody here want to volunteer to post their entire Google search history for the past 6 months on this forum in General Discussion ? We're human. We have secrets, and personal habits and behaviors that we prefer to keep compartmentalized.

There might be the rare saint that has genuinely never looked for how to clear their browsing history, but for the rest of us who have picked their nose or applied the 3 second rule to a pretzel because no one was looking, anyone with some self respect wants privacy.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

JBS said:


> Concerned about out of control spending? Moving to the Right a bit there, Scott. There is hope for you yet.


 
Dammit, here I thought I was moving you my way.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 11, 2013)

The world is changing.....and shrinking.   Technology is making soooo many things possible.  Think about this, there are so many ways to make overseas contact/calls now, a lot that we cannot collect on.  THAT scares me in my business.

Because no matter what we bitch about....the next time there is a massive loss of life, those same people who are complaining about lack of privacy will be complaining that the govt did nothing to protect them.  You can't have it both ways.

I have no problems with the govt being curtailed in this new world of technology, as long as we, the citizens, understand when something goes BOOM...shit happens.  Stay strong and carry on.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 11, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Well he worked for the CIA for a couple years and had the secret clearance in hand. Beyond that I completely agree with you Teufel.


 
Top Secret clearance I meant.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 12, 2013)

Teufel said:


> Here's my question. It seems this guy was a high school drop out, got his GED, unsuccessfully tried out for the Special Forces, and got a job doing information assurance (ironic) with the NSA. He was there for three months as a Booz Allen contractor and was given all sorts of access to stuff. Is anyone else bothered by how underqualified this guy seems for that job and how quickly this dick bag was given access to our nation's secrets? It seemed like it took an act of congress for me to get my clearance but this guy waltzes in off of a failed interview at McDonalds into a 200,000 dollar job as the IA manager (i.e. the guy who pesters everyone to turn in their Information Assurance online training certificates and maintains a roster of said certificates) for a top secret facility????


 
A lot of federal IT jobs are on 'special pay rates', above locality pay.  If you show up and work at it; you get along fairly well without a lot of formal IT training.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2013)

I wonder if he actually made 200K/year; he's lied about the rest of his life.


----------



## Brill (Jun 12, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I wonder if he actually made 200K/year; he's lied about the rest of his life.


 
BAH claimed his salary was $122K in their statement.  That sounds realistic to me.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I wonder if he actually made 200K/year; he's lied about the rest of his life.


 
Database Admins with the FAA make above 100k with zero clearance and that's before locality pay. I once saw a posting for a janitor with a TS to work on one of the missile ranges in the south Pacific. 60k for 6 months' work.

200k for a stateside job that require a TS? Possible I guess, but then that puts them in line with the going rate for working overseas. Also, the IA guy isn't exactly a "high end" type IT job. Honestly, most IA types I've met were...well, I wouldn't allow them to work a Help Desk if I were their boss. I find them to have a lot of authority but generally lacking in real skill sets. Admin and regulation types, but not IT-oriented.


----------



## Brill (Jun 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> 200k for a stateside job that require a TS? Possible I guess, but then that puts them in line with the going rate for working overseas.


 
Watch out FF...I think your salary is showing.


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2013)

lindy said:


> Watch out FF...I think your salary is showing.


 
An IT/ electronics guy on the right contract OR with a ton of overtime OR who has been with his company for a long time can make over 200k in a year, but their salary range is less than that. My company does have a generator mechanic/ Power Pro guy who made 220k one year through a combination of the above. He managed to blow most of it on hookers and leading several different lives, but that's another story...


----------



## Brill (Jun 12, 2013)

Uh oh...Big Brother may or may not be really watching you. :whatever:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/n...utiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/


----------



## 0699 (Jun 12, 2013)

Since this went down, I haven't heard anything in the news about the IRS scandal...

Coincidence?


----------



## 0699 (Jun 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> An IT/ electronics guy on the right contract OR with a ton of overtime OR who has been with his company for a long time can make over 200k in a year, but their salary range is less than that. My company does have a generator mechanic/ Power Pro guy who made 220k one year through a combination of the above. He managed to blow most of it on hookers and leading several different lives, but that's another story...


 
My "like" for your post was related to the above underlined. I've got to respect anyone that can waste that much money. Paris Hilton excluded...

_EDIT: I'm not justifying pay rates, but a TS/SCI with poly can be hard to find sometimes. That may be some of the employer's justification for a "overly" high pay rate._


----------



## Scotth (Jun 12, 2013)

I think we can all agree that privatizing the federal work force probably isn't a money saver like it was promised.  Contracting should never be a permanent employment solution.


----------



## Gypsy (Jun 12, 2013)

0699 said:


> Since this went down, I haven't heard anything in the news about the IRS scandal...
> 
> Coincidence?


 
No such thing as a coincidence...


----------



## RetPara (Jun 12, 2013)

Friedman makes some interesting points in this essay....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html?hp&_r=2&


----------



## Scotth (Jun 12, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Friedman makes some interesting points in this essay....
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html?hp&_r=2&


 
Great link RetPara IMHO.  After reading Friedman I would follow his link to David Simon's piece.  It is a good read as well.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2013)

Looks like mainstream is starting to ask the same questions as we are.

#1 being: Why China?

My prediction: He's a traitor,


----------



## Rapid (Jun 12, 2013)

Another mainstream media agency questioning the left wing (Guardian) bullshit:



> Now that the dust has settled after the Edward Snowden affair, it’s time to ask some tough questions about The Guardian’s scoop of the week. Snowden’s story is that he dropped a $200,000 a year job and a (very attractive) girlfriend in Hawaii for a life in hiding in Hong Kong in order to expose the evils of the NSA's Prism programme. But bits of the story are now being questioned.
> 
> *1. Why did he go to China?* It was always an odd aspect of his plan that he should choose as his refuge from tyranny a totalitarian state that happily spies on its own people and imprisons dissenters. True, Hong Kong itself has a tradition of resistance to dictatorship, but it also has a treaty with the US that would make it relatively easy for America to extradite their guy back. Perhaps Snowden simply has the worst lawyers in history?
> 
> ...


 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...y-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2013)

Rapid said:


> Another mainstream media agency questioning the left wing (Guardian) bullshit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sadly, we will never know.

Do I trust the administration (or the upcoming Clinto Administration) with my data?  No.

Have or enemies (i.e. China) taken steps to reduce our data mining abilities? (me thinks yes).

Is this guy an idiot? (me thinks yes).

Will he come back to stand trial on his own? (me thinks yes, because his chosen amnesty location isn't as awesome as he thinks.)


----------



## AWP (Jun 12, 2013)

0699 said:


> _EDIT: I'm not justifying pay rates, but a TS/SCI with poly can be hard to find sometimes. That may be some of the employer's justification for a "overly" high pay rate._


 


Scotth said:


> I think we can all agree that privatizing the federal work force probably isn't a money saver like it was promised. Contracting should never be a permanent employment solution.


 
My understanding of the "A contractor is cheaper than a fulltime gov't employee": The cost estimates are predicated on hiring a contractor for a short amount of time. I don't think anyone ever envisioned keeping contractors in the same gigs for well over a decade and I know for a fact that some contracts have been around for that long. What I'm unsure of is where a contractor becomes more expensive than the equivalent gov't employee or servicemember.

Contractors were meant as a stopgap measure but the system has become a beast with its own life.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> My understanding of the "A contractor is cheaper than a fulltime gov't employee": The cost estimates are predicated on hiring a contractor for a short amount of time. I don't think anyone ever envisioned keeping contractors in the same gigs for well over a decade and I know for a fact that some contracts have been around for that long. What I'm unsure of is where a contractor becomes more expensive than the equivalent gov't employee or servicemember.
> 
> Contractors were meant as a stopgap measure but the system has become a beast with its own life.


 
Contractors cost the same (per year) as the GS equivilant.  Like FF said, the thought was hire a bunch of contractors, win the war, fire said contractors.

Rummey (The Strategic thinker that he is) never envisioned a long conflict.  Iraq/Ass-crackistan were scheduled for 5 years (at most).


----------



## Kunoichii (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm positive anyone that isn't working with this program doesn't know what it's really doing. I am also positive that Mr. Snowden broke his word and should be held accountable, despite his intentions. If there is/was something going on that needed to be taken care of, fine, push it up the channels. If that doesn't work, keep going until you are at the top. When you break a promise not to talk about something, you should expect a punishment, and face it. I feel like he was the kid who ran from his parents after doing something wrong because he didn't want to get spanked (if he got punished at all)


----------



## Brooklynben (Jun 12, 2013)

Kunoichii said:


> ....When you break a promise not to talk about something, you should expect a punishment, and face it. I feel like he was the kid who ran from his parents after doing something wrong because he didn't want to get spanked (if he got punished at all)


 True enough about braking promises, but this sort of stuff isn't something that can be "pushed up the channels". 

As far as "a kid who ran from his parents", I think you may want to look at Snowden's work history a little closer.  Whomever or whatever he is, there would seem to be a whole lot more going on here than any typical "disgruntled kid". 

One of the more interesting things to me about this event is that Snowden really hasn't exposed a whole lot information that wasn't previously known or available in the public domain, making his revelations more a political embarrassment rather than any real breach in national security.   Truth be said, Snowden hasn't released a lot of the specifics which I assume he would naturally be knowledgeable of.  So all the various "vestal virgin" politicos who are now publicly declaring their aghast at these revelations are either completely disingenuous or ignorant fools.  My bet is predominantly on the later.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 12, 2013)

"more a political embarrassment rather than any real breach in national security"

Negative.....he took classified documents from a U.S. Intelligence agency and released them. That is not a political embarrassment, it against the law.


18 USC § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
18 U.S.C. § 798 : US Code - Section 798: Disclosure of classified information

Just to name a couple of things....


----------



## AWP (Jun 23, 2013)

So the guy who claims not to be a spy has fled Hong Kong via Russia for Ecuador with the aid of Wikileaks.

What happened to the good old days of fighting for what you believe in rather than running off to exile? "Give me liberty or give me safe conduct to a third party with no extradition treaty?"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/23/politics/nsa-leaks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> Snowden "left Hong Kong legally" and is headed to Ecuador "via a safe route for the purposes of asylum," WikiLeaks said in a statement issued Sunday afternoon. He is accompanied by diplomats and lawyers for WikiLeaks, including former Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, according to a statement from the organization.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 23, 2013)

I'll be honest, the government is overreaching its bounds with its constant intrusions into our daily lives and it's attempts to say "its fine, we should be doing this" are insulting.

This guy can't be asked questions if he gets locked up, to find out the full extent of what the fuck's going on.  

@Freefalling   Unless you're willing to start shooting now, this is a solo fight for this man and as such, he's actually doing the right thing.  Unless this shit gets highlighted then the american people will never know exactly how far our fantastic government has gone with regards to invasions into privacy and violations of our fucking rights.

I have the ass that shit like this is occuring within our boundarys. I have the ass that people are sheepish and that encryption is such a strange thing for people to use that if you're using it, you're wrong. It's putting an envelope on a goddamn letter.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 23, 2013)

@Ranger Psych , Yeah but...(and this is the back and forth I struggle with) are we to believe that we cannot believe anything out government is telling us?   "where" is the line?  If we have the technology to collect all of this data, and then when we capture a bad guy, see if we can pattern just who he (or she) has been talking to, shouldn't we?  It is not like anyone is sitting there listening to me talk about the latest episode of NCIS with my wife, although I accept the fact that they have the ability to do so . . . all that aside:  to the best of my knowledge, the government was not doing anything illegal, they are not even trying to deny it; which in my book makes the little prick hiding out in the Russian airport a traitor; not a whistleblower as he may fantasize .


----------



## Rapid (Jun 23, 2013)

Snowden's a huge fucking tool. The scandal surrounding the NSA is a whole other matter and is definitely a bit more complex, but I think it's safe to assume that Snowden and the liberal media he went to have overblown the reality of such measures.



Freefalling said:


> So the guy who claims not to be a spy has fled Hong Kong via Russia for Ecuador with the aid of Wikileaks.
> 
> What happened to the good old days of fighting for what you believe in rather than running off to exile? "Give me liberty or give me safe conduct to a third party with no extradition treaty?"
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/23/politics/nsa-leaks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



I'm tired of Ecuador and their bullshit. They've been holding Assange in their embassy in London for ages now. There's a point where a country just becomes a traitor/criminal safehaven, and where we should just say, 'We're coming to get what's ours by force, since you flaunt legalities. We wouldn't recommend trying to stop us'. Anyway, I think The Telegraph is shaping up to be my favourite British news source. Far better than the liberal BBC for political stuff.



> What a dizzying 24 hours Edward Snowden has had. After fleeing Hong Kong (the place he first fled to), he was revealed to be in the airspace above Russia with a WikiLeaks advisor (this woman) headed to Moscow. Now Snowden has requested asylum in Ecuador, according to that country's foreign minister.
> 
> WikiLeaks describes Snowden’s final destination as “a democratic country” and, yes, Ecuador basically is (more or less). But it just recently passed a bill restraining press freedom that really ought not to appeal to a whistle-blower. According to Human Rights Watch, the bill has three worrying components. A) It prohibits so-called “media lynching”, and allows the state to compel the guilty to say sorry and face legal proceedings. B) It claims to encourage the press to self-regulate but actually empowers the government to impose sanctions on wrong-doers. C) Most importantly, the bill asserts that it is a crime for a journalist to undermine “the security of the State”. Just like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are accused of doing. So Snowden, the whistle-blower, is relocating to a country that is turning against the culture of whistle-blowing. Of course, it's also a country that's given refuge (in its London embassy) to Julian Assange – himself fleeing allegations of rape.
> 
> ...



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...om-his-tyranny-tour-has-undermined-his-cause/


----------



## compforce (Jun 23, 2013)

Rapid said:


> Snowden's a huge fucking tool. The scandal surrounding the NSA is a whole other matter and is definitely a bit more complex, but I think it's safe to assume that Snowden and the liberal media he went to have overblown the reality of such measures.


 
Agreed.  When Sean Hannity has Karl Rove on his show and they both agree that the level of oversight is sufficient, it becomes a non-issue. (Meaning two right wingers agreeing that the left wing government is good to go on the issue).  Personally, I think most of the 0riginal "whistle blowing" has been blown out of proportion, but when Snowden started releasing specifics to the media like the British wire tapping G8 and the US trying to hack Chinese systems, he crossed the line and became a traitor.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 23, 2013)

Ooh-Rah1069 said:


> @Ranger Psych , Yeah but...(and this is the back and forth I struggle with) are we to believe that we cannot believe anything out government is telling us?   "where" is the line?  If we have the technology to collect all of this data, and then when we capture a bad guy, see if we can pattern just who he (or she) has been talking to, shouldn't we?  It is not like anyone is sitting there listening to me talk about the latest episode of NCIS with my wife, although I accept the fact that they have the ability to do so . . . all that aside:  to the best of my knowledge, the government was not doing anything illegal, they are not even trying to deny it; which in my book makes the little prick hiding out in the Russian airport a traitor; not a whistleblower as he may fantasize .



I've spent enough time as a military mushroom to not believe 90% of what the government says.    Case in point, ready.gov and FEMA sites used to specifically recommend having a months worth of supplies and even had a generic plan to help people build up to self sufficiency for a >30 day time frame. Now? people that do that are being vilified in the public eye as though being able to take care of yourself is a mortal sin versus having to wait for Uncle Sam to save your ass.

You're going off of having probable cause to be able to obtain a warrant for US citizen surviellance and information acquisition.  The government is just doing it as a matter of business with unprescidented levels of LACK of checks and balances. If the cops want to search your home, tap your lines, etc.. they need a warrant. The federal government is larger and therefore LESS reliable and trustworthy than your local police department conducting an investigation because they honestly rarely if ever have an actual stake in anything OTHER than federal authority. At least the local police live in the area and are trying to better their community, for all the mistakes that are made... and when they are, that local community finds out and it gets addressed.. not hidden like all the problem children in the military and federal government.

Case in point, shitbag SFC's that simply get reassigned "where they can do less damage". The federal government does exactly that in the VA, Social Security, and every other department they operate. People who fuck up aren't fired, unlike local and even county governments.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2013)

I keep hearing some people talking about how he had the courage and moral compass to be a whistleblower... you'd think with all of us with our clearances that there would be more people coming out.  I wouldn't put it pass anyone to use this as a distraction from some of the real overreaching actions of the government.. ie.. IRS.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 23, 2013)

Did revealing domestic programs hurt the country?
Maybe, maybe not; but domestic spying was supposed to have strict rules (see Church Commission).  

Did revealing OCONUS operations hurt us, yes.  That is the reason he needs to be punished.  Let him go to Ecquador, hope he learns to speak Spanish, as I suspect his expat life won't be glamerous (he'll need a funding source to support himself).

Let's see what Congress does.  Will there be another "Churh Commission", or will those in power (stupidly) accept domestic spying and the enevitable loss of freedoms?

They should strip his US Citizenship, and let him declare his loyalty to another country.  I also find it amusing that this champion of human rights is being aided by China, Russia, Wikileaks, and Ecquador, all known human rights abusers.


----------



## RetPara (Jun 24, 2013)

Courage & Moral Compass....  would not of included the OCONUS programs.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Jun 24, 2013)

I'm not gonna wade into the argument about this guy, just to say I don't think he's a traitor and that him revealing all this was the right thing to do. What I have mainly to say on this is, quite honestly I'm surprised at the, what is basically delayed outrage by all this cause for YEARS those of us that keep up with national security/current events/foreign affairs/history have known that this was happening. Hell I remember reading about it a long time ago, and actually posting a thread about this same topic a few years back. I swear if people would spend even 30 min a day on crap other than if they should hate King James for winning another NBA title or if Lindsey Lohan is going back to jail we'd have a better informed and more focused society that would not need men like Snowden to leak info like this.


----------



## Brill (Jun 24, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> I'll be honest, the government is overreaching its bounds with its constant intrusions into our daily lives and it's attempts to say "its fine, we should be doing this" are insulting.
> 
> This guy can't be asked questions if he gets locked up, to find out the full extent of what the fuck's going on.
> 
> ...



I think you're confusing this issue with the IRS scandal.  The "privacy" you're talking about is the same as mailing a letter via snail mail.  The sender & receiver are out in plain view for the Post Office to see.

IF, on the other hand, you take a letter and personally hand it to the reciever, THEN you definitely have a privacy issue.

If the shithead Snowden had issue with the classified program, he should have gone to the IG, his congressman (or a liberal congressman), etc.  Committing a series of felonies and causing exceptional grave damage to national security ain't really the best COAs.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 24, 2013)

Because going to IG and Congress gets things taken care of, gets the truth out there and exposes corruption? Right!

Based on our laws, dude is in the wrong. Based on taking the heat to tell the American people how fucked up our current government really is. I think he did the right thing and has a pair iron nuts.  I don't know many people with that level of clearance, that are willing toss their career in the trash can and become a fugitive of the USA, in order to tell the American people what is actually going on.


----------



## Scotth (Jun 24, 2013)

Snowden just told a Hong Kong paper that he took the job with the intent of stealing documents.  The kid will have his 15 minutes of fame but he will spend a substantial amount of the remainder of his life in a super max.

The program was legal whether we like it or not and I highly doubt it will change.  The biggest congressional complainers haven't done a dam thing to change the program.  Rand said he was going to take the program to court and hasn't.  Nobody has introduced a single bill from either party, including Wyden, to change the Patriot act and shutdown this program as much as some have preen about talking tough.  The only thing congress is doing is positioning them selves to avoid the splash from the fallout.

The courts have spoken on the issue so the only other option is for Congress to reign in the Executive Branch's power.  Congress was the original cause of the problem and they don't look too interested in cleaning up their mess.


----------



## JBS (Jun 24, 2013)

I initially thought there might have been an element to this guy of "moral compass", too... but now that I've seen what other things he put out there,  I am sure of one thing.  This guy is working from weakness and cowardice now, not from morality or integrity.

If all he had revealed had been some redacted supporting documentation pointing to the bloated,  out of control domestic activity, then he could arguably be viewed as the moral compass guy without somewhat damaging ongoing ops/ capabilities.  He'd still be breaking the law but he'd have demonstrated some attempt at not harming the interests of the United States. 

As much as I make it known that I hate the overgrown domestic security apparatus we have erected around us since 9/11- the mother of all excuses for intrusive unconstitutional behavior- Snowden is not going to be the "champion" for domestic privacy concerns.  He's just not the guy.

Regarding his itinerary;  not even mildly surprising.  Regarding his willful disclosure of some additional OCONUS alleged activities,  my personal take on that behavior is he may not have intended to continue to pump this stuff out, but then out of desperation and to compel some C-list country to give him harbor, he decided to throw more stuff out there in the hopes of making someone interested.   And that makes him a traitor and something real close to a mole in my view.


----------



## Brill (Jun 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> Because going to IG and Congress gets things taken care of, gets the truth out there and exposes corruption?



Can I waterboard anyone anymore?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 24, 2013)

lindy said:


> Can I waterboard anyone anymore?


 

I am guessing not, but I would have no idea what the current authorized interrogation methods are.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> I am guessing not, but I would have no idea what the *current authorized interrogation methods* are.


 
Asking nicely
Making them eat cookie dough
Forcing them to watch others make snow angels, but not allowing them to participate
Snuggling


----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2013)

I'd never talk! I love cookie dough....


----------



## Rapid (Jun 25, 2013)

> Fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden is still in the transit area at Moscow airport, Russia's President Vladimir Putin has confirmed.
> 
> *Mr Putin said the intelligence leaker remained a free man, and the sooner he chose a destination the better. *


*
*
I fucking hate Putin too. Hypocritical piece of shit, but that goes without saying. If Snowden had leaked something about the Russian government, he'd already be a dead man.


----------



## AWP (Jun 25, 2013)

But the Cold War is over, Comrade, we're all friends now....


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 25, 2013)

Rapid said:


> I fucking hate Putin too. Hypocritical piece of shit, but that goes without saying. If Snowden had leaked something about the Russian government, he'd already be a dead man.



I read (Drudge?) where he gave another interview and told them he took his last job with the intention of stealing/selling as much as he could.

I think the NSA data was a lucky find for him, and he used that to fool a lot of people (me included).


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 25, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I read (Drudge?) where he gave another interview and told them he took his last job with the intention of stealing/selling as much as he could.
> 
> I think the NSA data was a lucky find for him, and he used that to fool a lot of people (me included).



Lucky find for him?  I'm guessing you don't work in the IC


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 25, 2013)

Florida173 said:


> Lucky find for him?  I'm guessing you don't work in the IC



By lucky, I meant the domestic stuff.

He knew which countries he wanted to sell too (I thnk he was on a payroll going into his last job).  

We need to rethink who we give access too.  Manning and now this guy.  Thumb drives have done a number on us.

Maybe we need a better screening program.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 25, 2013)

I would hope CI Poly's are still done there.......


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 26, 2013)

SOWT said:


> By lucky, I meant the domestic stuff.
> 
> He knew which countries he wanted to sell too (I thnk he was on a payroll going into his last job).
> 
> ...



I'm sure he knew exactly where he was going.

Thumb drives haven't been an issue much since Buckshot Yankee


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 26, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> I would hope CI Poly's are still done there.......



Not a requirement for most people in the IC


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 26, 2013)

Needs to be....I gotta take one, everyone else needs to also  =)

But even in the military, you hold a TS/SCI...and actually read in, your gonna start taking a CI poly.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 26, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> Needs to be....I gotta take one, everyone else needs to also  =)
> 
> But even in the military, you hold a TS/SCI...and actually read in, your gonna start taking a CI poly.



I never took a poly, and had SCI for most of my career.

Is a poly now required?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 26, 2013)

Not required....but was starting to gain ground...well, maybe not after budgets have been cut.  INSCOM was going that route, some CID on task forces are having to go that route.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 26, 2013)

I've been in the Army 18+ years and only had to take a poly for one assignment during all that time.  Pain in the ass, it was.


----------



## Brill (Jun 26, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I've been in the Army 18+ years and only had to take a poly for one assignment during all that time.  Pain in the ass, it was.



They DEFINITELY had you hooked up wrong then.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 27, 2013)

When they tell you the oddly phallic shaped internal sensor is for monitoring minute changes in sphincter tone, you know that pardus is behind the one way mirror with a video camera.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 1, 2013)

So the little fucker just applied for asylum in _Russia_. Oh boy, I wouldn't be surprised if they granted it to him for all the times we've granted asylum to Putin's enemies... Plus, in the words of Putin earlier today, Russia has never extradited anyone and doesn't plan to do so.

Of course Putin earlier publicly announced that Snowden can stay on condition that he 'stops all leaks'. I think what that means is, 'Stop leaking this shit to the public... we've got some of our own people who would be much more interested in appropriating whatever information you stole'.


----------



## Scotth (Jul 1, 2013)

It wouldn't surprised me if Putin eventually hands him over.  Why would Putin put in the stop leaking criteria if he didn't want an out?  You know Snowden can't keep his mouth shut because he wants to be the story.  Putin will eventually get the data that Snowden stole and when Snowden leaks more information.  Boom deals off your going back and Putin negotiates a backroom deal with Obama in exchange for Snowden.  Putin will win twice.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 1, 2013)

Scotth said:


> It wouldn't surprised me if Putin eventually hands him over.  Why would Putin put in the stop leaking criteria if he didn't want an out?  You know Snowden can't keep his mouth shut because he wants to be the story.  Putin will eventually get the data that Snowden stole and when Snowden leaks more information.  Boom deals off your going back and Putin negotiates a backroom deal with Obama in exchange for Snowden.  Putin will win twice.



Yep. That sounds exactly like something Putin would do... and something Obama would entertain.

I can imagine the meeting now.


----------



## JBS (Jul 1, 2013)

Putin won't make a deal with Obama.  He doesn't respect Obama, and he doesn't want to do anything that might prevent another rat from coming to him.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 2, 2013)

Hey now, don't ruin the Hollywood movie fantasy... we need another good political thriller.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 25, 2013)

Speaking of Hollywood.  Look who is in THIS video!


----------



## CQB (Oct 26, 2013)

I've been following this issue for the duration and its been an interesting discussion. It's been going on for years if the EU Report on Echelon is anything to go by, Google it as its freely available. Privacy. There is an expectation of it, but not, as most leave the last bit out, if you are involved in criminal activity. So are we all involved in criminal activity now? The answer is no I would imagine for everyone here, but what if shit comes up trumps? A case can be built with the information the alphabets can get, dig? Anyone been to Utah lately? If any government one fine day said, "ok folks we are going to require every one of you to have a personal tracking device." Can you imagine the shitstorm? Well it's happened, we gave up without a fight, not even a fucking whimper. 
Your average guy is toast when it comes to this, but there are measures you can take if you want to.


----------



## compforce (Oct 27, 2013)

CQB said:


> I've been following this issue for the duration and its been an interesting discussion. It's been going on for years if the EU Report on Echelon is anything to go by, Google it as its freely available. Privacy. There is an expectation of it, but not, as most leave the last bit out, if you are involved in criminal activity. So are we all involved in criminal activity now? The answer is no I would imagine for everyone here, but what if shit comes up trumps? A case can be built with the information the alphabets can get, dig? Anyone been to Utah lately? If any government one fine day said, "ok folks we are going to require every one of you to have a personal tracking device." Can you imagine the shitstorm? Well it's happened, we gave up without a fight, not even a fucking whimper.
> Your average guy is toast when it comes to this, but there are measures you can take if you want to.


 

And then there was this...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-roads-black-boxes-20131027,0,6090226.story#axzz2ixo1QGj0

Let's track cars everywhere they go to "tax" them, never mind that they have GPS locators, that's for added verification (where's the tin hat smiley?)


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 27, 2013)

I don't agree with the U.S gov spying on both U.S citizens minding their own business and spying on friendly countries. Our stock has sunk so low.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 27, 2013)

CQB said:


> I've been following this issue for the duration and its been an interesting discussion. It's been going on for years if the EU Report on Echelon is anything to go by, Google it as its freely available. Privacy. There is an expectation of it, but not, as most leave the last bit out, if you are involved in criminal activity. So are we all involved in criminal activity now? The answer is no I would imagine for everyone here, but what if shit comes up trumps? A case can be built with the information the alphabets can get, dig? Anyone been to Utah lately? If any government one fine day said, "ok folks we are going to require every one of you to have a personal tracking device." Can you imagine the shitstorm? Well it's happened, we gave up without a fight, not even a fucking whimper.
> Your average guy is toast when it comes to this, but there are measures you can take if you want to.



Like a cell phone or something :wall:.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 27, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't agree with the U.S gov spying on both U.S citizens minding their own business and spying on friendly countries. Our stock has sunk so low.



Those friendly countries spy on us daily, industrial espionage.

Those countries also have employees who sell/give military data to third parties (Turkey for example), finding a hole lets us plug it.

Too fucking bad.


----------



## CQB (Oct 28, 2013)

compforce said:


> And then there was this...
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-roads-black-boxes-20131027,0,6090226.story#axzz2ixo1QGj0
> 
> Let's track cars everywhere they go to "tax" them, never mind that they have GPS locators, that's for added verification (where's the tin hat smiley?)


A little off topic but I'm seeing an insurance and lawyer bonanza here. Previously noted was the capability of examining crash data, let alone the feature creep you identify


----------



## RetPara (Oct 28, 2013)

The automotive black b0x stuff is a very strong candidate to be split out of this thread into it's own.

I'm (for all practical purposes) no longer an active member of the intell community.  The damage that Snowden has done to foreign collection efforts is going to take decades to repair.  The opposing intelligence services, those of the non-committed countries have got to be be laughing their ass off at the US Intell Community now.  Those that we have had sharing relationships with for decades will probably be closing & locking the door to us for some time in the future.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2013)

RetPara said:


> The automotive black b0x stuff is a very strong candidate to be split out of this thread into it's own.
> 
> I'm (for all practical purposes) no longer an active member of the intell community.  The damage that Snowden has done to foreign collection efforts is going to take decades to repair.  The opposing intelligence services, those of the non-committed countries have got to be be laughing their ass off at the US Intell Community now.  Those that we have had sharing relationships with for decades will probably be closing & locking the door to us for some time in the future.


Same thing (loss of data sharing) happened when Carter was President, HUMINT is a large part of the process, and (most) countries try to protect the data.  There was a story about Turkey giving Iran source info, so tapping cell-phones would (I hope) allow us to warn compromised sources.

Snowden screwed us over, and I hope he enjoys exile.  I also hope they audit his folks for the next 20 years.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 28, 2013)

I think the new stuff about us spying on allies is funny. Of course we are spying on them, they would spy on us just the same if they had the capability. It cracks me up how Merkel bitches about it, because I doubt the Germans are spying on anyone.


----------



## JHD (Oct 28, 2013)

We should absolutely be spying on those outside the US borders, but we shouldn't let them find out about it...spying on domestic citizens within our borders though, no no no, not without a warrant.

As to Snowden, I am ambivalent about his punishment.  In the telling, he let regular everyday citizens know what it's government was doing to them without their knowledge.  Others have tried to raise it within the proper chain of command and were frozen out and shut down, and branded liars.  Yes, he broke the law, but I don't think he committed the acts of a traitor.  JMOO.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2013)

JHD said:


> We should absolutely be spying on those outside the US borders, but we shouldn't let them find out about it...spying on domestic citizens within our borders though, no no no, not without a warrant.
> 
> As to Snowden, I am ambivalent about his punishment.  In the telling, he let regular everyday citizens know what it's government was doing to them without their knowledge.  Others have tried to raise it within the proper chain of command and were frozen out and shut down, and branded liars.  Yes, he broke the law, but I don't think he committed the acts of a traitor.  JMOO.


I would agree with you, had he stopped there.  He found most of his data by accident; his plan was to steal as much as he could, sell it, live off his profits.  

Hope he enjoys Russia(?).


----------



## JHD (Oct 28, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I would agree with you, had he stopped there.  He found most of his data by accident; his plan was to steal as much as he could, sell it, live off his profits.
> 
> Hope he enjoys Russia(?).



But has he profited from it?  It doesn't seem so.  He hasn't sold his life story yet, and there seems to have been sufficient time for a book and movie deal to happen. He also hasn't been granting interviews or staying (or trying to stay) in the spotlight.

I am thinking he might have also headed to China/Russia, as he knew his choices of where to flee would be limited.  I also think if he had this grand plan to make money from it, he would have been better organized with an exit plan.  But again, JMOO.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2013)

JHD said:


> But has he profited from it?  It doesn't seem so.  He hasn't sold his life story yet, and there seems to have been sufficient time for a book and movie deal to happen. He also hasn't been granting interviews or staying (or trying to stay) in the spotlight.
> 
> I am thinking he might have also headed to China/Russia, as he knew his choices of where to flee would be limited.  I also think if he had this grand plan to make money from it, he would have been better organized with an exit plan.  But again, JMOO.


IIRC his grand plan was to seek asylum in Iceland, things went to fast for him to get there.

How can you say he hasn't profited?  Do you think he gave the intel to China and Russia for free?


----------



## JHD (Oct 28, 2013)

SOWT said:


> IIRC his grand plan was to seek asylum in Iceland, things went to fast for him to get there.
> 
> How can you say he hasn't profited?  Do you think he gave the intel to China and Russia for free?



Now, yes, maybe he is lying, but he is insisting that he has not provided material to them.  Given that China and Russia didn't really want to allow him to stay in their respective countries,  I will cautiously say that maybe I believe him.  Should our country be on guard in the event he did share?  Absolutely, but we are already supposed to be in protective mode anyway.

And, Maybe I am wrong, but I am guessing that you are assuming he gave our info away (not illogical, by any means) but don't know for sure anymore than the rest of us do.  And I am sure that if you did know for certain, you couldn't say anyway.   Is there anything you can point to to say that he definitively shared top secret info with China/Russia that has been brought to light?  I am asking because I have honestly not seen anything that indicates that he did.  I also think the fact that he shared his story with the media to out  the actions of the US Govt adds to his credibility.

Time will tell.


----------



## CQB (Oct 28, 2013)

JHD said:


> We should absolutely be spying on those outside the US borders, but we shouldn't let them find out about it...spying on domestic citizens within our borders though, no no no, not without a warrant.
> 
> As to Snowden, I am ambivalent about his punishment.  In the telling, he let regular everyday citizens know what it's government was doing to them without their knowledge.  Others have tried to raise it within the proper chain of command and were frozen out and shut down, and branded liars.  Yes, he broke the law, but I don't think he committed the acts of a traitor.  JMOO.



I was going to post similar. Its a given that, as noted above, all nations watch each other and it's expected I guess, but an entire population? The guy has been clever and better behaved than a couple of other notable bumbling idiots. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/w...cret-files-to-russia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2013)

He definitely did this leak better than Manning did.


----------



## JHD (Oct 29, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> He definitely did this leak better than Manning did.



I definitely consider Manning a traitor.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 29, 2013)

I think the overall point is not that what he did was in his view morally right or wrong, but more so that he knew it was illegal and did it anyway. I personally am glad that he exposed these programs, as I believe the programs are illegal. There is a reason for the constitution, and this government is not IMO adhering to it.

However, I do not think Snowden went about it the right way, and do think the reactions would have been different if he had brought this stuff public here in the USA and took the very public approach here in the states. Although I cannot fault him for his wanting to not be tossed into a Max security prison with the key tossed away.

Manning IMHO, is a very different subject, and he is a traitor, and although Snowden is a traitor to this government as well, I think their actions and reasons were very different.  

Snowden has a massive amount of data, that will hurt this country on all levels, the US gov, has admitted that, however, he was very careful of what he released. Manning, simply data-mined and released in mass, without caring who or how it would effect people/operations.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm not sure Snowden did what he did for the profit motive.  I think he is a true believer in what he did and thinks of himself as a common man super hero.  The problem is everything after the first story he leaked had nothing to do with protecting American.  Greenwald he is all about getting paid.

Germany's indignation is funny as hell.  They have a top10 intelligence agency and I'm sure they don't spy on anyone in Europe or the US.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> however, he was very careful of what he released.



Snowden isn't careful in what he released.  He gave copies of all the documents to multiple reports who have spread the data out even further, not to mention we have no idea if that information was compromised by China and now Russia.  They aren't dumping the data in mass because that would be the end of the story.  They want the trickle trickle of data to keep the story alive longer.  They release data related to who ever the US Government might be dealing with in the near future.


----------



## JHD (Oct 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> I think the overall point is not that what he did was in his view morally right or wrong, but more so that he knew it was illegal and did it anyway. I personally am glad that he exposed these programs, as I believe the programs are illegal. There is a reason for the constitution, and this government is not IMO adhering to it.
> 
> However, I do not think Snowden went about it the right way, and do think the reactions would have been different if he had brought this stuff public here in the USA and took the very public approach here in the states. Although I cannot fault him for his wanting to not be tossed into a Max security prison with the key tossed away.
> 
> ...



Remember reading this back in June.  I don't blame him for not going to the press here, or through "proper channels."  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...istleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 29, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Snowden isn't careful in what he released.  He gave copies of all the documents to multiple reports who have spread the data out even further, not to mention we have no idea if that information was compromised by China and now Russia.  They aren't dumping the data in mass because that would be the end of the story.  They want the trickle trickle of data to keep the story alive longer.  They release data related to who ever the US Government might be dealing with in the near future.



I can only go off of the open source media. From what I can see the guardian has a large amount of data that the screened before release. The guardian and Snowden claimed that he had a lot more data, that has been heavily encrypted/secured. My digging around doesn't show any claims that snowden released data to anyone other than the guardian, China and Russia included. 

Now I get what you are alluding to, and agree that it is very possible. But haven't seen any reports that support that any of it actually has happend. 

Not to say those reports are not.out there, I just haven't seen them.


----------



## JHD (Oct 29, 2013)

NY Times and Washington Post say the same, again FWIW.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> I personally am glad that he exposed these programs, as I believe the programs are illegal.



What do you know about the programs? Most of the PPTs seen online contained markings that its compromise would cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> I can only go off of the open source media. From what I can see the guardian has a large amount of data that the screened before release. The guardian and Snowden claimed that he had a lot more data, that has been heavily encrypted/secured. My digging around doesn't show any claims that snowden released data to anyone other than the guardian, China and Russia included.
> 
> Now I get what you are alluding to, and agree that it is very possible. But haven't seen any reports that support that any of it actually has happend.
> 
> Not to say those reports are not.out there, I just haven't seen them.



I agree the Russian/China thing is just allegations.  Well ignoring each countries history for espionage, how hard is it for either country to say to him give us a copy of everything or we hand you over to the FBI.  Putin would love to stick his finger in America's eye but the guy is former KGB, does anyone seriously believe he let Snowden into his country without getting that information?

Snowden obviously leaked to Greenwald but Snowden also leaked his documents to Barton Gellman from the Washington Post but Barton has gotten away from leaking documents after the Prism story.  Then Greenwald's husband was detained in the UK when it was assumed that he mulled classified documents to Germany's Laura Poitras, who is a film maker.

I believe Putin will eventually hand over Snowden,  I'm not sure if he will make a deal with Obama.  It wouldn't surprise me if Putin hands over Snowden after the 2016 election in a similar way as the Iranian's released the hostages after Reagan was sworn in.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> What do you know about the programs? Most of the PPTs seen online contained markings that its compromise would cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.



No I don't know anything about the programs outside of whats been reported. I am not implying that the release of the data is not costly, and or setting it back, making things difficult, etc. I just have doubts that the entire intel community is ruined and or decades behind b/c of what Snowden leaked.

As for what was/is taking place domestically, I think it should be destroyed, as it is illegal and unconstitutional. I could careless what or who we spy on OCONUS.

I don't feel my rights to privacy should be violated b/c some geek is trying to track a suspected terrorist.  And with everything else, once programs like this are common, they are used for other reasons, and I really do not think that is okay, at all.

The idea that we should find a "balance" to maintaining privacy and having security, is simply stupid IMO. No where in the constitution does it say my rights can be violated by the government, so that they can protect me, from the boogie man of the decade. I value my rights, and I think if I have to face a bad boogie man, in order to keep my rights, then it is well worth it. For the rest of the population who think its okay to violate my rights, so they can live in a false state of security, well they can take that shit somewheres else, as the constitution is not there to only protect the masses, but also the little guy.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2013)

JAB said:


> As for what was/is taking place domestically, I think it should be destroyed, as it is illegal and unconstitutional. I could careless what or who we spy on OCONUS.



Federal judges disagreed.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 29, 2013)

lindy said:


> Federal judges disagreed.



It's my understanding that many lawsuits have yet to be rulled on, and that the only thing upheld was the need for a warrant to tap phones, unless an emergency situation?  I don't think the data mining has even been addressed yet, has it?


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

What worries me about this situation, as if there isn't enough already, is future applications.  

So they are mining this ton of data.  Let's say, for a moment, that we believe that the NSA is not doing anything with our data right now.  I am thinking that the powers that be within the NSA are working on future applications where who knows what additional data will be gathered, and with any data that they already have in storage, how it could be analyzed in new and different ways in the future.

Let's also imagine for a moment that our politicians are well meaning and are not power grabbing buffoons.  I think that there is a real possibility that the pols charged with signing off on this stuff cannot even comprehend what the NSA is telling them they want to do.  I think the technicality of the process and what metadata actually is, is so over their heads and they think they understand and "get" it, but they really don't.  But the officials at the NSA make it sound really good, helpful, and sexy that the pols say, "yes, we need to do this."  We are on a very slippery slope.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 30, 2013)

JHD said:


> This post



Interesting points. I need to mull it over to figure out how much I agree or disagree with it.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 30, 2013)

I wouldn't hold my breath hoping the current courts will over turn these laws.  The Scotus threw out a challenge to the 2008 FISA Act amendment on warrantless wire tapping because the parties didn't have standing in the case.  Meaning if you can't prove the government used warrantless wire taps against you can't challenge the law.  So who will ever be able to challenge the law?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-court-surveillance-idUSBRE91P0JS20130226

The only real solution is congress to revoke the powers it gave the executive branch.  Their has been a few people attempting to change the current situation but there certainly isn't enough support out there to get anything passed.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

*NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html


It  just keeps on keeping on...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2013)

I really can't believe that there is any support for this kind of data collection stuff. No warrant,  no reason to believe you did anything wrong, just going to capture it and hold it until they need it/use it. That's no different than taking your mail, reading it, making a copy and holding on to it.

And people are okay with that?


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

JAB said:


> I really can't believe that there is any support for this kind of data collection stuff. No warrant,  no reason to believe you did anything wrong, just going to capture it and hold it until they need it/use it. That's no different than taking your mail, reading it, making a copy and holding on to it.
> 
> And people are okay with that?



Now, JAB, you shouldn't be so upset if you have nothing to hide...:wall:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2013)

Not going to hate that, but damn. I guess privacy is only important if you have something to hide. How much your bills are, what kind medical ailments you might have, private pictures and any other thing you may hold close, that you may not want some geek in the NSA looking at. But as long as its legal, and I am not hiding any terror plots, I shouldnt worry about it...

I am disgusted that more NSA employees / contractors have not come forward. I guess that paycheck and clearance is more important than obeying that oath...


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

You know I was kidding, right?  The potential monitoring of emails/phone calls equates to having your home bugged by the govt, having them opening your mail, invading your bedroom, etc.  I think people are outraged, but not as many as I would expect are being vocal about it.  As a society, we are so complacent it is scary.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2013)

JAB said:


> It's my understanding that many lawsuits have yet to be rulled on, and that the only thing upheld was the need for a warrant to tap phones, unless an emergency situation?  I don't think the data mining has even been addressed yet, has it?



FISC apparently gave the go ahead, no?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 30, 2013)

JHD said:


> You know I was kidding, right?  The potential monitoring of emails/phone calls equates to having your home bugged by the govt, having them opening your mail, invading your bedroom, etc.  I think people are outraged, but not as many as I would expect are being vocal about it.  As a society, we are so complacent it is scary.


Blackmail to be used against you at the appropriate time.

Big Brother is watching, we only need monitors in the house now.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2013)

JAB said:


> I really can't believe that there is any support for this kind of data collection stuff. No warrant,  no reason to believe you did anything wrong, just going to capture it and hold it until they need it/use it. That's no different than taking your mail, reading it, making a copy and holding on to it.
> 
> And people are okay with that?



Actually, it would be like seeing a letter with the address on it and copying that information.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2013)

lindy said:


> FISC apparently gave the go ahead, no?


FISC applies to domestic Intel collection on US citizens?

Again, I could careless what we do OCONUS.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2013)

JHD said:


> You know I was kidding, right?  The potential monitoring of emails/phone calls equates to having your home bugged by the govt, having them opening your mail, invading your bedroom, etc.  I think people are outraged, but not as many as I would expect are being vocal about it.  As a society, we are so complacent it is scary.


Yeah I knew you were joking, this issue just gets under my skin. I am more or less ranting.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

A question for the IT people here, based on a real life experience.  So me and a girlfriend are emailing about a pair of fabulous Tori burch sandals we both liked.  I am on Gmail.  Bear with me, the details are relevant.  Subsequently, I was online shopping for said Tori Burch sandals.  First, to Nordstrom.  They were sold out.  I didn't know where else to look.  So I log into Facebook, and lo and behold, said Tori Burch sandals, in the color I was looking for at Nordstrom, was right there with a link to Shopbop.com.  Yes, I did get the sandals, but I digress from my question, which is:

with all the information coming out about the NSA having access to information about our emails, and getting information, or attempting to get information, from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Lavabit, etc.,to me it sounds like the NSA could determine content of an email based on key words.  I promise the question is coming...

So in the email to my girlfriend, about shoes, and I said something like, "those shoes are the bomb, and I would kill for them.  I will start a holy war to get them as Nordstrom doesn't have them", couldn't the NSA know enough about that email to say they want to read it, even though it is harmless?

That is my question.  Ultimately, aren't they reading the emails, in effect?  Or not?


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 30, 2013)

Facebook and Google are for sure, they have teams of guys that create algorithm's to sort through all our data and send us ads pertaining to what we like.


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

The email isn't what caused those to pop up on Facebook.  It was the visit to Nordstrom's web site.  Note the little facebook icon down at the bottom that allows you to "Like" the site.  That icon is pulled from facebook so that it doesn't need you to log in.  That means that facebook knows the URL of the page you are on (the address).  When you did a search, facebook noted that YOU went to a page with Tori Burch.  For example, the address I get when I search for "my house" in the address bar is http://shop.nordstrom.com/sr?origin=keywordsearch&contextualcategoryid=2375500&keyword=my house

Facebook now knows that I searched for "my house" and will tailor the ad experience on their page and all of the embedded ads in other sites to it.

It's the same reason that hitting a page that has advertisements from Amazon on it will result in you seeing that same product in your suggested items on the Amazon web site.  One wrong click and you're branded for life...until the next wrong click.  I'll give you an example, I was searching for a Christmas present for a friend last year.  It happens to be a female friend.  I looked at some makeup gift bag thingies on Amazon before buying her a new pool cue.  For the next 6 months, every time I looked at the Drudge report, the amazon ads there were suggesting I buy a purse or feminine hygiene products and such.  I finally had to call and tell them that I was NOT the Troll and they stopped (not really, but had to take a shot at someone).  It wasn't until I bought some men's cologne from them that they stopped with all the gurly ads.

And yes, google reads any gmail and facebook reads your profile.  Also, lately facebook has been aiming to track where the mouse is on the screen so they can tell what you are reading (if you tend to follow your eyes with the mouse) or what you _almost_ clicked.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> Facebook and Google are for sure, they have teams of guys that create algorithm's to sort through all our data and send us ads pertaining to what we like.



That is exactly my fear.  Based upon the ads popping up like that, they seem to not only be scanning emails for keywords, shopping habits, etc., but somehow Google and Facebook are linked together to be able to do this.  And I am sure there are more links between them and other services that aren't as visible or obvious.


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

JHD said:


> That is exactly my fear.  Based upon the ads popping up like that, they seem to not only be scanning emails for keywords, shopping habits, etc., but somehow Google and Facebook are linked together to be able to do this.  And I am sure there are more links between them and other services that aren't as visible or obvious.


 
You'll love this one then:
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/10/30/facebook-considers-vast-increase-in-data-collection/


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

compforce said:


> The email isn't what caused those to pop up on Facebook.  It was the visit to Nordstrom's web site.  Note the little facebook icon down at the bottom that allows you to "Like" the site.  That icon is pulled from facebook so that it doesn't need you to log in.  That means that facebook knows the URL of the page you are on (the address).  When you did a search, facebook noted that YOU went to a page with Tori Burch.  For example, the address I get when I search for "my house" in the address bar is http://shop.nordstrom.com/sr?origin=keywordsearch&contextualcategoryid=2375500&keyword=my house
> 
> Facebook now knows that I searched for "my house" and will tailor the ad experience on their page and all of the embedded ads in other sites to it.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  Excellent explanation.  So how does the Drudge Report know that you have been on Amazon and vice versa?  Is all of that tied into the Like button as well?


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2013)

Cookies!!!


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

compforce said:


> You'll love this one then:
> http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/10/30/facebook-considers-vast-increase-in-data-collection/



If Facebook can do this, and everything else other companies are doing as discussed above, I can't believe the NSA doesn't have the ability to read, or at least determine content of, emails.  Maybe I am overly paranoid.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

Ahhh.  Thank you.



lindy said:


> Cookies!!!


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

no, amazon pays their ad partners to put ads on their page.  If you click on the ad, then the partner gets paid a few cents.  If you pay attention to ads, you'll see a ton of amazon ads across the web.  These are technically "embedded content" so it comes from amazon, not from Drudge.  Drudge just drops in some custom code and it just "works".

Here's one from the page right now, this one is from the Ad Choices network.  If I click on that ad, then any other pages that are partnered with Ad choices would start showing me related products.  I'd get products from LG, I'd get mobile phone ads, I might even get a few bicycling related ads.  And a small file called a tracking cookie would be placed in my internet folders to identify me to the network any time an ad needed to be delivered.  Facebook and Google are light years ahead of the rest of them though, mainly because they can tie the ad clicks to your profile.  That allows them to get even more specific with their ads, which is why something that is free like Google made so much money selling advertising.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

compforce said:


> no, amazon pays their ad partners to put ads on their page.  If you click on the ad, then the partner gets paid a few cents.  If you pay attention to ads, you'll see a ton of amazon ads across the web.  These are technically "embedded content" so it comes from amazon, not from Drudge.  Drudge just drops in some custom code and it just "works".
> 
> Here's one from the page right now, this one is from the Ad Choices network.  If I click on that ad, then any other pages that are partnered with Ad choices would start showing me related products.  I'd get products from LG, I'd get mobile phone ads, I might even get a few bicycling related ads.  And a small file called a tracking cookie would be placed in my internet folders to identify me to the network any time an ad needed to be delivered.  Facebook and Google are light years ahead of the rest of them though, mainly because they can tie the ad clicks to your profile.  That allows them to get even more specific with their ads, which is why something that is free like Google made so much money selling advertising.
> 
> View attachment 9566



Learning a lot.  Thank you, again.


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

JHD said:


> If Facebook can do this, and everything else other companies are doing as discussed above, I can't believe the NSA doesn't have the ability to read, or at least determine content of, emails.  Maybe I am overly paranoid.


 
Privacy is dead.  Forget about it, it's completely dead.  There's a company out in the mid west (Utah I think) that started buying information on people in the early 80's and now knows just about everything about just about everybody.  Purchasing habits, shopping habits, the bank you use, credit cards you own, how much you paid for your house (and anything else that is public record).  I'm a database guy/data warehouse guy.  That's my specialty within IT.  Let me tell you how deep the rabbit hole goes.  Do you have any customer loyalty cards?  You know, best buy, Kroger, etc?  If so, then every single time you use that card for a purchase, they know exactly what you bought, how you paid for it, where you live, etc.  They have a buying profile for you.  So then they take that profile and tie it into their stores on Amazon, *poof* even if you NEVER set up an account on Amazon, the first time you do, the suggestions are being tailored specifically based on your buying cycle and type of products that they know you purchased.  You didn't think they actually gave you those cards for free stuff and discounts without getting something back, did you?  Right now you are thinking "but....but... they have privacy policies that say that they won't share my data"   Read the fine print.  There's usually something in there that says "we will only share your data with our affiliates or partners"  Guess who they affiliate themselves with....


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

aha, here we go, just got one.  This is an Amazon ad.  Notice that they are part of the ad choices network as well (see the blue arrow up in the corner?)   So I have tracking cookies blocked.  It knows that I looked at the phone ad because I haven't closed my browser yet.  Here's a related product that is a category match, namely personal electronics.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 30, 2013)

I'm refraining from declaring more jihads on the uniform office at work, mother nature and parking wardens for the mean time.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 30, 2013)

compforce said:


> Privacy is dead.  Forget about it, it's completely dead.  There's a company out in the mid west (Utah I think) that started buying information on people in the early 80's and now knows just about everything about just about everybody.  Purchasing habits, shopping habits, the bank you use, credit cards you own, how much you paid for your house (and anything else that is public record).  I'm a database guy/data warehouse guy.  That's my specialty within IT.  Let me tell you how deep the rabbit hole goes.  Do you have any customer loyalty cards?  You know, best buy, Kroger, etc?  If so, then every single time you use that card for a purchase, they know exactly what you bought, how you paid for it, where you live, etc.  They have a buying profile for you.  So then they take that profile and tie it into their stores on Amazon, *poof* even if you NEVER set up an account on Amazon, the first time you do, the suggestions are being tailored specifically based on your buying cycle and type of products that they know you purchased.  You didn't think they actually gave you those cards for free stuff and discounts without getting something back, did you?  Right now you are thinking "but....but... they have privacy policies that say that they won't share my data"   Read the fine print.  There's usually something in there that says "we will only share your data with our affiliates or partners"  Guess who they affiliate themselves with....




I consider that every website I visit, has been handed my business card. I was not aware how deeply they go. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 30, 2013)

Soon it will be like this....not big government....but business.


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I consider that every website I visit, has been handed my business card. I was not aware how deeply they go. Thanks for the insight.


 
That's just the surface.  The depths would scare anyone.  Example:  psychology says that like minded individuals will tend to associate with each other, therefore if my FB friends like something, there's a pretty good chance that I will like it as well.  So if several of my "friends" click on a specific ad, FB will then present ME with the same ad, even though I have given them no reason to think that I would be interested.

Anyhow, enough for one night.  and we've moved at about a 45 degree angle off-topic.  I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...


----------



## compforce (Oct 30, 2013)

Kraut783 said:


> Soon it will be like this....not big government....but business.


 
Google is already testing that...  http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm&r=36&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(20130813.PD. AND Google.ASNM.)&OS=ISD/20130813 AND AN/Google&RS=(ISD/20130813 AND AN/Google)



> 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving pupil dilation information from the head mounted gaze tracking device along with the scene images, the pupil dilation information indicating a pupil dilation of the user while viewing the external scenes, the pupil dilation information received at the server via the network.
> 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: inferring an emotional state of the user while viewing the external scenes based at least in part upon the pupil dilation information; and storing an emotional state indication associated with one or more of the identified items.
> 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining which, if any, of the identified items within the external scenes viewed by the user are advertisements; and charging advertisers associated with the advertisements based at least in part on a per gaze basis.
> 8. The method of claim 7, wherein charging the advertisers further comprises charging a given advertiser associated with a given advertisement based at least in part upon whether the user looked directly at the given advertisement as determined by the gaze direction information and how long the user looked at the given advertisement.


----------



## JHD (Oct 30, 2013)

It is truly scary how our privacy has eroded.  I have done lots of work in privacy, but on the policy and procedure side, not the IT side.  My role was to implement policies and procedures to ensure that employees did not abuse their privilege with our customer information, opt outs, and things of that nature, and customer advocacy if there was an issue with their information.

On the opposite side, I also had to work on Know Your Customer stuff, which is in direct contravention with privacy, and is another whole can of scary worms.

Our society  has become so dependent on  technology, we are making it incredibly easy for businesses and .gov to intrude on our lives.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 30, 2013)

[quote="JHD, post: 312393, member: 5922"Our society  has become so dependent on  technology, we are making it incredibly easy for businesses and .gov to intrude on our lives.[/quote]

Fast and easy for businesses......slow and hard for governments....


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 31, 2013)

Heard about this on the radio the other day, brings it to new levels of creepy.


> We've all had those moments of Facebook-induced desperation — skulking around an ex's profile to see if they've ended their rebound relationship, or are gleefully posing with their new sweetheart in Cabo. But it appears the social network knows more about your love life than just who you're stalking.
> 
> So says Facebook senior engineer Lars Backstrom and Cornell University computer scientist Jon Kleinberg, who created an algorithm that not only identifies a user's real-life romantic partner, but can also determine the likelihood of their impending breakup.
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2426572,00.asp


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 31, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> Heard about this on the radio the other day, brings it to new levels of creepy.


It was an interesting story, that made a lot of sense.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2013)

Well that didn't take long.

Mr Snowden misses the good ol U.S. of A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/world/europe/snowden-appeals-to-us-for-clemency.html?hp&_r=1&


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2013)

RackMaster said:


> Heard about this on the radio the other day, brings it to new levels of creepy.



Love the picture!!!


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 2, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Well that didn't take long.
> 
> Mr Snowden misses the good ol U.S. of A.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/world/europe/snowden-appeals-to-us-for-clemency.html?hp&_r=1&



The Russian winter defeated the Nazis. There was no way in hell that pussy Snowden was going to cut it.


----------



## Florida173 (Nov 2, 2013)

lindy said:


> Love the picture!!!
> 
> View attachment 9582



LOL.. I tend to like using ORA.. Although Gephi is coming along nicely. Just a pain trying to get ORA off of only R&D machines and get cleared for dodiis..


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> The Russian winter defeated the Nazis. There was no way in hell that pussy Snowden was going to cut it.


That is pretty much the way I figured it out, that and his new found IT job probably let him know it wasn't going to be a free ride.


----------



## Swill (Nov 4, 2013)

Why we are letting anyone, ally or not, get away with this grand standing is beyond me. Maybe it would sober them up a little if their capabilities "accidentally" found their way into the open. But we won't do it. Our foreign policy is weak right now.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2013)

Swill said:


> Why we are letting anyone, ally or not, get away with this grand standing is beyond me.



Because the Democrats would lose the election if Obama bowed to a German leader.


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2013)

Security vs. capitalism...ready...FIGHT!

http://qz.com/147313/ciscos-disastr...mpanies-out-of-a-trillion-dollar-opportunity/



> Cisco chief executive John Chambers said on the company’s earnings call that he believes other American technology companies will be similarly affected. Cisco saw orders in Brazil drop 25% and Russia drop 30%. Both Brazil and Russia have expressed official outrage over NSA spying and have announced plans to curb the NSA’s reach.
> Analysts had expected Cisco’s business in emerging markets to increase 6%, but instead it dropped 12%, sending shares of Cisco plunging 10% in after-hours trading.


----------



## Dame (Nov 17, 2013)

It's perfect. The nanny state has their nose in everyone's business so business loses profits.


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2013)

Even if Cisco is looking for a scapegoat...perception is reality. Our country is built upon freedom and the free market and both are colliding right now. I'm sure no one has looked at history and witnessed how countries with totalitarian governments also dominated their economy and while this is just a fraction of a worst case scenario, it is hard to avoid the parallels.

Sleep well, Citizens.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 17, 2013)

Swill said:


> Why we are letting anyone, ally or not, get away with this grand standing is beyond me. Maybe it would sober them up a little if their capabilities "accidentally" found their way into the open. But we won't do it. Our foreign policy is weak right now.



It's the dynamics of a two-level game.  To win their domestic game, they have to act like this.  But they're probably singing a different tune at the national level.  But yeah, everyone does it (looking at you, Europe).

http://hitthewoodline.com/politics/2013/11/12/much-ado-about-intel


----------



## JHD (Nov 17, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> It's the dynamics of a two-level game.  To win their domestic game, they have to act like this.  But they're probably singing a different tune at the national level.  But yeah, everyone does it (looking at you, Europe).
> 
> http://hitthewoodline.com/politics/2013/11/12/much-ado-about-intel



And don't we have to monitor other countries, including our allies?  It seems that they could harm us even more than our enemies, were they to turn, with their knowledge of our intelligence.


----------



## CQB (Dec 17, 2013)

As most here are defenders of the Second Amendment right, how does that now sit with the decision that the US federal Court has ruled that NSAs' data gathering is unconstitutional?


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 17, 2013)

CQB said:


> As most here are defenders of the Second Amendment right, how does that now sit with the decision that the US federal Court has ruled that NSAs' data gathering is unconstitutional?


There was a great interview with a former White House Counsel on NPR (I cannot, for the life of me, remember the guy's name) who outlined why the case would likely not survive a Supreme Court challenge

Some of the salient points:
-The information gathered is meta-data, not actual phone calls or email logs, and therefore is not akin to a search (and not protected under the 4th amendment)
-Smith vs. Maryland already grants the government the ability to record this info
-Database searches of the recorded information has to go through a legal review process and has checks and balances in place (he didn't go into exact details, but basically said that FISA courts oversee this stuff)

Here's an NPR article that addresses some of these http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...bulk-phone-record-collection-unconstitutional

Still not sure what to think about it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2013)

I've said and thought that it was unconstitutional from the very beginning. I really don't understand how anyone who has read the 4th & 5th amendments, can say that it  is constitutional.


----------



## compforce (Dec 17, 2013)

The judge from the federal district court stated that Smith v Maryland doesn't apply as there is a huge difference between gathering data on switched networks (POTS) and the metadata that is provided by cell phones and cell carriers.  He stated that the decision was based on different circumstances in a different technology.

FISA oversees it, but the argument is that they are rubber stamping things without knowing the ramifications.

Either way, I think it is immaterial.  Privacy has been dead for years.  This is just the government getting in on the game.


----------



## Marine0311 (Dec 17, 2013)

CQB said:


> As most here are defenders of the Second Amendment right, how does that now sit with the decision that the US federal Court has ruled that NSAs' data gathering is unconstitutional?



I am glad. I don't want the gov spying on me in the name of "security".


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 17, 2013)

CQB said:


> As most here are defenders of the Second Amendment right, how does that now sit with the decision that the US federal Court has ruled that NSAs' data gathering is unconstitutional?


It's a 4th Amendment issue.

I think the NSA over reached and the courts will put restrictions on the data.


----------



## AWP (Dec 17, 2013)

One item the talking heads won't bring up, and is worse than the perpetrated deeds IMO, is how a BUNCH of people in gov't (civ and mil) decided any of this was okay. We aren't talking abou unchecked power in the hands of a few, we're talking power and abilities in the hands of thousands and thousands with "oversight" provided by other "believers."

In a sense, UBL and Co. are winning because they have fundamentally altered how we think. Sure, this sort of crap has gone on forever, I've pointed that out, but the scope of these episodes. Whether driven by technology or fear doesn't matter to me, what matters is how widespread and pervasive this has become.


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2013)

CQB said:


> As most here are defenders of the Second Amendment right, how does that now sit with the decision that the US federal Court has ruled that NSAs' data gathering is unconstitutional?



I'm pleased to hear it too.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 17, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> In a sense, UBL and Co. are winning because they have fundamentally altered how we think. S.



I just wrote an essay about just that.


----------



## CQB (Dec 17, 2013)

http://mobile.news.com.au/technolog...unconstitutional/story-fnjwnj25-1226784549122

More here, I take some measures as mods may know. It's not to be a pain either & no, I'm not viewing crazy shit, I'm not OBLs long lost cousin, I'm being practical.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 17, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> I am glad. I don't want the gov spying on me in the name of "security".


 
Too late.


----------



## JBS (Dec 17, 2013)

compforce said:


> The judge from the federal district court stated that Smith v Maryland doesn't apply as there is a huge difference between gathering data on switched networks (POTS) and the metadata that is provided by cell phones and cell carriers.  He stated that the decision was based on different circumstances in a different technology.
> 
> FISA oversees it, but the argument is that they are rubber stamping things without knowing the ramifications.
> 
> Either way, I think it is immaterial.  Privacy has been dead for years.  This is just the government getting in on the game.


Big difference between private corporations spending their dollars gathering information on people for marketing purposes and elements of the US Government compiling unspeakably huge reservoirs of data on the American people with the influence of law behind them, and especially while leveraging things like "patriotism". 

You don't want to be a terrorist do you?  Then hand us the records of all your 3,500,000 service subscribers.   You aren't "with the terrorists", are you?   Then give us all the data on the users of your service.   Never mind that this trips little red flags in the back of your mind, as to whether or not this falls into possible Constitutional issues.  Trust us; we have badges.  Let go of your own personal convictions and fall in line.

In the end, the broader debate is going to be about how much danger and risk the American people are willing to simply live with in exchange for privacy.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 17, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> I just wrote an essay about just that.


I'm interested to read it.


----------



## Brill (Dec 17, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm interested to read it.



X2


----------



## AWP (Jan 17, 2014)

I'm not going to link to the video, and don't think we should because it purportedly contains leaked TS documents, but run over to Youtube when you have an hour+ to kill and watch To Protect and Infect, Part 2. To be fair, when I hear someone talk about "drone murder" I know they are "slightly" biased, but I don't think I can argue withhis technical description(s) of what's going on. Get past his jabs at Republicans and whatnot and just look at the technical aspects of his presentation.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'm not going to link to the video, and don't think we should because it purportedly contains leaked TS documents, but run over to Youtube when you have an hour+ to kill and watch To Protect and Infect, Part 2. To be fair, when I hear someone talk about "drone murder" I know they are "slightly" biased, but I don't think I can argue withhis technical description(s) of what's going on. Get past his jabs at Republicans and whatnot and just look at the technical aspects of his presentation.



Wrist slitting depressing? I wish he would!


----------



## AWP (Jan 17, 2014)

lindy said:


> Wrist slitting depressing? I wish he would!


 
Yeah, the guy's dramatic at times.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Yeah, the guy's dramatic at times.



Lot of talk but not much to back up his claims really.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2014)

@Freefalling and other history buffs will probably enjoy this article how a modern day Paul Revere could be discovered by modern social analysis:

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/


----------



## CQB (Jan 18, 2014)

Is it me or was it edited & started over at about 21 minutes? There seems to be an edit further back too.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 20, 2014)

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-did-not-enjoy-glenn-greenwalds-book-on-edward-snowden-2014-11


----------



## Dame (Nov 20, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-did-not-enjoy-glenn-greenwalds-book-on-edward-snowden-2014-11


Very poorly written article. The one referenced by ABC made more sense and that's saying something.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/11/cia-praise-of-sorts-for-greenwalds-book-on-snowden/


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2014)

Thanks for posting that other article, @Dame. I was on an app  that pulls a bunch of different news organization into one place, and my intent was to directly link the CIA review but was unable to do so through that app.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 8, 2014)

http://nypost.com/2014/12/07/sexy-russian-spy-tried-to-seduce-snowden/

Putin ordered Anna Chapman to seduce Snowden. One can only imagine where those lips have been...


----------



## CQB (Dec 9, 2014)

Certain boffins ie; Bruce Schneier have now identified two more sources of leaks.


----------



## Florida173 (May 7, 2015)

*Latests Update (MAY 7, 2015)*


> WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday ruled that the once-secret National Security Agency program that is systematically collecting Americans’ phone records in bulk is illegal. The decision comes as a fight in Congress is intensifying over whether to end and replace the program, or to extend it without changes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/u...tion-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court.html?_r=0

My opinion on the matter is that it is going to do more harm than good.  People's perception of the injustices happening are typically way worse than the real thing.  We have EO 12333 shoved down our throat on a daily basis in regards of protecting USPERs' Constitutional rights and I believe we absolutely appreciate the importance of it. Any infractions seen are incredibly exceptional because I believe most people are like me in that we value our careers and our freedom outside of the prison system. The oversight and audit system is robust.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 28, 2015)

Court overturns ruling against NSA

Politics at play here. At the Federal level judges are appointed, correct?


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2015)

NavyBuyer said:


> Politics at play here. At the Federal level judges are appointed, correct?



Perhaps they actually looked at the law and ruled accordingly? Not every bench operates like SCOTUS.

The ruling basically says the plaintiffs didn't have standing and couldn't prove injury.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...F1785257EAF004F71E8/$file/14-5004-1570210.pdf

If you read further, the previous ruling was VERY over reaching: just because a judge doesn't agree with the "morality", doesn't make the action illegal.  

Court: NSA spying likely unconstitutional
"The almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user is unlike anything that could be conceived in 1979," he wrote. 

He also concluded that the explosive growth of smartphones means that collecting "metadata" today gives the government much more insight into people's private lives than it did in 1979. 

"The ubiquity of phones has dramatically altered the quantity of information that is available and, more importantly, what that information can tell the government about people's lives," he wrote.  

"Put simply, people in 2013 have an entirely different relationship with their phones than they did thirty-four years ago."

Really?


----------

