NSA breaks privacy rules "thousands of times per year"

[mshan]

Friday humor:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-16/friday-humor-new-normal-miranda-rights

 

[Jeff7]

"It's ok, you can trust us. Most of the time, and if we feel like it. Don't like it? Tell someone who cares and can't charge you with undisclosed crimes."

 

[Angry Irishman]

You know, it's OK to be skeptical of your governments motives....it's actually a core American ideal. At least it used to be until idol worship started. The divide and conquer plan is working out well.

 

[werepossum]

friday humor:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-16/friday-humor-new-normal-miranda-rights

lol +1

 

[monovillage]

Here's even more from the usually left wing New Republic.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114335/new-snowden-docs-show-we-dont-even-know-what-we-dont-know

I think more troubling is that the NSA deliberately fed international communications (which it is permitted to monitor in certain ways) through U.S. fiber-optic cables, commingling those kosher foreign emails with domestic ones—which the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC, and it is generally a rubber stamp) ruled unconstitutional.

I also think more troubling is that last year, the NSA retained more than 3,000 files of telephone call records in defiance of an FISC order (!). How many calls involving how many people were on each file is unknown, by the way.

The voices from lefties is strangely muffled about the illegal actions of the NSA, probably because their lips are so firmly attached to this administrations butt.

 

[irishScott]

You know, it's OK to be skeptical of your governments motives....it's actually a core American ideal. At least it used to be until idol worship started. The divide and conquer plan is working out well.

And the worst thing is it's not even intentional per-se. Party affiliation has become much like religion. People subconsciously assume that because someone shares their political affiliation, then even when they do the wrong thing they're doing it for the right reasons. So they stay silent.

Because ravaging the 4th amendment is alright so long as it's done in the name of the right ideology, by people with the "right values".

If PRSIM is allowed to stand and no effective oversight is implemented, there will be a very harsh reckoning, and at the bare minimum some poor innocent sap is going to have his/her and their family's lives ruined for it. On the flip side I'm sure things will get better eventually, America has a long history of squashing bullshit when it finally has enough cattle prods shoved up its ass. It's just a shame that too many don't give enough of a shit to do something when the first prod makes its presence felt.

 

[michal1980]

And the worst thing is it's not even intentional per-se. Party affiliation has become much like religion. People subconsciously assume that because someone shares their political affiliation, then even when they do the wrong thing they're doing it for the right reasons. So they stay silent.

Because ravaging the 4th amendment is alright so long as it's done in the name of the right ideology, by people with the "right values".

If PRSIM is allowed to stand and no effective oversight is implemented, there will be a very harsh reckoning, and at the bare minimum some poor innocent sap is going to have his/her and their family's lives ruined for it. On the flip side I'm sure things will get better eventually, America has a long history of squashing bullshit when it finally has enough cattle prods shoved up its ass. It's just a shame that too many don't give enough of a shit to do something when the first prod makes its presence felt.

No one will know. That person and his family will be convicted based on classified evidence in a classified court, and sent to a classified jail. If asked about them they'll say its classified and they cant talk about it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm pretty sure the House just had a vote on these programs and the result was almost 50/50 to stop them. Clearly there's no strong bipartisan support, not even close by any reasonable definition of 'strong bipartisan support'.

The matter is highly contentious with members of both parties lining up on both sides of the issue.

Fern

Yeah, lets ignore the past decade of near universal support for things of exactly this sort and look at one House vote that didn't go anywhere.

Anyone who thinks this sort of thing wasn't the product of bipartisan cooperation is delusional.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yeah, lets ignore the past decade of near universal support for things of exactly this sort and look at one House vote that didn't go anywhere.

Anyone who thinks this sort of thing wasn't the product of bipartisan cooperation is delusional.

I do agree with you on this. I'm sure the whips had a running count on how many members could "support privacy" without it actually passing.

 

[Attic]

I love this. Their next excuse will be it wasn't a lie because he didn't know. Watch.

I think that would most likely be true. Plausible deniability is there, and it's intentional to protect Obama and the bureaucracies that are running corrupt under his watch. I think Obama is smart enough to call a spade a spade,... yep intentional, but for some reason folks in positions of power put that position to use to retain the status quo instead of creating real change and calling out the "bad guys".

The issue as I see it is Obama doesn't have the will to challenge the government on this, so he has to believe and repeat the narrative that everything is ok whenever that is needed to settle down the populace.

He is not nearly skeptical enough of government power, or if he is he is unwillingly to say so when he should, and this is a huge weakness given he generally wants to help the poor and middle class.

 

[Nintendesert]

Yeah, lets ignore the past decade of near universal support for things of exactly this sort and look at one House vote that didn't go anywhere.

Anyone who thinks this sort of thing wasn't the product of bipartisan cooperation is delusional.

True. I'm hoping that the recent close vote is a sign the US is shifting back again though.

 

[Druidx]

Where is Harvey with a new song?

 

[Fern]

Yeah, lets ignore the past decade of near universal support for things of exactly this sort and look at one House vote that didn't go anywhere.

Bull Shizz. Find it.

The Patriot Act etc were sold as something far far different. There's been no bipartisan support for this stuff. Hell, most of Congress didn't even know about this stuff. And those in Congress who drafted the Patriot Act strongly insist it wasn't meant to allow this stuff.

Anyone who thinks this sort of thing wasn't the product of bipartisan cooperation is delusional.

If there's any bipartisan cooperation it's in the Exec branch at most. And that would be ignoring Snowden's recent leak that the change in policy to permit gathering data on citizens was changed (IIRC) in 2011 by a legal memo.

You're whole "bipartisan" stuff is because you don't like Obama being up to his neck in it. But you cannot deny it, so you're trying to diffuse it by throwing blame on to the other side. But we won't know until we find out when the programs started permitting the NSA to gather citizens' private info.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Bull Shizz. Find it.

The Patriot Act etc were sold as something far far different. There's been no bipartisan support for this stuff. Hell, most of Congress didn't even know about this stuff. And those in Congress who drafted the Patriot Act strongly insist it wasn't meant to allow this stuff.

If there's any bipartisan cooperation it's in the Exec branch at most. And that would be ignoring Snowden's recent leak that the change in policy to permit gathering data on citizens was changed (IIRC) in 2011 by a legal memo.

You're whole "bipartisan" stuff is because you don't like Obama being up to his neck in it. But you cannot deny it, so you're trying to diffuse it by throwing blame on to the other side. But we won't know until we find out when the programs started permitting the NSA to gather citizens' private info.

Fern

Bull shiz. Go educate yourself. I love how the people who show that they clearly have zero understanding of this issue are always the ones to try and impugn others' motives. You don't like Obama so with this just like the birther business means that you reflexively take whatever position confirms what you already want to believe.

Intelligence issues are handled by the House and Senate intelligence committees and they are bipartisan. Both committees were repeatedly briefed on these programs and both approved them. Seriously, how did you not know this? (not to mention that both the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader are also strong supporters)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/intelligence-committee-leaders-defend-nsa-surveillance/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...nsa-briefings-are-lawyers-to-protect-privacy/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/reid-mcconnell-nsa-surveillance.php

But yeah, just because all the relevant stakeholders and Republican congressional leadership have all supported this couldn't possibly mean that the Republicans in Washington support this. So please, do some more cartwheels to try and convince yourself to deny what is plainly, factually true. You can also say "I guess both parties really do support this". You know, whichever works for you.

 

[Incorruptible]

Not surprised at all considering what obama has done to the Constitution. Still waiting for leftists to criticize him for this.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Intelligence issues are handled by the House and Senate intelligence committees and they are bipartisan. Both committees were repeatedly briefed on these programs and both approved them. Seriously, how did you not know this? (not to mention that both the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader are also strong supporters)

I know the Intel committees are briefed, but a couple of things:

1. That's only a relative few. There are 435 members in the House and another 100 in the Senate. The vast majority were never briefed on it.

2. Those that were can't comment.

3. Given the double speak and outright lying by the Intel community I sure as hell ain't gonna assume that the select members who were briefed heard the truth.

Noting that Boehner is a supporter does exactly zip to discount the fact that in the recent vote it was almost 50/50 against.

And I still want to know who, in which White House, wrote the legal memo perverting the Patriot Act etc.

Fern

 

[irishScott]

No one will know. That person and his family will be convicted based on classified evidence in a classified court, and sent to a classified jail. If asked about them they'll say its classified and they cant talk about it.

Which is why I said bare minimum. He/she could get lucky with another Snowden in the ranks. But if it starts happening a lot I doubt any real black helicopters would be tolerated for very long.

 

[fskimospy]

I know the Intel committees are briefed, but a couple of things:

1. That's only a relative few. There are 435 members in the House and another 100 in the Senate. The vast majority were never briefed on it.

Right, in holding with basically all other classified activity for the entire history of the United States. The Congress has explicitly endorsed this arrangement, btw.

2. Those that were can't comment.

This is not correct, in fact the links I gave you explicitly had them commenting on it and voicing their approval.

3. Given the double speak and outright lying by the Intel community I sure as hell ain't gonna assume that the select members who were briefed heard the truth.

If the Republicans on both intelligence committees believe they were lied to they certainly have not said so. Since it is their position that we are talking about, I don't see how this is relevant.

Noting that Boehner is a supporter does exactly zip to discount the fact that in the recent vote it was almost 50/50 against.

Now we're back to why you are focusing on a recent, failed House vote as opposed to a decade of action. Hey, maybe all the Republicans changed their minds and are staunch defenders of the 4th amendment today. (lol) Doesn't change the fact that they were absolutely party to enabling this.

And I still want to know who, in which White House, wrote the legal memo perverting the Patriot Act etc.

Fern

It is nearly certainly Bush, as he specifically came out and said that he was the one who created PRISM. Specifically, much of the framework for doing this was created by the Protect America Act in 2007. This legislation was pushed for by the Bush Administration and enacted by a Democratic Congress. Interestingly enough however, 70% of the votes for it in the Senate and 80% of the votes for it in the House came from... Republicans.

That being said, quite a few Democrats voted for it and it never would have gone through the House without Democratic leadership letting it. See what I mean about bipartisanship? Has any of this information changed your mind about the bipartisan nature of this activity?

 

[Jeff7]

Which is why I said bare minimum. He/she could get lucky with another Snowden in the ranks. But if it starts happening a lot I doubt any real black helicopters would be tolerated for very long.

Just phase them in gradually. Wait until some other kind of domestic crime occurs, and use that as an excuse. "We're just trying to protect your children!" - that sort of thing.

 

[irishScott]

Just phase them in gradually. Wait until some other kind of domestic crime occurs, and use that as an excuse. "We're just trying to protect your children!" - that sort of thing.

If there was a massive conspiracy that "phased it in" over generations, sure, but nothing in US politics has that kind of durability.

One thing the information age has resulted in is, well, a fuck-ton of information. Scandals that normally would have been covered up or reduced to local news can spread across the globe in seconds. Result being we hear about things like Zimmerman/Martin, brutal gang-rape in India, and dogs riding skateboards, and we get up-to-the-minute details from tons of different sources. But we don't actually experience these things or have any personal connection to them.

Now if skate-boarding dogs, brutal gang-rape, and muggings/shooting were happeneing on a large scale, it ceases being a curiosity and starts being reality that people have to deal with. So it will be with the NSA. PRISM came VERY close to being de-funded off of the leaks alone, before even its invisible abuses were leaked. If blatant abuse begins, shit will fly. Add the incompetence and arrogance of our leaders on top of things, and it will fly quite furiously.

 

[Jeff7]

If there was a massive conspiracy that "phased it in" over generations, sure, but nothing in US politics has that kind of durability.

One thing the information age has resulted in is, well, a fuck-ton of information. Scandals that normally would have been covered up or reduced to local news can spread across the globe in seconds. Result being we hear about things like Zimmerman/Martin, brutal gang-rape in India, and dogs riding skateboards, and we get up-to-the-minute details from tons of different sources. But we don't actually experience these things or have any personal connection to them.

Now if skate-boarding dogs, brutal gang-rape, and muggings/shooting were happeneing on a large scale, it ceases being a curiosity and starts being reality that people have to deal with. So it will be with the NSA. PRISM came VERY close to being de-funded off of the leaks alone, before even its invisible abuses were leaked. If blatant abuse begins, shit will fly. Add the incompetence and arrogance of our leaders on top of things, and it will fly quite furiously.

Good point.

While we do have the system of checks and balances of bickering idiots with their own private agendas, the NSA still managed to quietly gain the cooperation of some very significant players in industry, and assemble a pretty decent dragnet.

I worry that the data they've collected will be too tempting to just "let it go to waste." Might as well share the spoils before any potential defunding occurs.
Or else they'll severely cut funding, and we'll have another instance where government hard drives are sold off without getting wiped first.