A deal for Snowden?

[Peephole]

You can't prove Clapper was lying, that is just a logical truth.

EN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.):So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: “No, sir.”

 

[Joey McGee]

Childish? It describes reality. It is you who has decided (certainly not I and certainly not other folk who do not neatly fit into a paranoid fringe category).

What have I decided? Is this what this is about? You're uncomfortable with having your positions mocked? Of course no one thinks they are in a paranoid fringe category lol...

Furthermore, you contend that it is "an incredibly bad thing" presumably because the Russians (sorry, "the terrorists"

So you just make things up? You're inventing this position that I think the Russians are the terrorists? omg what a joke...

--the justification for absolutely everything these days is that it's about the war on terrah, isn't it?) are going to learn soopersekret stuff as releases trickle out through Greenwald et al when we all know that the real "crime" here is the American people learning of these things.

There actually really are terrorists who want to kill Americans... do you not understand this? And do you really think that the Russians are people we can trust with our secrets? Have you been paying attention to Syria and Iran?

As for evidence which would change your mind, why don't you tell us what it would look like?

Evidence that the Americans were abusing the program to intimidate or spy on American citizens. Evidence that they were using it for criminal activity. Evidence that they are sliding towards tyranny and would use this kind program towards that goal... just for a few...

P.S. By the way, do you really think that Snowden is the first one to think of doing this at the NSA? It's just as likely he's only the first one to announce it after the fact and to release to the press rather than to potentially hostile governments for pay.

Do I think that Snowden is the only traitor and nutjob in the history of the American government? lol... like I have said over and over, the fact that there are idiots like Manning in the military and contractor apparatus just makes it harder, not a justification for not fighting the war or running intelligence, the Americans are made of sterner stuff than that... good Christ.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, because officials and "independent" experts have no self interest, and would never lie.

Like James Clapper. He would NEVER EVER lie.

NEVER.

So, do you have anything else other than some weird and irrelevant poll?

Like an actual example of how Snowden's revelations endangered anyone. You know, some actual evidence? This is a forum for skeptics, you know.

EN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.):So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: “No, sir.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html

People are capable of making mistakes, his bosses have accepted the explanation, and there is no way for you to prove it didn't happen the way he says it happened. That is a logical truth. Do you have proof that he said that with an intent to deceive? No, you don't. You need a laughing dog and a large font to try and make that point, pathetic.

 

[Joey McGee]

So, do you have anything else other than some weird and irrelevant poll?

Weird? How so? Irrelevant? Holy *********** ****balls! Are you that out of the loop that you don't know what Foreign Policy magazine is and who reads it? Who writes it? Who owns it? BAHAHAHA! Dig yourself that grave son you're doing a great job!

Like an actual example of how Snowden's revelations endangered anyone. You know, some actual evidence? This is a forum for skeptics, you know.

And what would you accept as proof? The people who have seen the classified material say the program has helped. The people in military intelligence say that the enemy has changed their tactics. I say there is no reason to believe that these people are stupid or liars, do you demand they release details? Perhaps you will believe it when we publish our classified material on the people we are stalking and how exactly they have changed tactics? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah that's what we should do, because we actually care what people like you think! BAHAHA!!! Yes, the President is going to order military intelligence to release all of the classified information to the public because we're worried that the paranoid malcontents think they are lying... lol! Thankfully they can rely on most of the public not to be such idiots...

It's pretty logical, the details of how we stalk our enemies has been released... do you somehow think we don't have enemies? Why is it so hard for you to believe that this has happened... omg this thread is getting embarrassingly stupid

 

[cosmicaug]

What we've got here, is failure to communicate.
You simultaneously keep reading more and less than is meant into what I write.

What have I decided?

Yes. I corrected you on your use of "we" and you called my correction "childish". I was pointing out that there is no "we" and that you were speaking only for yourself (and definitely not for me and many others). This was clearly the case.

If I mock you and troll you it is because your naivete begs for it.

Of course no one thinks they are in a paranoid fringe category lol...

Yes, I claim one can disagree with you and not be in the paranoid fringe. Such an implication to the contrary is no more than a cheap rhetorical trick (as is poisoning the well with the 'but they are Paultards...' nonsense). Bamford & Schneier do not easily fit in the paranoid fringe mold. But maybe you are going to dig up that they are Paultards too? I suspect that Bamford would not be, actually (and I'm not looking up Schneier because it would be irrelevant).

You're inventing this position that I think the Russians are the terrorists? omg what a joke...

No (and I'm not sure how you got that --it seems I'm not being very clear, to make an understatement, if you truly think I was suggesting that). I'm pointing out that while there's always a justification (it used to be the Russians and now it's the war on terrah) it does not mean any course of action, as long as it is taken to address the threat du jour, should be unquestioned. It does not mean that more action is always better than less action (the nature of the actions taken actually matters, for instance). It doesn't mean that actions taken do not have costs (and that said costs should not be taken into account in a calculus to consider whether said actions should be taken). It does not even mean that some actions taken to address that threat may not do more harm than good (sometimes they do do more harm than good).

I doubt that you can disagree with any of what I wrote the above paragraph. However, all of it is meaningless without effective oversight. Oversight is a good thing. That we have sufficient oversight is not an established fact and your implied notion that the few things which have been shut down due to leaks would have had a greater than a snowball's chance in hell of shutting down all by themselves had they never been revealed by leaks is naïve in the extreme.

There actually really are terrorists who want to kill Americans... do you not understand this? And do you really think that the Russians are people we can trust with our secrets?

When have I ever said that?

Evidence that they were using it for criminal activity.

Clearly, some of the stuff involved is not being considered criminal only because state actors are doing it (see everything relating to cyberwarfare associated with the NSA & GCHQ).

Evidence that they are sliding towards tyranny and would use this kind program towards that goal... just for a few...

Clearly none. These programs all fall under the executive branch (in theory, anyway) and Obama is a good man. He would never do anything to hurt our country or threaten world peace. Still, quite a tool set we are developing here, isn't it?

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes. I corrected you on your use of "we" and you called my correction "childish".

What I'm calling childish is your insistence that I'm somehow delusional over my love of the government and not looking at the evidence, an assertion you have nothing to base on but your distaste for my position.

I was pointing out that there is no "we" and that you were speaking only for yourself (and definitely not for me and many others). This was clearly the case.

When I say we, I'm talking about the people who are against Snowden, and who support the positions of administration and the DNI, there is an agreement on the basic facts here. Being pedantic scores you no points...

Bamford & Schneier do not easily fit in the paranoid fringe mold. But maybe you are going to dig up that they are Paultards too? I suspect that Bamford would not be, actually (and I'm not looking up Schneier because it would be irrelevant).

Are they convinced the government is sliding into a tyranny? Do they support the gold standard? I'm talking about Snowden and his motivations here... you're conflating the issues...

No (and I'm not sure how you got that --it seems I'm not being very clear, to make an understatement, if you truly think I was suggesting that). I'm pointing out that while there's always a justification (it used to be the Russians and now it's the war on terrah) it does not mean any course of action, as long as it is taken to address the threat du jour, should be unquestioned. It does not mean that more action is always better than less action (the nature of the actions taken actually matters, for instance). It doesn't mean that actions taken do not have costs (and that said costs should not be taken into account in a calculus to consider whether said actions should be taken). It does not even mean that some actions taken to address that threat may not do more harm than good (sometimes they do do more harm than good).

I doubt that you can disagree with any of what I wrote the above paragraph. However, all of it is meaningless without effective oversight. Oversight is a good thing. That we have sufficient oversight is not an established fact and your implied notion that the few things which have been shut down due to leaks would have had a greater than a snowball's chance in hell of shutting down all by themselves had they never been revealed by leaks is naïve in the extreme.

Where's the proof of harm and abuse that has been averted by the leaks? Who is claiming that there should be no oversight? Haven't I said there will never be enough oversight? Why is it so important for you to invent strawmen just because we support the programs? Here I sense you are simply waxing philosophical because you're embarrassed that you have nothing to go on. I'm embarrassed for you...

Nothing has changed except for the damage that has been done by the leaks... the DNI testified recently to the damage that has been done, I read his testimony, did you? Do you think he's lying about that stuff too?

This is a lot of empty crap being spewed here...

Clearly, some of the stuff involved is not being considered criminal only because state actors are doing it (see everything relating to cyberwarfare associated with the NSA & GCHQ).
Clearly none. These programs all fall under the executive branch (in theory, anyway) and Obama is a good man. He would never do anything to hurt our country or threaten world peace. Still, quite a tool set we are developing here, isn't it?

Comparing the NSA to the Stasi is an insult to all of the innocent people who were harmed by the Stasi, and I won't be reading whatever **** is contained on that page as a result.

If you can prove that there is something harmful or bad about what they were doing, or that some good has been done by Snowden, please provide the evidence in this thread. I'm really sick of the babble that people are putting up in the absence of what really matters.

 

[BenBurch]

I think the bulk collection was useless and a waste of time, but I have zero problem with them trying to do it. (If it could have worked, it would have been awesome.)

 

[cosmicaug]

Look, more paranoid fringe!

 

[Peephole]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html

People are capable of making mistakes, his bosses have accepted the explanation, and there is no way for you to prove it didn't happen the way he says it happened. That is a logical truth. Do you have proof that he said that with an intent to deceive? No, you don't. You need a laughing dog and a large font to try and make that point, pathetic.

"As a result, as Mr. Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate."

Lol, what a load of transparent nonsense.

1. The question wasn't whether the NSA collects the contents of American's communications, the question was whether the NSA collects any data.
2. The NSA does in fact collect the contents of Americans communications. It's already confessed to collecting all the metadata they can find, which includes outright content such as e-mail subjects
3. Clapper has more or less already admitted to lying: "So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no. ... And this has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too– too cute by half." Only afterwards did he change his story to "I didn't understand the question".

He has also claimed the following: "That said, I realized later that Senator Wyden was asking about Section 215 metadata collection, rather than content collection. Thus, my response was clearly erroneous–for which I apologize. While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’s staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified."

Which means he was aware of his lies. Yet he did not correct his fraudulent answer to the public until after the leaks.

By the way, does an "I didn't understand the question" excuse ever fly in perjury cases? How many times would a normal person be able to successfully use such an excuse in a court of law?

 

[Peephole]

The people who have seen the classified material say the program has helped. The people in military intelligence say that the enemy has changed their tactics. I say there is no reason to believe that these people are stupid or liars, do you demand they release details?

So, the people running the spy program claim the spy program is super important and necessary, and revealing information is super harmful?

Wow, so unexpected!

Anyway, I think it's clear by now that you have no actual evidence that any harm was done.

lol! Thankfully they can rely on most of the public not to be such idiots...

A lot of Americans are probably too stupid to care, that's true. But good luck with your tech industry, now that it's been revealed to be complicit in the spy programs. At least they seem a little worried.

And we all know it's the companies and not the public the wields power in the US.

 

[plague311]

So, the people running the spy program claim the spy program is super important and necessary, and revealing information is super harmful?

Wow, so unexpected!

So they're opinion cannot be considered, despite them actually having knowledge of the situation, because they work for or manage the program? Now THAT is top notch critical thinking. It works perfect for sports too, "Never listen to the coach, all that ******* cares about is winning, he's bias."

Anyway, I think it's clear by now that you have no actual evidence that any harm was done.

It appears to me that you are either ignorant of the points he is making, or just refuse to acknowledge them. He has, repeatedly, given you explanations of what harm was done, and to whom it was done. You then reply with this same response, "You haven't provided anything."

A lot of Americans are probably too stupid to care, that's true. But good luck with your tech industry, now that it's been revealed to be complicit in the spy programs. At least they seem a little worried.

Evidence? Can you provide the changes that the tech industry has made? Have people stopped using their gmail, yahoo, and MSN accounts? Are they no longer talking on their cell phones or using their tablets\laptops to surf the internets?

And we all know it's the companies and not the public the wields power in the US.

No idea what this means. The public has the right to vote, and they voted in individuals that know what is going on.

 

[Joey McGee]

Look, more paranoid fringe!

Snowden is certainly on the paranoid fringe along with Manning and Assange, again, did you read that article clearly? You're conflating my attacks on Snowden's political beliefs with my position of support for the kinds of surveillance that have been leaked. It's a separate thing, who's poisoning the well now? LOL you can't let it go because you think you finally have a pot to piss in... these people are simply wrong.

There is a large difference between saying we need to have a debate over these things and there can be improvements and saying that the government is doing Orwellian, illegal things and orchestrating a massive cover-up to protect itself. LOL wow so shocking that the tech companies and tech blogger community are pushing for more reforms... why because the Government is doing bad things or because they need to placate their users fears about using their products? Jesus Christ man!

 

[Joey McGee]

"As a result, as Mr. Clapper has explained, he was surprised by the question and focused his mind on the collection of the content of Americans’ communications. In that context, his answer was and is accurate."

Lol, what a load of transparent nonsense.

Oh so you admit you think you're psychic and can just tell things because they are "transparent" well what are you doing here talking to us your services could be of great use to humankind...

3. Clapper has more or less already admitted to lying:

What the **** are you talking about? More or less? And in a post where you're talking about clear language? No, he didn't admit to lying consciously ever, he could easily be seen to be consistent if you look at it with a sympathetic eye, but that would be too much to ask from people who have already decided then know what is going on...

He has also claimed the following: "That said, I realized later that Senator Wyden was asking about Section 215 metadata collection, rather than content collection. Thus, my response was clearly erroneous–for which I apologize. While my staff acknowledged the error to Senator Wyden’s staff soon after the hearing, I can now openly correct it because the existence of the metadata collection program has been declassified."

Which means he was aware of his lies. Yet he did not correct his fraudulent answer to the public until after the leaks.

That is complete ********, that's your fantasy that the leaks were justified because of this. When you're legally bound you're legally bound, public hearings on classified issues are intense and it's only the malcontents and paranoids that use the tough issues to try and drive a wedge against the government. If there was proof he lied he would have been fired or could be charged... it's a joke.

By the way, does an "I didn't understand the question" excuse ever fly in perjury cases? How many times would a normal person be able to successfully use such an excuse in a court of law?

In this case both his bosses and relevant independent experts have concluded that he was most likely not intending to deceive, and it is without question that he could never be prosecuted.

If you think about it for a moment, this is literally all the Snowden supporter movement has to go on. They have invested heavily in it, Snowden has said that he based his decision to go public on it. Holy **** he BETTER have been lying or the entire house of cards come down!

This is so pathetic as to be laughable, thankfully the government is well run and the dissenters are in the minority because they are simply hearing what they want to and evidence is required in these situations.

 

[cosmicaug]

Snowden is certainly on the paranoid fringe along with Manning and Assange, again, did you read that article clearly? You're conflating my attacks on Snowden's political beliefs with my position of support for the kinds of surveillance that have been leaked. It's a separate thing, who's poisoning the well now? LOL you can't let it go because you think you finally have a pot to piss in... these people are simply wrong.

So the ACLU & the EFF are part of the paranoid fringe. Okey dokey.

 

[Peephole]

So they're opinion cannot be considered, despite them actually having knowledge of the situation, because they work for or manage the program?

Of course not, why would you trust the guys running the program? Why would you trust the criminals and liars who were caught red handed?

It appears to me that you are either ignorant of the points he is making, or just refuse to acknowledge them. He has, repeatedly, given you explanations of what harm was done, and to whom it was done. You then reply with this same response, "You haven't provided anything."

He linked to a poll among "national security experts", and quotes from that liar Clapper. Show me real evidence.

Evidence? Can you provide the changes that the tech industry has made? Have people stopped using their gmail, yahoo, and MSN accounts? Are they no longer talking on their cell phones or using their tablets\laptops to surf the internets?

Leaders of the nation’s biggest technology firms warned President Obama during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Tuesday that National Security Agency spying programs are damaging their reputations and could harm the broader economy.

Cisco Systems has said it is seeing customers, especially overseas, back away from American-branded technology after documents revealed that the NSA enlisted tech firms and secretly tapped into their data hubs around the world as the agency pursued terrorism suspects. Companies such as IBM, AT&T and Verizon Communications are facing angry shareholders, some of whom have filed lawsuits demanding that the companies disclose their participation in NSA intelligence programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...69b226-6734-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html

The revelations he brought to the world's attention have placed huge pressure on US Internet and IT giants. Companies that until recently were both extremely powerful and enormously arrogant are now concerned that their users could flee to firms overseas. According to market analyst James Staten of Forrester Research, US companies could stand to lose up to $180 billion (€133.2 billion) in turnover by 2016 as a result of distrustful customers. More conservative estimates place the potential losses at $35 billion.

The first signs of trouble can already be found on the balance sheets of the big players. Both IBM and Cisco have seen precipitous falls in foreign sales, particularly in China. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook are pleading with the government in Washington to exert more control over the country's intelligence agencies out of fear of a user revolt.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...r-boom-from-snowden-revelations-a-950786.html

"The impact of PRISM on U.S companies may be particularly acute because cloud computing is a rapidly growing industry. ... Global spending on cloud computing is expected to grow by as much as 100 percent between 2012 and 2016, whereas the global IT market will only grow by 3 percent. If U.S. companies lose market share in the short term, this will have long-term implications on their competitive advantage in this new industry."

Based on its market analysis, the ITIF pegs the potential loss to US cloud companies over the next three years at between $21.5 billion and $35 billion. (These are report estimates based on a projected market share loss that's magnified as the global market grows.) And beyond those years, US companies' lost market share will continue to be a disadvantage.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-nsa-scandal-will-cost-us-tech-companies-tens-of-billions

Apple, Google, Facebook and five other technology giants that have banded together in their calls for surveillance reform officially registered a Washington lobbyist on Thursday.

The new hire — tasked to represent a coalition that also includes AOL, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo — is a big political move for an industry that initially had tried to avoid the debate over the National Security Agency. Tech companies recently have become more engaged, however, as they discover they have serious business interests at stake.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...-first-nsa-lobbyist-103214.html#ixzz2tDBsCYIL

 

[Joey McGee]

So the ACLU & the EFF are part of the paranoid fringe. Okey dokey.

You are so willfully ignorant it's tragic...

 

[babycondor]

I liked the taglines of the Washington Post article:

Obama tried to keep the tenor friendly, even cracking jokes, an industry official said.

At one point, he asked Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings if he brought advanced copies of the second season of “House of Cards,” a satire-drama of Washington politics, according to a pool report of the meeting.

Hastings laughed and invited Obama to do a cameo appearance on the show. Obama said of the ruthless lead character, a congressman played by Kevin Spacey, “This guy’s getting a lot of stuff done.”

“I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient,” Obama said, to laughter from all the tech executives.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes you have clearly made a point there, that makes complete sense. It's all so transparent to me now... the evil villains!

 

[plague311]

Of course not, why would you trust the guys running the program? Why would you trust the criminals and liars who were caught red handed?

Then I guess we can't trust any profession in any field at all. I mean, if they do the job, they're automatically bias, and so they're lying. Which means all of your tech reports you have below are all ********. We can't trust the people from Verizon, AT&T, Cisco, Google, et. al. I mean, why would you trust the people running those companies? Or, I'm sorry, can we not have it both ways?

He linked to a poll among "national security experts", and quotes from that liar Clapper. Show me real evidence.

He hasn't just displaying that poll, he has explained to you more than once the damage that was caused outside of that one specific poll. Whether you didn't see them, refused to read them, or just don't want to acknowledge them is completely up to you.

Leaders of the nation’s biggest technology firms warned President Obama during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Tuesday that National Security Agency spying programs are damaging their reputations and could harm the broader economy.

Cisco Systems has said it is seeing customers, especially overseas, back away from American-branded technology after documents revealed that the NSA enlisted tech firms and secretly tapped into their data hubs around the world as the agency pursued terrorism suspects. Companies such as IBM, AT&T and Verizon Communications are facing angry shareholders, some of whom have filed lawsuits demanding that the companies disclose their participation in NSA intelligence programs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...69b226-6734-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html

The revelations he brought to the world's attention have placed huge pressure on US Internet and IT giants. Companies that until recently were both extremely powerful and enormously arrogant are now concerned that their users could flee to firms overseas. According to market analyst James Staten of Forrester Research, US companies could stand to lose up to $180 billion (€133.2 billion) in turnover by 2016 as a result of distrustful customers. More conservative estimates place the potential losses at $35 billion.

The first signs of trouble can already be found on the balance sheets of the big players. Both IBM and Cisco have seen precipitous falls in foreign sales, particularly in China. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook are pleading with the government in Washington to exert more control over the country's intelligence agencies out of fear of a user revolt.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...r-boom-from-snowden-revelations-a-950786.html

"The impact of PRISM on U.S companies may be particularly acute because cloud computing is a rapidly growing industry. ... Global spending on cloud computing is expected to grow by as much as 100 percent between 2012 and 2016, whereas the global IT market will only grow by 3 percent. If U.S. companies lose market share in the short term, this will have long-term implications on their competitive advantage in this new industry."

Based on its market analysis, the ITIF pegs the potential loss to US cloud companies over the next three years at between $21.5 billion and $35 billion. (These are report estimates based on a projected market share loss that's magnified as the global market grows.) And beyond those years, US companies' lost market share will continue to be a disadvantage.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-nsa-scandal-will-cost-us-tech-companies-tens-of-billions

Apple, Google, Facebook and five other technology giants that have banded together in their calls for surveillance reform officially registered a Washington lobbyist on Thursday.

The new hire — tasked to represent a coalition that also includes AOL, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo — is a big political move for an industry that initially had tried to avoid the debate over the National Security Agency. Tech companies recently have become more engaged, however, as they discover they have serious business interests at stake.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...-first-nsa-lobbyist-103214.html#ixzz2tDBsCYIL

Sorry, can't trust any of them, so this is all garbage. Per your argument, you can trust people that are running the companies. I love fallacies!

 

[Peephole]

Then I guess we can't trust any profession in any field at all.

Great, make **** up I never said.

Hard at work at defending your precious NSA!