Snowden and the Pulitzer

[jimbob]

How about you make a claim, an argument, that Snowden has made that you're concerned about, and I'll show you their counter-argument to it. I'll achieve this using Google and patience, but I understand that some people think it's the duty of their government to spoonfeed them information instead of making it available.

I think Optic Nerve was a grossly disproportionate invasion of privacy.

 

[Joey McGee]

I think Optic Nerve was a grossly disproportionate invasion of privacy.

You mean how the British used yahoo webcam data that was leaked in Frebruary, if this was the only thing that Snowden leaked, you wouldn't find me attacking him or defending the program, his arguments and leaks focus on what the Americans are doing.

 

[jimbob]

You mean how the British used yahoo webcam data that was leaked in Frebruary, if this was the only thing that Snowden leaked, you wouldn't find me attacking him or defending the program, his arguments and leaks focus on what the Americans are doing.

With NSA help

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

It is not fully clear from the documents how much access the NSA has to the Yahoo webcam trove itself, though all of the policy documents were available to NSA analysts through their routine information-sharing. A previously revealed NSA metadata repository, codenamed Marina, has what the documents describe as a protocol class for webcam information

This was made public due to Snowden's leaks of NSA data, and with an NSA report on the programme

 

[Joey McGee]

It says they used NSA research and tools, not that the NSA was assisting them in their program of looking at webcam images. I don't see the problem with that. The NSA has software with an option for webcam metadata, I don't see the problem with that.

Again, if this is the best you have to defend the entirety Snowden's actions and the damage he has done to the intelligence operations with all of his actions, I am not impressed.

 

[jimbob]

It says they used NSA research and tools, not that the NSA was assisting them in their program of looking at webcam images. I don't see the problem with that. The NSA has software with an option for webcam metadata, I don't see the problem with that.

Again, if this is the best you have to defend the entirety Snowden's actions and the damage he has done to the intelligence operations with all of his actions, I am not impressed.

It wasn't the best I could find - it was what sprung to mind first. The NSA provides a significant amount of funding for GCHQ*. The NSA was fully aware of the project - hence the report.

*

In one revealing document from 2010, GCHQ acknowledged that the US had "raised a number of issues with regards to meeting NSA's minimum expectations". It said GCHQ "still remains short of the full NSA ask".

Ministers have denied that GCHQ does the NSA's "dirty work", but in the documents GCHQ describes Britain's surveillance laws and regulatory regime as a "selling point" for the Americans.

To me it looks as if the NSA is using GCHQ to do some of the spying that it isn't allowed to do.

 

[Joey McGee]

It wasn't the best I could find - it was what sprung to mind first.

Do you want to try making a case that Snowden is a hero for the entirety of what he did or should we blather on about webcam images in Britain and a sentence by Clapper for another page of posts?

The NSA provides a significant amount of funding for GCHQ*. The NSA was fully aware of the project - hence the report.

Are you trying to tell me that this means the NSA is responsible for something that another sovereign nation does under it's own laws and regulations?

To me it looks as if the NSA is using GCHQ to do some of the spying that it isn't allowed to do.

So you admit you have no evidence of this and are resorted to "I suspect" well, sorry, but you're not helping Snowden very much here.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you admit you have no evidence of this and are resorted to "I suspect" well, sorry, but you're not helping Snowden very much here.

The brilliant thing about your position is that, if you had your way, nobody could possibly prove any wrongdoing of any kind. These intelligence experts are apparently honor-bound to act responsibly and tell the truth to their overseers, and those same overseers are apparently honor-bound to not let questionable activity continue. And that's all the public needs to know. "Trust us."

The problem is that if this system were to become corrupted in various ways at any point, the general public is screwed.

Outside of religion, I'm not sure I've seen people fight so hard in defense of ignorance.

 

[applecorped]

Outside of religion, I'm not sure I've seen people fight so hard in defense of ignorance.

U.S.A.!

Love it or leave it!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And...really, when the Boston Marathon bombings happened a year ago, people were howling about how the FBI didn't know about it and prevent it. It's what they want.

I'm not sure how much of that lamenting was legitimate, though. I know I made that comment once or twice, and it was entirely sarcastic. It was a way of pointing how useless the system seemed to be for its intended purpose. And if preventing things like the Boston Marathon bombing isn't its intended purpose, then... wtf?

 

[Joey McGee]

The brilliant thing about your position is that, if you had your way

I do have my way, it's the way government works and is supposed to work.

nobody could possibly prove any wrongdoing of any kind. These intelligence experts are apparently honor-bound to act responsibly and tell the truth to their overseers, and those same overseers are apparently honor-bound to not let questionable activity continue.

There is a system of checks and balances there to keep everyone accountable, that's the basis of American politics, right? Nothing is failsafe or perfect... I think they are doing a pretty good job, 12 people tried to use the NSAs abilities for personal reasons and they were caught and reported. The metadata program was only accessed 300 times in 2012 and there are records available for audit. Do you have a better idea? Do you think we should do away with secret activities by the government? Do away with classified information?

And that's all the public needs to know. "Trust us."

The elected representative IS the public. The public has a responsibility to make sure they vote for someone is going to represent them and their values when making decisions, especially when these decisions are secret or based on classified evidence. Do you have a better idea?

The problem is that if this system were to become corrupted in various ways at any point, the general public is screwed.

That's why they have copious channels for whistleblowing. In the end you can just break the law if you feel strongly enough, but then your punishment is going to be severe unless you can prove to a judge and jury that it was a righteous act. There is nothing wrong with the system, it works. Do you have a better idea?

Outside of religion, I'm not sure I've seen people fight so hard in defense of ignorance.

In defense of ignorance? In defense of the fact that there is a rational argument for having classified information and operations overseen by multiple levels of elected representatives and appointed legal experts. What would YOU do? In your ideal world, if you were the President your party had majority in the house and Senate, what would your national security platform be for the foreseeable future?

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm not sure how much of that lamenting was legitimate, though. I know I made that comment once or twice, and it was entirely sarcastic. It was a way of pointing how useless the system seemed to be for its intended purpose. And if preventing things like the Boston Marathon bombing isn't its intended purpose, then... wtf?

So because they weren't able to prevent it, that means the intelligence systems are useless? That makes no sense. Are you of the somehow of the opinion that they haven't prevented any terror attacks since 9/11? I'm not following your logic.

The the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community released their report on the Boston bombings recently

A yearlong review of information the U.S. intelligence community had prior to the Boston Marathon bombing found that the investigation could have been more thorough, but the intelligence agencies' inspectors general said it is impossible to know whether anything could have been done differently to prevent the attack.

The report also said that Russia withheld some information about the bombing suspects until after the attack, but an unclassified version of the report didn't address what difference that might have made.
...
"We will always ask ourselves what more we could have done to prevent this or another tragedy. What we may never understand is why the Russians didn't share more with us to aid in the FBI's investigation," said C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who has seen the classified version of the report.

Oh **** but the full report is classified, I guess they made it all up, and blamed the Russians because it's the fashionable thing to do?

 

[jimbob]

Do you want to try making a case that Snowden is a hero for the entirety of what he did or should we blather on about webcam images in Britain and a sentence by Clapper for another page of posts?

The NSA provided support and had access to the metadata*. The co-operated in the collection of webcam images from millions of innocent American citizens.

You wanted an example - that was a particularly egregious one.


*And no doubt any other aspects of the data that they would ask for - GCHQ having no reason to refuse to supply it.

Are you trying to tell me that this means the NSA is responsible for something that another sovereign nation does under it's own laws and regulations?

Where the NSA provides support and funding, and a selling point is that GCHQ is less hindered by regulations than the NSA, then the obvious implication is that the NSA is asking for GCHQ to get round a law.

Laws preventing US spy agencies spying on the general population were not intended to mean that those agencies used foreign powers to perform the spying for them.

 

[Joey McGee]

The NSA provided support and had access to the metadata*. The co-operated in the collection of webcam images from millions of innocent American citizens.

You wanted an example - that was a particularly egregious one.


*And no doubt any other aspects of the data that they would ask for - GCHQ having no reason to refuse to supply it.


Where the NSA provides support and funding, and a selling point is that GCHQ is less hindered by regulations than the NSA, then the obvious implication is that the NSA is asking for GCHQ to get round a law.

Laws preventing US spy agencies spying on the general population were not intended to mean that those agencies used foreign powers to perform the spying for them.

You are telling me what you believe about American involvement in the program, not what has been leaked, or proven, not even close, so I'm not exactly blown away with your support of Snowden's actions. I'm not really interested in speculating when it is being investigated, Wyden and friends have been very careful here...

We commend Chairman Feinstein for her decision to conduct a comprehensive review of ongoing surveillance programs, and we plan to thoroughly investigate these most recent reports as that review goes forward. Any involvement of US agencies in the alleged activities reported today will need to be closely scrutinized.
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4072

Notice they didn't go making any claims about illegal or immoral activity by the Americans here, they just need to see what the Americans really did, if anything. Hmmm.

Now, you seem to be missing the point. We have many people who refuse to accept that his leaks could be damaging to national security, they demand to see direct evidence of this, not even their elected representatives who have seen the classified evidence will be trusted. David Cameron and other MPs have been given dossiers showing "conclusive evidence" of the damage Snowden's leaks have had on their operations. Do you think Cameron is not trustworthy? Are there any MPs you would trust if they personally told you they had seen this evidence? Also, does is somehow not make sense that the leaking of how we stalk our enemies would change the behavior of our enemies?

Something that is actually proven, that justifies the entirety of what he has done... metadata is the only thing that got any traction with anyone in the states, it was the big one... did I miss something?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Who's enforcing these rules ?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, who killed those people mostly?

So we somehow knew only a thousand people would die if we didn't fight terrorism or invade Iraq?

Say, Joey, you don't have to defend everything that the US does, do you ?

Why is the NSA spying program wrong?

Because privacy and liberty are the fundamental components of a democracy.

They killed 3000 people in one day.

As traumatic and evil as that act was, that's a mere fraction of what disease and accidents and war kill. Yes, preventing terrorism is a noble cause. No, devastating other states and spying on the population that put you in power are not how you should go about doing it. Blind fear is no justification for the surrender of one's freedom.

 

[Belz...]

I'm glad there are people willing to protect my country and none of them are in this thread.

Protecting your country by destroying its founding principles. Sure, that sounds just about right.

I find it hilarious that he gave up his life in the United States to live in a place with far less relative freedom. His principles of treason led him to exactly where he deserves to be.

You keep using that word...

 

[Belz...]

I don't agree.

But do you have any sort of evidence that attacks were prevented due to the extra measures ?

I highly doubt you acutely understand either the risks or the amount of money being spent.

You claim to understand more than other posters, but do you ?

That's why they have copious channels for whistleblowing.

And yet when it happens, we label them traitors. Very enticing.

 

[Joey McGee]

Who's enforcing these rules ?

Why are you asking me? You don't know? I don't believe you. How much time have you spent trying to find out?

Say, Joey, you don't have to defend everything that the US does, do you ?

I have been accused of being a paid shill other places... I see this as one step down from that.

Because privacy and liberty are the fundamental components of a democracy.

How exactly were privacy and liberty destroyed...

As traumatic and evil as that act was, that's a mere fraction of what disease and accidents and war kill.

Are you implying that we don't try to prevent disease, accidents and war too?

No, devastating other states

What?

and spying on the population that put you in power

When did this happen? Do you have any evidence?

Blind fear is no justification for the surrender of one's freedom.

We gave up our freedoms How exactly?

Protecting your country by destroying its founding principles. Sure, that sounds just about right.

Destroying its founding principles, yes the rhetoric is at its highest level now...

But do you have any sort of evidence that attacks were prevented due to the extra measures?

Even if it wasn't the key tool they used to completely prevent an attack, does it follow that it is not useful in their suite of tools, or could never be key in the future? The counter argument is that it's never just one tool that they use to look at things...

You claim to understand more than other posters, but do you ?

Do you have an assessment of how much the programs you disagree with cost that you can cite? Or a risk of terrorism that you can cite?

And yet when it happens, we label them traitors. Very enticing.

You forget, he did not follow all legal channels for whistleblowing. He would have ad most been labelled misguided. No he broke the law, decided against a democratically instituted classified program on his own, and his leaks helped Vladamir Putin, terrorists and criminals everywhere. Whatever he's labelled, he's done something very stupid and bad.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you asking me?

Well since you're cheerleading for the US government, I want you to tell me who you think is forcing anyone in there to abide by the rules, since they are usually the ones making and enforcing them.

You don't know? I don't believe you. How much time have you spent trying to find out?

Don't be shy, now.

I have been accused of being a paid shill other places... I see this as one step down from that.

Have you done the same side-stepping in those other places, or did you address the question ?

How exactly were privacy and liberty destroyed...

You're seriously asking me to explain how privacy is destroyed by spying on people ?

Are you implying that we don't try to prevent disease, accidents and war too?

No, I am not. Perhaps you should read my post without your ideological glasses on.

What?

Iraq isn't exactly in top-shape right now.

When did this happen? Do you have any evidence?

Are you kidding me ? This is the TOPIC OF THE THREAD, Joey. We know it's happening.

We gave up our freedoms How exactly?

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable about this topic, you display a disturbing amount of ignorance on it. Dare I say that this is a façade ?

Destroying its founding principles, yes the rhetoric is at its highest level now...

Feel free to address it. So far you have done nothing but use rhetoric yourself.

Even if it wasn't the key tool they used to completely prevent an attack, does it follow that it is not useful in their suite of tools, or could never be key in the future?

It is the positive claim that must be shown to be true, not the reverse. The program is useless unless it can be demonstrated that it is useful.

Do you have an assessment of how much the programs you disagree with cost that you can cite? Or a risk of terrorism that you can cite?

I fail to see a connection between this and what you quoted.

You forget, he did not follow all legal channels for whistleblowing. He would have ad most been labelled misguided. No he broke the law, decided against a democratically instituted classified program on his own

That isn't saying much. There's plenty of things you could do, oh, I don't know, in North Korea, that would be both good and illegal. Legality is not, per se, an indication of rightness.

and his leaks helped Vladamir Putin, terrorists and criminals everywhere.

Now I think it's your turn to offer evidence for this claim. How were they "helped" ?

 

[Joey McGee]

Well since you're cheerleading for the US government, I want you to tell me who you think is forcing anyone in there to abide by the rules, since they are usually the ones making and enforcing them.

The NSA does not enforce and make it's own rules. It's actions are overseen by all three branches of government and its actions with these software programs must be able to be audited down to keystroke software. Thousands of pages of documents have been declassified on its operations. You can look it up yourself. Oh so I'm not a shill I'm a cheerleader! Even funnier.

Have you done the same side-stepping

I don't go along with the "Clapper lied, freedom died" narrative. What am I side-stepping?

You're seriously asking me to explain how privacy is destroyed by spying on people ?

You could start by showing people have been spied on!

No, I am not. Perhaps you should read my post without your ideological glasses on.

I'm not suggesting you are, I don't get your point. Are you against seatbelt laws? Check points for drunk driving? After all they are restricting our freedom and invading our privacy.

Iraq isn't exactly in top-shape right now.

We did that on purpose?

Are you kidding me ? This is the TOPIC OF THE THREAD, Joey. We know it's happening.

I'm not aware of evidence showing that the NSA was spying on citizens. Perhaps you are able to point to evidence showing this?

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable about this topic, you display a disturbing amount of ignorance on it. Dare I say that this is a façade ?

Should be able to make a case for how we're giving up our freedoms here, perhaps one or two sentences.

Feel free to address it. So far you have done nothing but use rhetoric yourself.

It is the positive claim that must be shown to be true, not the reverse. The program is useless unless it can be demonstrated that it is useful.

There have been a handful of declassified operations that they have claimed it is helpful in that the government has been pushing, such as Zazi and David Headly. Some people claim that the programs did nothing in these situations too! And congress was provided with a classified list over 50 instances long in which it was helpful. Oh you demand to see all of the classfied evidence though yourself so it's not proven? Hmmmm

I fail to see a connection between this and what you quoted.

Well wake up, people are saying it's a waste of money and the risk of terror isn't that great, I'm saying I doubt they would be able to come up with a dollar assessment or a threat assessment, not that I'm some expert that knows everything about an extremely complex subject.

That isn't saying much. There's plenty of things you could do, oh, I don't know, in North Korea, that would be both good and illegal. Legality is not, per se, an indication of rightness.

Well the law in the US against leaking classified information about how we track our enemies is a good one, and he didn't expose anything immoral, so he deserves to be put on trial. Last I checked, the majority of the people and the politicians and the courts agreed. If someone doesn't like that, they should try and change their minds. I'm not being convinced by the arguments provided.

Now I think it's your turn to offer evidence for this claim. How were they "helped"

I'm sorry, the direct evidence classified, you'll have to ask your relevant elected representative for their assessment. I guess for you, this is reason enough to assume that no terrorists read the news and altered their communications and behaviors with specific internet and voice technologies, because that would be "hard to believe" I bet.