Snowden and the Pulitzer

[H'ethetheth]

So you think it would have been better not to try and kill the terrorists and wage a war against the people pledging to continue to launch attacks against us? I really don't follow you.

I think it's better not to kill a hundred thousand people to prevent the deaths of a thousand. But hey, they're just poor people in some country nobody cares about, right?

And you really think we went into Iraq in order to prevent more 911s?

I don't know. You tell me why "you" went into Iraq. I remember Hussein "being" in the process of obtaining "weapons of mass destruction" that could then easily fall into the hands of "terrorists" who may or may not have been in cahoots with him. You know, to prevent terrorist attacks with WMDs on friendly nations, and dirty bombs and stuff.

No one invaded your privacy. Do you have evidence of this?

I'm pretty sure your times article says the things that are recorded are telephony metadata. That is, where a cellphone checks in, who calls whom, from where, and when. When collected in bulk this data can reveal an enormous amount of information on a person.

We still have the moral high ground, although I understand some people have no guts and think hugs are the only answer.

I think you're cunfusing "high ground" with "high horse".
The moral high ground is not "slightly less barbaric than murderous zealots". I think the US can do better than that. There are already instruments in place to deal with murderous zealots, and have been in your country for centuries.
If having "guts" means locking up suspects without so much as the prospect of a trial, and torturing some of them while having ratified treaties to not do this to anybody (except this class of people conveniently defined into existence), then no, I don't have or want guts. You can keep your guts.

Do you have evidence of [the NSA being interested in my whereabouts and who I call when and where]? They had extreme checks and balances and restrictions on how the data could be used. Only for terrorists,...

Do I have evidence that the NSA is interested in my whereabouts, and who I'm friends with? I don't know. Why do they want to collect my phone metadata (which include my whereabouts and who I'm friends with) if I'm not a terrorist? It's only for terrorists, right? Why collect data they're not interested in?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Which tells us that widespread, blanket spying on everybody's phone and internet communications is probably a huge waste of resources.

They do this?

Sigh.

...Which tells us that bulk collection of telephony metatdata is a huge waste of resources.

How's that?

 

[Joey McGee]

I think it's better not to kill a hundred thousand people to prevent the deaths of a thousand. But hey, they're just poor people in some country nobody cares about, right?

What lunacy is this? Honestly what kind of twisted mental gymnastics are you using to get to this ludicrous statement? The United States killed a hundred thousand people...

I don't know. You tell me why "you" went into Iraq. I remember Hussein "being" in the process of obtaining "weapons of mass destruction" that could then easily fall into the hands of "terrorists" who may or may not have been in cahoots with him. You know, to prevent terrorist attacks with WMDs on friendly nations, and dirty bombs and stuff.

Well I would just ask you to look at the Iraq War Resolution. His support for terrorists certainly factored into it. We went to war in Afghanistan for different reasons I think you'll find.

I'm pretty sure your times article says the things that are recorded are telephony metadata. That is, where a cellphone checks in, who calls whom, from where, and when. When collected in bulk this data can reveal an enormous amount of information on a person.

The two phone numbers and the time, that is all. Location data not included. Yes, you COULD use this information to learn things about a person if you knew what phone number belonged to who, but that's why there were extremely strict rules about using the data. The USG COULD do a lot of things with it's instruments it is legally allowed to have. I fail to see your point.

I think you're cunfusing "high ground" with "high horse". The moral high ground is not "slightly less barbaric than murderous zealots". I think the US can do better than that. There are already instruments in place to deal with murderous zealots, and have been in your country for centuries.
If having "guts" means locking up suspects without so much as the prospect of a trial, and torturing some of them while having ratified treaties to not do this to anybody (except this class of people conveniently defined into existence), then no, I don't have or want guts. You can keep your guts.

Keeping "enemy combatants" locked up and 3 guys getting waterboarded doesn't bother me "slightly less" than innocents being horrifically killed and injured or what they do to our soldiers but perhaps I have a different set of experiences and viewpoints.

Do I have evidence that the NSA is interested in my whereabouts, and who I'm friends with? I don't know. Why do they want to collect my phone metadata (which include my whereabouts and who I'm friends with) if I'm not a terrorist? It's only for terrorists, right? Why collect data they're not interested in?

Oh, you never bothered to investigate the other side? I had assumed that everyone taking a firm moral stand would perform due diligence. The reason that the NSA is collecting all of the call detail is that the companies weren't able to do what they needed to do. When they get legal authority to target a number, they are legally allowed to look for multiple "hops" away from a number regardles of what carrier it has. Since the companies didn't even keep the data in compatible or reliable formats, and not for as long as they were allowed to look, and weren't set up to respond to government requests in a timely manner, it would have been impossible to do this without the NSA collecting it. The government is not going to give up this important ability. So now what they are doing is forcing the companies to play the role the NSA was in collecting the data. They are limiting the amount of hops to 2, and only forcing the companies to keep it for 18 months, so it's slightly neutered, but in the eyes of the NSA they aren't losing that much. That's literally the only reason they were doing it. Aren't you reassured now?

 

[jimbob]

Which tells us that widespread, blanket spying on everybody's phone and internet communications is probably a huge waste of resources.

By Jove, I think you're right

 

[Joey McGee]

Sigh.

...Which tells us that bulk collection of telephony metatdata is a huge waste of resources.

How's that?

Few people actually understand what the government was actually doing, why they were doing it, and what they were achieving with it. People make a lot of vague claims and attempt to connect dots. If would be interesting to see someone show why what they are doing is wrong using direct evidence and without using the phrases "what if" and "they could".

 

[Joey McGee]

By Jove, I think you're right

If someone can show they are actually doing this, we might have a chance of changing their behavior.

 

[jimbob]

If someone can show they are actually doing this, we might have a chance of changing their behavior.

I was not actually talking about the NSA but the more general trend to try collecting data like that, form the POV of a Brit who had been exposed to the Blairite almost missionary zeal for surveillance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Susan Rice: NSA Officials Didn’t Lie, They ‘Inadvertently Made False Representations’

...Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for his flat-out denial in March, three months before the Snowden leaks began, that the NSA collects data on hundreds of millions of Americans (a denial that Clapper later categorized as the “least untruthful” answer he could have provided).

Clapper: I Gave 'The Least Untruthful Answer' To Wyden's 'Beating Your Wife' Question On Data Surveillance


It wasn't just Clapper: Frontline

In the past year, the NSA has repeatedly denied that it is collecting data on U.S. citizens. In March 2012, NSA chief Keith Alexander told Congress that his agency doesn’t even have the ability to collect data on Americans.

This past March, James Clapper, the director of the Office of National Intelligence, the top intelligence official in the country, testified that the NSA does “not wittingly” collect data on Americans. After the Snowden leaks he sent a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, apologizing for his “clearly erroneous” testimony, because he “simply didn’t think” of a major provision of the Patriot Act.

Officials had even told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the legal entity set up to oversee it, that the NSA gathered no communications between people in the U.S.

In a declassified FIS Court filing last week, the court said it had since learned that was not the case. “There is no question that the government is knowingly acquiring Internet transactions that contain wholly domestic communications through its upstream collection,” the ruling found.

How can any respectable skeptic believe this thinly veiled coverup? And who in this thread is claiming Snowden's leaks didn't demonstrate the NSA overstepping it's bounds?

Since 2011, the NSA has determined on its own that it has the legal authority to search within the data it collects using U.S. citizen names and other identifying information, according to an Aug. 9 report by the Guardian, citing a document from Snowden.

 

[jimbob]

If someone can show they are actually doing this, we might have a chance of changing their behavior.

I was not actually talking about the NSA but the more general trend to try collecting data like that, form the POV of a Brit who had been exposed to the Blairite almost missionary zeal for surveillance.

I'd also say that Optic Nerve looked to be doing something similar,which could only be justified as a screening situation.

It looks as though the NSA wasn't *technically* collecting the data on Americans - it left that to GCHQ who presumably shared the information with them.

 

[Joey McGee]

Susan Rice: NSA Officials Didn’t Lie, They ‘Inadvertently Made False Representations’

Clapper: I Gave 'The Least Untruthful Answer' To Wyden's 'Beating Your Wife' Question On Data Surveillance


It wasn't just Clapper: Frontline

You left something out "There have been cases where they have inadvertently made false representations, and they themselves have discovered it and corrected it" Hmmm. Yep I still can't see the giant coverup. You'll have to do more than just show statements of people and expect other people to share your opinion on them.

How can any respectable skeptic believe this thinly veiled coverup?

Any respectable skeptic? lol wtf? What's a "skeptic"?

And who in this thread is claiming Snowden's leaks didn't demonstrate the NSA overstepping it's bounds?

What?

 

[H'ethetheth]

What lunacy is this? Honestly what kind of twisted mental gymnastics are you using to get to this ludicrous statement? The United States killed a hundred thousand people...

Fine, that wasn't nuanced. I think it's better not to start a war that directly causes a hundred thousand people to die to prevent the deaths of a thousand. Or, if you like, to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths to prevent the deaths of a thousand.

I fail to see your point.Keeping "enemy combatants" locked up and 3 guys getting waterboarded doesn't bother me "slightly less" than innocents being horrifically killed and injured or what they do to our soldiers but perhaps I have a different set of experiences and viewpoints.

I guess you do. Enemy combatants i.e. somehow not soldiers and also not civilians, are, by normal western, non-barbaric standards innocent until proven guilty, or they are enemy soldiers. Torture just shouldn't be a thing we do. And now that you bring up innocents, what about the tens of thousands of innocents killed by the war against the people we suspect of plotting to kill hundreds of innocents?

...snip...

That's literally the only reason they were doing it. Aren't you reassured now?

A little, yes.

 

[Joey McGee]

I'd also say that Optic Nerve looked to be doing something similar,which could only be justified as a screening situation.

It looks as though the NSA wasn't *technically* collecting the data on Americans - it left that to GCHQ who presumably shared the information with them.

And people wonder why no one is being fired and no one is going to jail!

 

[Joey McGee]

Fine, that wasn't nuanced. I think it's better not to start a war that directly causes a hundred thousand people to die

Sorry, who killed those people mostly?

to prevent the deaths of a thousand. Or, if you like, to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths to prevent the deaths of a thousand.

So we somehow knew only a thousand people would die if we didn't fight terrorism or invade Iraq? You're not even trying to make a coherent argument!

I guess we do. Enemy combatants i.e. somehow not soldiers and also not civilians, are, by normal western, non-barbaric standards innocent until proven guilty, or they are enemy soldiers.

Hmmm let's just be honest here and say they belong to a group hellbent on killing us and our friends.

Torture just shouldn't be a thing we do.

Of course, it's enhanced interrogation I think we put a stop to this or I might have missed something.

And now that you bring up innocents, what about the tens of thousands of innocents killed by the war against the people we suspect of plotting to kill hundreds of innocents?

I'm not aware that this happened. What did I miss?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Sorry, who killed those people mostly?

Tribal conflicts, Taliban, air strikes, famine, disease, I don't care. They could have been avoided by not starting a war.

Hmmm let's just be honest here and say they belong to a group hellbent on killing us and our friends.

Let's be honest and say we know for a fact that several of them do not. And let’s also be honest and ask whether that would even be a good reason to throw our judicial system over board.

 

[Joey McGee]

Tribal conflicts, Taliban, air strikes, famine, disease, I don't care. They could have been avoided by not starting a war.

But then you'd have to do count the costs of leaving our enemies in power and able to continue to grow in strength, recruit more people, plan more attacks, develop more WMDs (which Saddam admitted he was planning to do when interviewed by the FBI) How many people would have died in horrible ways then? Are you honestly arguing zero? Are we talking about Saddam or Afghanistan or do you even care? I mean, have you ever wondered what the cost of doing nothing would have been? I think it would haven been a good idea to take Saddam out right after Kuwait don't you?

Let's be honest and say we know for a fact that several of them do not.

Did you know most of the people brought there have been released without charges?

And let’s also be honest and ask whether that would even be a good reason to throw our judicial system over board.

First maybe you could prove a hysterical claim like that.

 

[Joey McGee]

Why is the NSA spying program wrong? Because of Iraq, obviously. I think we're getting somewhere.

 

[jimbob]

No, because of civil liberties.

 

[Joey McGee]

Probably in the future they'll have a big bronze statue of Snowden in front of the NSA, and President Rand Paul will award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

 

[Joey McGee]

No, because of civil liberties.

What were they doing that violated civil liberties?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's incomprehensibly naive, Joey, to think the government isn't spying on political dissidents as well as reporters. You might want to read a bit of history about Nixon's political spy machine and J Edgar Hoover's personal war on dissidents and Martin Luther King.