A deal for Snowden?

[plague311]

What I keep hearing here is that one would have to be insane (paranoid, you might say) not to put one's trust in officers and agencies of the federal government.

Well that is one of the nicest strawman I think I've seen.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Belief doesn't even have to enter into it. It's extremely simple. Most people accept that there must be secret capabilities and secret weapons for military and intelligence operators if we want to be the safest and the strongest. The compromise we make is that we get to elect representatives that we place our trust in to monitor these programs and make challenges to them when necessary while still maintaining their secrecy. That's not believing or having blind faith, it's just the best we can do. You need to call supporters blind believers for an emotional reason, there's actually no evidence to support your claim that this is what we are doing...

Snowden is proof positive that a $200k independent contractor can easily obtain important gov't secrets, in the form of Powerpoint slides no less, and give them to anyone.

He has revealed that the NSA is harvesting vast amounts of data pertaining to people of no possible relevance to national security.

He has revealed that the NSA was monitoring the private phone calls of an allied head of gov't.

He has revealed that the NSA enticed private security companies to secretly weaken their encryption standards such that they were essentially defrauding their customers.

I have yet to see one tangible argument - one tiny scrap of evidence - that any of this activity has, in any way, addressed the real national security concerns of the US. It amounts to a wholesale waste of resources, turning a bunch of hackers loose to infiltrate whatever they can, without concern for the law or for whether the targets of surveillance have any value.

If that's "the best we can do," then I submit we are all in a lot of trouble, and that continued confidence in the people running this agency is, indeed, blind faith.

 

[cosmicaug]

What I'm trying very patiently to explain to you is that this is not our position. Over and over, I explain that it is up to you to show abuse, a trampling of legal rights, or a threat to democracy. You have your terminology wrong as well, officers and agencies of the government are distinct from elected representatives. In the current system, it is our job to elect representatives to represent what we would do ourselves if we had that power, to monitor the activities of the agencies and officers, as well as other elected representatives.

If I had access to information showing abuse by intelligence agencies and I did disclose it, it would be treason, according to you. Your elected representatives barely know more about what is going on than you do.

Secrecy, is not an end in itself. It is a tool. Much of the time, its purpose is to bypass oversight (the acronym CYA sometimes gets used but it works at all organizational levels).

Or are you still traumatized from reading 1984 in high school and never moved on?

I wouldn't recommend 1984 since it's about were we might be heading rather than were we are. I'd recommend, instead, The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford (though it must be terribly outdated by now).

The skepticism comes from the following: if someone works for intelligence, they are lying. That should be your first assumption and should be adopted as a provisional belief until proven otherwise. Of course, this doesn't mean that it will always be the case. It's only your starting point (just like my starting point when dealing with a webpage somewhere in the Mercola or Mike Adams' web empires is that it is not going to be a source of reliable health information even if some could conceivably slip in every now and then --not that I have ever been able to find it).

 

[BenBurch]

Snowden is proof positive that a $200k independent contractor can easily obtain important gov't secrets, in the form of Powerpoint slides no less, and give them to anyone.

He has revealed that the NSA is harvesting vast amounts of data pertaining to people of no possible relevance to national security.

He has revealed that the NSA was monitoring the private phone calls of an allied head of gov't.

He has revealed that the NSA enticed private security companies to secretly weaken their encryption standards such that they were essentially defrauding their customers.

I have yet to see one tangible argument - one tiny scrap of evidence - that any of this activity has, in any way, addressed the real national security concerns of the US. It amounts to a wholesale waste of resources, turning a bunch of hackers loose to infiltrate whatever they can, without concern for the law or for whether the targets of surveillance have any value.

If that's "the best we can do," then I submit we are all in a lot of trouble, and that continued confidence in the people running this agency is, indeed, blind faith.

Mostly agree!

The bulk data gathering was useless because you simply cannot make any sense of that sort of data. Without a true AI, there is no way to make effective use of this.

And I do not believe that they have an AI.

Yet.

But also Snowden had a choice here. Do this the honorable way, though that was more dangerous for himself, or do this in a way that would do the maximum harm to the maximum number of people and that is what he chose.

 

[Joey McGee]

Snowden is proof positive that a $200k independent contractor can easily obtain important gov't secrets, in the form of Powerpoint slides no less, and give them to anyone.

A quite a horrible sequence of events that allowed it to happen, including an anti-leak software package that was never installed at his location that would have prevented this. He was able to lie to people with higher clearances that he needed their logins to do his job which is how he did this, those people all lost their jobs. So what? People in the military use their training against the United States all the time, snipers changed sides and were killing our people in Afghanistan and Iraq, betrayal, mental illness and treason happens all the time. That's not an argument to stop trying... at all. Improvements will happen. Wow if we had your nerve in the face of the enemy we might as well just give up

He has revealed that the NSA is harvesting vast amounts of data pertaining to people of no possible relevance to national security.

You meant the metadata? This is your opinion... it has been rejected by me, and the administration... good luck getting the program pulled guys

He has revealed that the NSA was monitoring the private phone calls of an allied head of gov't.

And this bothers you? It's too bad they got caught! Look bad to people with no depth or experience... Your problem is that you never consider the other side, or look for it. Poor form...

John Schindler, a former NSA official, noted that planning for the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001 had taken place in Hamburg.

“If 9/11 had happened to Germany and been planned in NY not Hamburg, I’d expect [German] intel to monitor USA top 2 bottom,” he wrote on Twitter.

A German intelligence official, quoted by Die Welt, said: “The Americans did not want to rely exclusively on us after September 11th. That is understandable.”

Another told the newspaper: “Without information from the Americans, there would have been successful terrorist attacks in Germany in the past years.”

Why do you think they were, if true, monitoring her communications then? Perhaps for blackmail information? Or perhaps to understand what decisions they might take in the future that might affect national security?

He has revealed that the NSA enticed private security companies to secretly weaken their encryption standards such that they were essentially defrauding their customers.

Oh boo hoo, Where was the risk damage? What really happened? Are you sure you know the facts? Are you saying it's admitted that they did this?

I have yet to see one tangible argument - one tiny scrap of evidence - that any of this activity has, in any way, addressed the real national security concerns of the US. It amounts to a wholesale waste of resources, turning a bunch of hackers loose to infiltrate whatever they can, without concern for the law or for whether the targets of surveillance have any value.

As I have shown you over and over, you don't even LOOK, any time the government or an expert says it helped, or a member of a panel says it is valuable, or the experts say it put people at risk you IGNORE it. Any "expert" anywhere that says they was no risk, you point to them and whine about abuse, which you have never proved. I am done trying to spoonfeed you what you are unwilling to look for yourself.

If that's "the best we can do," then I submit we are all in a lot of trouble, and that continued confidence in the people running this agency is, indeed, blind faith.

I'm talking about the legal framework of the constitution and the military, you fail miserably trying to make a point here. You've tried to put these two subjects, intelligence failures and the system of government, together. Are you forgetting or conveniently not mentioning that the majority of elected representatives aren't on your side?

 

[Joey McGee]

If I had access to information showing abuse by intelligence agencies and I did disclose it, it would be treason, according to you.

Nope! Give up, you're just making things up now. Where is the abuse? Show me the abuse! Or give up...

Your elected representatives barely know more about what is going on than you do.

Secrecy, is not an end in itself. It is a tool. Much of the time, its purpose is to bypass oversight (the acronym CYA sometimes gets used but it works at all organizational levels).

Nope, don't you remember all of the reps who came out and said we knew all about this and chastised the reps who said they didn't for not attending the briefings or paying attention and doing their jobs? I sure do... Just because there are disagreements amongst departments or representatives only proves how hard it is to run classified programs, not that there is some unaccountable branch just running roughshod over the constitution... which is literally your only argument. You'd have to do a lot better to change anything, which is why nothing is really going to change.

I wouldn't recommend 1984 since it's about were we might be heading rather than were we are. I'd recommend, instead, The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford (though it must be terribly outdated by now).

The skepticism comes from the following: if someone works for intelligence, they are lying. That should be your first assumption and should be adopted as a provisional belief until proven otherwise.

This is nothing more than a weak-minded dodge because you have no evidence of abuse and intent to break the law or use the abilities for anything other than what they are meant for, onus is still on you for the claim.

 

[Peephole]

But also Snowden had a choice here. Do this the honorable way, though that was more dangerous for himself,

What does this even mean?

or do this in a way that would do the maximum harm to the maximum number of people and that is what he chose.

Again: who has Snowden harmed? Besides political damage to the scumbags running this operation?

 

[Manopolus]

Are the Russians allies or enemies of the US these days? The War on Terror seems to have made everyone a potential enemy, including US citizens.

Nope, I'm pretty sure "the enemy" nowadays is whatever political party you don't vote for. We're currently in a civil cold war.

 

[Joey McGee]

Again: who has Snowden harmed?

It strikes me as extremely ridiculous that people ask such questions. If someone really wanted to know the answer, they could simply look to the claims by the officials and independent experts who are making the claim of harm. Why are supporters of Snowden always so willfully ignorant?

As a result, we've lost critical foreign intelligence collections sources,
including some shared with us by valued partners.

Terrorists and other adversaries of this country are going to school on U.S. intelligence sources, methods and trade craft. And the insights that they are gaining are making our jobs much, much harder.

And this includes putting -- putting the lives of members or assets of the intelligence community at risk, as well as our armed forces, diplomats and our citizens.

We're beginning to see changes in the communications behavior of adversaries, particularly terrorists, adisturbing trend that I anticipate will continue.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...on-the-2014-worldwide-threat-assessment-hpsci

The highly respected National Journal polled it's security experts and 80% say his leaks did more harm than good.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/defe...s-not-worth-national-security-damage-20140206

Moreover, the effects of the unauthorized disclosures hurt the entire Intelligence Community, not just NSA. Critical intelligence capabilities in which the United States has invested billions of dollars are at risk or likely to be curtailed or eliminated either because of compromise or conscious decision.
Moreover, the impact of the losses caused by the disclosures will be amplified by the substantial budget cuts we're incurring.
The stark consequences of this perfect storm are plainly evident. The Intelligence Community is going to have less capacity to protect our nation and its allies than we've had.

" We also know that their exposure has damaged our ability to prevent another 9/11 or an overreaction to events like the Boston bombings. "
...
"His revelations will cost the U.S. billions of dollars in lost intelligence and lost man-hours. These revelations also impair military readiness in that they have compromised significant and dearly bought intelligence and operational capabilities. The consequences of these compromises will only be fully appreciated when we fail to prevail against our foreign adversaries in a future conflict."

The pool of experts overwhelmingly say that the ensuing public debate over civil liberties was not worth the harm to national security. "[Snowden] compromised important intelligence sources and methods," one Insider said, "and terrorists and foreign governments have updated their tradecraft in response."

This has reduced the government's ability to stop attacks that threaten Americans' security, the Insider continued. "What have we learned about programs that do impact civil liberties? That the intelligence community has been operating collection programs authorized by all three branches of government, with approval from two presidents from different parties, under multiple levels of checks and balances, and with no record of significantly abusing its ability to access information about the American people."

The Snowden Revelation That Might Start a War

I could go on... go ahead and make the claim Clapper lied! Let's beat that old dead horse some more guys!

 

[babycondor]

It strikes me as extremely ridiculous that people ask such questions. If someone really wanted to know the answer, they could simply look to the claims by the officials and independent experts who are making the claim of harm. Why are supporters of Snowden always so willfully ignorant?

I have read their claims, and I am skeptical of them. Why should I believe them? They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, funnelling billions of dollars of taxpayer money into their coffers. The intelligence committees in Congress theoretically have the power to oversee their activities, but members on those committees are barred from telling the public when they find something potentially wrong.

The highly respected National Journal polled it's security experts and 80% say his leaks did more harm than good.

A poll of defense insiders is bound to be skewed toward the position most favorable to them. Of course they would respond that way. What interests me more are the responses of the other 20%.

I could go on... go ahead and make the claim Clapper lied! Let's beat that old dead horse some more guys!

Clapper gave the "least untrue" answer. That sounds like a lie to me. Of course when your livelihood depends on secrecy, stonewalling, deception and subterfuge, maybe that's all you know how to do.

 

[Joey McGee]

I have read their claims, and I am skeptical of them. Why should I believe them?

No one is asking you to "believe" them. Do they not make sense? Would you not expect the leaking of these programs to impact their ability to keep us safe? Why not?

They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, funnelling billions of dollars of taxpayer money into their coffers.

What a joke... the billions of dollars doesn't go into their pocket, it goes into the programs, which have just been exposed wasting all that money. That have a vested interest in doing their jobs without their tools being sabotaged and made useless, that is an argument that actually has some evidence for it.

The intelligence committees in Congress theoretically have the power to oversee their activities, but members on those committees are barred from telling the public when they find something potentially wrong.

I'm just baffled by the stupidity of this argument. Yes, they are unable to divulge classified information, but there are legal channels to complain about these things, it's not as if they have nowhere to go with their concerns...they have to balance the right to know with the need for secrecy.

A poll of defense insiders is bound to be skewed toward the position most favorable to them. Of course they would respond that way. What interests me more are the responses of the other 20%.

That makes no sense. They are merely experts. Their opinions are worth more than the average person who only has time to read a few news blurbs in between the demands of their lives.

Clapper gave the "least untrue" answer. That sounds like a lie to me. Of course when your livelihood depends on secrecy, stonewalling, deception and subterfuge, maybe that's all you know how to do.

You didn't read that letter to the NYT from one of his staff that I mentioned? You think that his bosses accepting that explanation is a giant conspiracy? That's your claim without evidence, his narrative makes sense, believe whatever you want, I don't care. You're not speaking to any claims just whining about how you're still paranoid and the government isn't able to soothe you...

 

[babycondor]

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

 

[DavidJames]

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

Did you read the last sentence in your quote. I submit we are talking about the "means of detecting the wrong", which you and the traitor want to take away.

 

[Joey McGee]

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

Where's the evidence of abuse? Corruption? Illegality? Slide towards tyranny? What you have done is the furthest thing to a reply or an argument. You were doing better with Pascal! Justifying your paranoia with old philosophies isn't going to cut it. This thread is about the claim that Snowden has done something good for his country that outweighs the bad and the risks, it's a provable claim, where is the proof?

 

[babycondor]

You both completely missed the point about placing too much confidence in your public servants. Read it again.

 

[DavidJames]

You both completely missed the point about placing too much confidence in your public servants. Read it again.

I read it and understand it and agree with it but don't think it applies here.

Why are you ignoring the last sentence?

 

[cosmicaug]

The highly respected National Journal polled it's security experts and 80% say his leaks did more harm than good.

What do you think such a poll would have said about the Pentagon Papers back when they were released or what would such a similarly contemporaneous poll say about any other of the many whistleblower events which we don't even give a thought to these days. It's 'you're a traitor who should be put away for a long time' one moment and wondering whether buildings should be named after you a few decades down the road. Hell, what do you think such a poll would have said in 1982 about the publication of The Puzzle Palace?

As for actual agency officials, for all you may want to pretend otherwise, they have a long, distinguished track record of lying (whether it is to invent successes or to hide failures and misconduct).

Try the video with Bamford at CSPAN from last month including the Q&A period (it's long, sorry) for someone who thinks that there are severe issues with lack of oversight over intelligence agencies. Or try anything written by Bruce Schneier about the NSA (who gets consulted by some of your representatives because the NSA apparently doesn't have much interest in talking with them --and, before you ask, Rep. Mike Thompson "serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He is Ranking Member of the committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Human Analysis and Counterintelligence. He also serves on the Subcommittee on Oversight."). But I suppose you'll dismiss anyone who might be concerned about insufficient oversight and who does not take intelligence officials at their word as a paranoid crank.

 

[Joey McGee]

You both completely missed the point about placing too much confidence in your public servants. Read it again.

Nope, you're just trying to justify your position of support for Snowden without evidence. No one is saying we should trust the government blindly here, that's your strawman, that's your weak justification for your unsupportable assertions about the current situation.

 

[Joey McGee]

What do you think such a poll would have said about the Pentagon Papers back when they were released or what would such a similarly contemporaneous poll say about any other of the many whistleblower events which we don't even give a thought to these days.

It would have absolutely zero relevance because this is a unique situation, extremely different, and several decades later in a much different world. Why can't you just deal with the current reality? Too much work? Too much thinking required?

It's 'you're a traitor who should be put away for a long time' one moment and wondering whether buildings should be named after you a few decades down the road.

Are you saying that the DD is considering named one of their buildings after Ellsberg? Are you completely disconnected from this debate or what?

Hell, what do you think such a poll would have said in 1982 about the publication of The Puzzle Palace?

WOW... Here's what the NYT said about it "By revealing the scope and opening up the operations of the N.S.A. without giving away its most sensitive secrets," Since that's the exact opposite of what snowden did, I'd guess not the same thing... boring...

As for actual agency officials, for all you may want to pretend otherwise, they have a long, distinguished track record of lying (whether it is to invent successes or to hide failures and misconduct).

This is getting stupid. You can't prove Clapper was lying, that is just a logical truth. Using that belief as a justification for the leaks is insane, and stupid. You can't handwave that away by saying "agencies and officials have lied in the past, therefore my belief Clapper was lying is justified." That is an extremely stupid argument.

Try the video with Bamford at CSPAN from last month including the Q&A period (it's long, sorry) for someone who thinks that there are severe issues with lack of oversight over intelligence agencies. Or try anything written by Bruce Schneier about the NSA (who gets consulted by some of your representatives because the NSA apparently doesn't have much interest in talking with them --and, before you ask, Rep. Mike Thompson "serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He is Ranking Member of the committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Human Analysis and Counterintelligence. He also serves on the Subcommittee on Oversight."). But I suppose you'll dismiss anyone who might be concerned about insufficient oversight and who does not take intelligence officials at their word as a paranoid crank.

First of all, having concerns about what has been revealed is different than having firm beliefs about programs. Second of all, having concerns about what has been revealed is different than supporting the way Snowden has revealed them. Everyone is in agreement that things could always be improved, what we are discussing is the manner which he did it in, because his motivations and belief systems are clearly delusional and stupid. Most people involved think that the NSA works hard to protect the safety AND privacy of Americans.

And yes, certainly some of the reps are stupid and delusional, have you heard of ron paul? rand paul?

 

[cosmicaug]

Why do you think they were, if true, monitoring her communications then? Perhaps for blackmail information?

Of course, that sort of thing has never happened before <cough>Herbert Hoover<cough>, right? But that's OK, because they are foreigners. At least we can be comfortable in the knowlegdge that we now we live in a time when the US government (but not necessarily closely allied governments) would never spy upon US citizens.

You might say that these things, when they have happened, have been stopped (including some programs revealed by the Snowden leaks about which intelligence officials have lied) and that this proves the system works. Such a view is disingenuous, however, because oversight is rarely, if ever, the reason why these abuses have been stopped. The reason has been whistleblowers (and let's be clear about it, the administration is cracking down harder than ever and the real reason why Snoweden could not ever get any sort of a deal is that if he was ever captured nothing which did not make an example out of him would be acceptable). Be that as it may, whistleblowers only get you so far. All you will get are cosmetic fixes as long as you don't fix the real issues with oversight.