"NONE of this would have happened without the revelations by Edward J. Snowden"

[kpete]

Whatever you think of Snowden, this affair really has reminded us that journalistic revelations, combined with sustained pressure from a small but persistent group of lawmakers and advocates, can bring us to the cusp of reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/20/the-morning-plum-immigration-reform-coming-in-2014/

................

The administration expects to accept “a good number” of the advisory group recommendations, the official said, and will “perhaps reject others.”

While few in the White House want to admit as much in public, none of this would have happened without the revelations by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now in asylum in Russia. While Mr. Obama has said he welcomes the debate about the proper limits on the N.S.A., it is not one he engaged in publicly until the Snowden revelations began. Now the president has little choice — this week alone a constellation of forces is pushing for change: A federal judge called the bulk-collection program “almost Orwellian,” while some in Congress, many of his allies and Silicon Valley executives demanded change.

Those represent very different pressures. Mr. Obama has already said that bulk collection of telephone records should continue. The unresolved question is whether he agrees with the advisory committee that the records should remain in private hands — either the telecommunications companies or a private consortium — and that individual court authorizations should be required for every use of metadata.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/politics/obama-weighing-security-and-privacy-in-deciding-on-spy-program-limits.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1387541046-IlGXO4baQjvltwCEZM0Vvg

[tavalon]

1. I hope, here, on DU, we can finally put to rest the destractor

It doesn't matter what Snowden's motives were, we're here now and it's very important that the discussion continue on, without him. It's hard for me to imagine he's much liking the winter there. But, as I said, that is neither here nor there.

The full focus needs to be on the NSA. We need to put floodlights on those cockroaches.

[randome]

2. So?

At the very least, anyone with an open mind can see both sides of the metadata issue. Snowden decided on his own that he disagreed with NSA policy and ended up causing international incidents wherever he went.

He lacks the ability to see alternate viewpoints and now he is stuck in Russia because of that.

Changes will occur at the NSA and that's a good thing. We do not need someone like Snowden making moral decisions for the rest of us, especially for something that reasonable people disagree on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[baldguy]

4. Snowdens fans have no understanding of nuance.

This enables them to characterize Obama as a fascist thug - which is exactly what the extremist RW libertarian wing of the GOP has been doing. The prevailing DU viewpoint based on this outrageous ignorance allows attacks inspired by Rand Paul on a sitting Democratic President to stand, while posts defending Obama get hidden.

The fact is, Snowden - as with every libertarian - is an naive hypocrite. His choice of countries to seek asylum in proves that.

Anyone who really understands what metadata is knows that it is anonymous by its very nature, and that having the NSA collecting it doesn't violate any individuals privacy. The collection of metadata also does nothing to further the national security the NSA claims to be defending. We should oppose these programs because they waste money & resources, and generally don't work. Not because the RW thinks it can use this issue to beat up Democrats.

[Ratty]

11. "Anyone who really understands what metadata is knows that it is anonymous by its very nature"

That is so wrong.

[Pholus]

14. The poster knows that. They just hope YOU don't.

As with most of their arguments, double talk and redefined words try to make it sound all okay.

[Ratty]

17. Metadata includes IP addresses

How is that anonymous by it's very nature? That's the big one. Not to mention how they can identify you by a myriad of other methods.

http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-stores-metadata-on-innocent-web-users-for-a-year-report-7000021355
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/nsa-examines-social-networks-of-us-citizens.html

I think you are right Pholus.

[randome]

48. Actually, your first link concerns Internet metadata, not telephony metadata.

We might presume -always absent evidence to the contrary- that this is data obtained from foreign sources since the NSA's job is to monitor foreign communications.

And from your second link:

An agency spokeswoman, asked about the analyses of Americans’ data, said, “All data queries must include a foreign intelligence justification, period.”

That isn't to say the NSA doesn't over-reach. I think it does. But it's still not evidence that they are spying on Americans and spying on non-Americans is certainly not against the law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

93. Just can't stop digging, can you?

When you find yourself in a hole,
STOP DIGGING!

Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can NOT co-exist.

Government Surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can NOT co-exist.

The Whistle Blowers are the last protectors of our Democracy.
I hope I would have the courage of a Snowden or a Manning to Do-the-Right-Thing in the same situation.





You will know them by their WORKS!

[baldguy]

115. Saying metadata is not anonymous is like saying water is not wet.

Once a puddle of water dries up, it's not water anymore. Once metadata is linked to a particular individual, it's not metadata anymore.

Metadata is anonymous by its very nature.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

128. I'm not sure whos teaching you about metadata, but you might want a refund...

This is exactly this type of information they are collecting... Note - it contains the phone numbers at both ends of the call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record

A call detail record contains metadata – that is, data about data – containing data fields that describe a specific instance of a telecommunication transaction, but does not include the content of that transaction. By way of simplistic example, a call detail record describing a particular phone call might include the phone numbers of both the calling and receiving parties, the start time, and duration of that call. In actual modern practice, call detail records are much more detailed, and contain attributes such as:[2][3]

the phone number of the subscriber originating the call (calling party)
the phone number receiving the call (called party)
the starting time of the call (date and time)
the call duration
the billing phone number that is charged for the call
the identification of the telephone exchange or equipment writing the record
a unique sequence number identifying the record
additional digits on the called number used to route or charge the call
the disposition or the results of the call, indicating, for example, whether or not the call was connected
the route by which the call entered the exchange
the route by which the call left the exchange
call type (voice, SMS, etc.)
any fault condition encountered

[baldguy]

134. Thank you for proving my point.

What you don't see in that list are things like names, addresses, locations, or anything else that could individually identify the caller without an additional search in a different set of data. Of course, once that additional search is completed, we're not talking about metadata anymore.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

145. You have to read ALL the words...

"call detail records are much more detailed, and contain attributes such as"

Notice those words "Such as" --- it doesn't say that list of metadata attributes given was exclusive. Metadata can be harvested from multiple sources and recompiled into new metadata with additional fields (adding names and location data would be child's play). So this would allow the NSA to technically say they weren't collecting identifiable data from the telco companies, but as soon as it gets behind their walls, it could be converted very much so into the identifiable type. When asked by any internal auditors to present the data they are receiving from the telco companies, they could present the original database and say without lying, that this is the data they received. I think we all know how this game is played. If they already lied to congress about this, do you not think they wouldn't lie elsewhere? Given their pattern of lying now, the assumption is anything they say is to be taken as suspect.

Additionally, in a world where everyone has a cell phone, a phone number is de facto the same as a name. It's a unique identifiable designation of a person as clear as the person's name. Mining relationships between names and relationships between phone numbers would give you almost the identical set of relationships in today's world.

I'm not exactly sure why your defending anyone to have the power to collect such obviously exploitable power over every person... given the potential for abuse, and given what we have seen so far as the lies and abuses already committed. Your trust in authority is simply naive and staggering.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. When you have less than no idea what you're saying, maybe you shouldn't say it.

Stringing words together in a sentence that comes off better than a Sarah Palin tweet still in no way validates that series of words, as you've shown here. Metadata is anonymous by its very nature, huh? Bull-fucking-shit. The government has enough of your data to send a drone straight to the place you're sitting right now. Oh, and I don't give a flying fuck what the right wing thinks, no matter how much time you spend worrying about them.

[alato]

39. lol, oh you....

Anyone who really understands what metadata is knows that it is anonymous by its very nature

[roody]

42. BS! I and appreciate both Obama and Snowden.

[rhett o rick]

103. What is funny here is that immediately after Snowden exposed the NSA, some here

started hyperventilating, claiming it was all a plot to embarrass the president. The same thing happened when Michael Hastings had his "accident". Anyone daring to think that there might be something suspicious was labelled a Obama hater.
Talk about conspiracy theories. It's not always about Obama.

Some here view anyone that dares speak truth to power must be silenced.

[MannyGoldstein]

127. Racist, ratfucker, Paulite, ...

And of course, Snowden released nothing we didn't already know...

[christx30]

5. When we have folks like

Clapper lying to congress with impunity, we see that had Snowden gone through official channels, nothing would have happened. I'm glad he did what he did. Congress can't be trusted. No politician can be.

[randome]

7. Sure, Clapper lied about something that was common knowledge since 2006.

It was a dumb thing for him to lie about, no doubt. But Congress doesn't seem to consider it a lie and they're the only institution that can call him out on it.

Of course politicians can't be completely trusted but we trust them with all sorts of things every day just as we do law enforcement.

Less secrecy and greater transparency for the NSA is something we can all agree on. It's too bad Snowden didn't believe in that on a personal level when he duped and abandoned his fiance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Marr]

40. Don't forget the boxes in his garage!

Also, the government's response to Clappers lies, which you so casually dismiss, are a good example of the reason Snowden could not expect results through official channels. The government will not correct it's own behavior unless it has to. We've seen many times that such institutions would much rather just hush thing up and keep on doing what they're doing.

[randome]

45. Fair point.

But absent a smoking gun type of release, I don't appreciate Snowden taking it upon himself to decide what the rest of us should be outraged about.

Since the metadata program started back in 2006 -and was publicly known without much in the way of public outrage- if this is what he was truly worried about, he should have simply quit his job. That would have been the ethical thing to do instead of trying to force his ethics on the rest of the world.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[christx30]

58. He got the information out there.

The rest of us decided what to do with it. It's true, the information has been known for 7 years. But there wasn't anything being done about it. It wasn't in the news. There weren't hearings about it. The public needed to be shocked awake. So Snowden did what he did.
It's no different than the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. Everyone knew about Jim Crow. It was harming people in the south. But nothing is done about it. Then we get people like Rosa Parks. We get the protests in Selma. People that break cruel laws to show the cruelty and the laws go away. But it's not going to happen on it's own, just through the kindness of elected officials. They have to be forced into action.
"He should have just quit his job." Let's reframe it. "Ms. Parks, if she was so outraged by being told to move to the back of the bus, should have just left."
She did the right thing. And, I believe, so did Snowden.

[stevenleser]

60. All not true. There were things constantly being done about it and it was in the news.

See my #16

There have been modifications to the program steadily since 2005. That is going to continue for the next 25-50 years with or without Snowden.

[rhett o rick]

104. So you can rationalize away Clapper lying to Congress? I bet you wouldnt let Snowden get away

with that.

" It's too bad Snowden didn't believe in that on a personal level when he duped and abandoned his fiance. " You really should be embarrassed. Vilifying Snowden is soo last month.

[sabrina 1]

6. Anyone with an open mind sees the collaboration of a Government agency with private communication

Corporations to spy on a country's citizens the same way Democrats saw it back when a Whistle Blower first exposed Bush for doing it not so long ago.

And now we know more, we know HOW they are using this 'meta data' and we know they LIED about how they were using it.

Open minds protect people's rights from Governments watching every move the make, every word they say and using it against them.

Since when do we consider it 'open' to turn a blind eye to abuses of power? We on the left sure weren't doing so when Bush was caught trying to hide these policies from the people. Did something change regarding this issue? I haven't seen anything to change MY mind from where I stood during the initial exposure of these reprehensible practices.

[randome]

10. You're talking about what MIGHT happen. And it's something to consider.

No one is saying the NSA should be completely trusted. Snowden 'exposed' nothing but his Libertarian tendencies.

And no one is turning a blind eye to abuses of power. It's a fair question to ask if the NSA is abusing their power. It is not fair for Snowden to make that decision for the rest of us in such a convoluted, damaging way for the country.

Here on DU we debate the issues. Snowden seems to lack the critical thinking skills that would enable him to debate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Pholus]

15. Huh, this summer we were debating garage boxes and who is a libertarian rat copulator.

Once again, I clicked on the wrong threads. I feel left out of the real issues.

[randome]

18. Well, you weren't debating those 'issues' with me.

But even the outrageous comments we see on DU are infinitely preferable -IMO- to an unelected individual making decisions for the rest of us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Pholus]

20. In your particular case that is true. But the security state kind of

makes leaking a prerequisite for public discussion. So, don't hate the player hate the game.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. Are you trying to say you haven't been shilling for the NSA for 6 months now?

Are you saying you haven't been slowly backing away with each new revelation, acting as though your new position had been your position all along? Because if that's what you're saying, most people already know better.

[Pholus]

27. I think I'll say Randome has been an interesting debater...

I agree with you that positions have been shifting, but I have valued the information Randome adds and I have learned a lot.

We might disagree, but I've enjoyed those exchanges. Much more than the usual "Snowden blarg blarg blarg" that is the norm.

[randome]

33. My 'position' is never set in concrete. If I have 'shifted' to any degree, it's because...

...I'm willing to listen and learn. I'm not afraid to do a one-eighty on any topic if that's where the information leads me.

And sometimes I need to 'hear' myself on DU to really get an idea if my viewpoint is valid or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. Get ready to do some more shifting, in that case.

NSA has paid off and compromised RSA--if you understand anything about IT, you'll know this is a big deal. But we already knew that, right? Wrong. It's new, it's horrible, and it comes to us courtesy of Edward Snowden.

[Uncle Joe]

118. Well don't listen to Congress for the truth as per your own post, they don't care if it's a lie

to the American People.

[Rex]

101. 'most people already know better.'

Yeah like 6 months ago!

[sabrina 1]

22. Ah, now I see why you hold the views you do. You don't know what Snowden exposed:

Snowden 'exposed' nothing but his Libertarian tendencies.

I guess you don't know that he released documents, and if what is in those documents are 'Snowden's Libertarian Tendencies' that is news to me and to the rest of us.

Libertarians are generally OPPOSED to Governments' intrusion into their personal lives, a view btw, they share with most Americans and especially Democrats.

Since the world now knows some of the abuses the NSA has been engaged in a majority of them are outraged.

If you are going to comment on an issue it's always a good idea to know something about it.

I don't give a flying duck dynasty about Snowden's political tendencies. If it were only about him I might.

But, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, if you are still under the illusion that people have concluded that grave wrong-doing has taken place because they are 'Snowden Fans' then my suggestion is that you check out the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE he has produced.

[randome]

29. But all those documents he released can be viewed from other points of view.

I consider 'exposing' a crime something that nearly everyone can agree on. IOW, a 'smoking gun' document.

If Snowden had released evidence that showed the NSA actually giving data away to corporations or actively spying on American citizens, I would have no problem calling that exposing a crime.

But the documents he stole are no smoking guns. They are full of inference and implication and give rise to people being fearful of what MIGHT happen. That's not the way to change the system. It's not even the way to crash the system, if that was his goal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

65. Well you have to respect the Constitution in order to understand that he has exposed crimes.

Laws cannot be viewed in 'many different ways' if one respects the law. Theft is theft, illegal spying is illegal spying eg.

But you've told us what you think of the Constitution so I'm not surprised you fail to see the law-breaking that has been exposed.

But the lawbreakers themselves know what they have done. That is why, eg, Clapper lied to Ron Wyden, who DOES respect his oath of office and the laws of the country.

Can you explain why Clapper risked being charged with perjury rather than answer Wyden's legitimate questions if they have done nothing wrong? Why the huge effort by this Government to try to stop those 'worthless' documents from being revealed? And now that we've seen some of them, it sure itsn't for National Security reasons.

[stevenleser]

9. FYI: Those discussions were already happening in the exec branch and congress. We didnt need Snowden

Did Snowden speed up the examination of whether the NSA's spying is overboard? I'm not sure you can even say that.

There were already congressional hearings going on prior to Snowden. If anything, I think Snowden brought any actions to a halt while the brouhaha died down.

Congress was going to act anyway.

[randome]

13. Maybe he didn't speed it up -and maybe, as you say, he slowed it down- but he did shine a big...

...ol' spotlight on the issues. Did that need to happen? Maybe, maybe not. But not the way he did, damaging the country he decided needed saving.

It's like Batman attacking a movie theater because he decided the prices are too high.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

16. Here is a good timeline by EFF. There has been steady stuff going on for years

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

[randome]

21. Wow. A lot was going on for a long time before Snowden.

At a glacial pace but that's how these things normally proceed in a judicial environment.

Thanks for the info.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

43. And it's going to continue at that pace, Snowden or no Snowden

Most people recognize that there is enough of a threat that we need the NSA doing at least some of what they are doing.

The main difference is exactly how much. That nuance is going to continue to be debated for years.

[riderinthestorm]

49. LOL, 67 incidents reported in your link in the second half of 2013 vs 7, 8, 11 incidents

reported in the prior 3 years.

Your link demonstrates even MORE clearly how effective Snowden's been at changing the conversation and exposing the NSA's overreach.

[stevenleser]

52. That is actually not correct. It contains more now because it was created in the June-Dec timeline

of this year.

It's always easier to list current news articles on a subject than it is to research and find older ones. Not all news items are archived in such a way that can easily be searched and found.

[riderinthestorm]

66. So you put it out there as some kind of definitive source

And now you backpedal that its not so definitive...

Ok...at least its clear to everyone the deceptive practices the anti- Snowdon/authoritarians will stoop to.

[Marr]

97. +1... that was hilarious.

It's amazing how quickly it went from an authoritative list of progress to 'well, it's incomplete really.. lists are hard'.

[bvar22]

122. Oh My.

That will leave a mark.
Well Done!

[Enthusiast]

135. deceptive practices

[treestar]

34. He shined a spotlight on himself

Which seems to be his true motivation. And what he could get for it. He's still trying to make deals.

[sabrina 1]

28. They must have been very 'secret' since a majority of the people did not know eg, how the NSA has

been USING the 'data' they have been unconsitutionally collecting on American citizens. I recall only two Dems, Ron Wyden and Udall TRYING HARD to get attention for this issue, and ASKING that he be released from the obligation to remain silent about he knew.

I remember him saying 'IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNEW WHAT THEY ARE DOING THEY WOULD BE VERY ANGRY.

Wow, was Wyden lying? You say we DID know,. He says that what we NOW KNOW FROM SNOWDEN'S revelations he could not talk about. He was certainly right about the American people being angry IF they know. They are.

NOW we know, thanks to Snowden and I'm sure Wyden feels very vindicated for the years during which he desperately tried to alert the American to what they were up to. He got little support from Congress for his demand that the people be informed of what we now know.

Exactly what did YOU know of these revelations that the rest of us were unable to find out?

[stevenleser]

36. See my #16. that is not the case. nt

[sabrina 1]

47. I saw your #16 which doesn't answer my question. What did YOU know that the rest of us who

actually tried to help Ron Wyden by looking for ourselves, could not find and have only found out since Snowden's revelations? You need to be specific.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Snowden dramatically changed the exposure of the NSA as demonstrated by the EFF link

67 incidents reported in the second half of 2013 alone vs 7, 8 and 11 incidents reported in the prior 3 years!

Snowden's singlehandedly done more to shine light on the NSA issues than anyone else has been able to do - ever.

[stevenleser]

53. No, as I noted above, that's not correct. It contains more recent citations because it was created

recently.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Then its distorting the facts by being incomplete

You're EFF source doesn't get to be claimed as indicative of much if you have to try to convince us that there really is more but its too hard to find.

[Logical]

64. Wow, usually I think you tend to be right, but if you actually believe Snowden had no impact....

I will start to question your stuff much more.

[Luminous Animal]

84. This has got to be your worst performance yet.

[Marr]

100. Oh, but you have to read the timeline.

See, it proves that Snowden didn't actually speed anything up at all. By that I mean, it suggests he did have an effect, but if you factor in all the reams of other examples that surely exist but aren't listed because the internet is hard work, then surely you will agree that Snowden had no impact.

[L0oniX]

26. pffft

[upaloopa]

55. Your wrong he didn't make any moral decisions for you

He let us all know the government is violating our rights. You would never know that without him.
The country is better served if people act like him rather than act as you would have it.

[stevenleser]

59. Anyone who was paying attention knew there was a debate going on. See my #16

What you are saying is that you weren't paying attention. There were hearings, court cases and all kinds of articles for the last 12 years. And that is going to continue for the next 25-50 years.

[JDPriestly]

81. There is only one side to the metadata issue.

And that is the side of the potential defendants in criminal prosecutions and the potential victims of blackmail by unscrupulous individuals in government.

In other words, all citizens.

The metadata is saved. The actual content of calls and communications will soon be saved if it isn't already.

It may be difficult for some to understand, but what Snowden is saying is that the government has the capacity to review every communication you have made in your life since the maintenance of its computer records and find that one mistake you made, that one time you lied or simply, out of confusion or the desire for privacy, contradicted something you said elsewhere, your one error and use that to ruin you.

If you don't think this is possible, read history. Read about the inquisitions. Read about the witch hunts in Salem, read about the NAZIs, read about the gulags. Couldn't happen here? Oh, yes, it could.

We don't have to be paranoid to understand that a clever mind can concoct all kinds of false accusations and then, out of evidence of a lifetime of "randome" comments find "facts" to support the accusations.

The collection of metadata is far more dangerous than most people can imagine especially since they aren't really just collecting metadata. They are just accessing the metadata, but they are also preparing to collect, if not already collecting the content of all of our communications.

It is beyond me how anyone who is not paid to be blind to this cannot see what is happening.

[randome]

85. Of course the government has the capacity to do almost anything. That's not going to change.

The Information Age isn't going to go away, either.

So long as there are strong safeguards to prevent abuse, I don't see that Snowden's run through Europe was worth the trouble.

The point of having the metadata available makes sense to me. They can query it to find potential co-conspirators. And if they don't have it, then they need to go to every telecom in the country to find that information.

If the Boston Bombers had not been American citizens, the NSA might have been suspicious enough to have prevented the bombing. Who knows?

Standard law enforcement procedures are to question anyone they think might be related to a known criminal. And you don't need a warrant to question someone. But before you can question someone, you need to find them.

You see it on TV all the time: "Excuse me, is Mr. Smith in? We'd like to ask him some questions about last night. No? Well, do you know where he might be, then?"

That is probably how the metadata is being used, although it's said that it hasn't been used to actually stop any terrorist attack.

How is what the NSA is doing any different from what a cop on TV does?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

92. Here is how it is different.

This is the key to your misunderstanding:

"And if they don't have it, then they need to go to every telecom in the country to find that information."

If they are not just sweeping up random metadata on everyone, they actually have to go to the telecoms and ask for specific information on specific individuals. In so doing, they create a record of their investigation. If you were a defendant, and especially if you were falsely accused, you would want to have that record because it might be important evidence in figuring out why you are being falsely accused.

Our law and especially our Constitution exists, in part, to protect defendants from the sloppiness and excessive zeal of prosecutors and government. Safeguards such as the rights to counsel and to remain silent (bar against requiring a defendant to testify against himself) and to a public trial among others were included precisely to correct excesses of governments prior to the Constitution.

Remember. Our Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Remember. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into effect BEFORE the end of the inquisition. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights insured that excesses such as the Inquisition and other terrible practices of European governments and religions would never happen here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

And now we have the NSA taking shortcuts to avoid the very precautionary measures the Constitution provides. The Bill of Rights is intended to slow down our government. There is always an excuse for burning witches and other undesirables. The Constitution is the brake on our government. And we need it now more than ever.

Another problem with the NSA surveillance is that it gives undue power via the incredible amount of personal and political information provided by the metadata to the executive branch. The NSA surveillance data is not freely available to the other branches of government, and it has the potential to give an unfair political advantage to the incumbent president or party during an election.

Further, the NSA surveillance makes it possible for the executive to cherrypick the communications data on members of Congress or the Courts. Ideal if an unscrupulous executive wishes to blackmail or threaten members of Congress or the Courts.


The NSA programs are unacceptable for a zillion reasons. There is just no defending them.

[randome]

95. I understand the possibilities of abuse very well.

But when I said they would need to go to every telecom in the country, I meant just that. They would have no idea what telecom a suspect was using so they literally would need to visit every single telecom (hundreds?) to see if that number had been called.

A process that would take weeks if not months, I would think. It's not feasible. The vast infrastructure of telecoms we have now is also part of the Information Age and that's how much things have changed since cellphones proliferated.

Sure, the NSA is taking shortcuts. And it's a conversation we need to have about whether or not those are the proper shortcuts. I personally have no problem with the NSA keeping copies of the metadata so long as it is safeguarded from abuse and the procedures regularly reviewed.

The telecoms certainly don't have that incentive.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

98. I do have a problem with the NSA keeping the metadata, a big problem.

Have you ever reviewed other people's telephone bills? I have. And I have a big problem with the NSA keeping copies.

[Enthusiast]

137. Excellent points......nt

[G_j]

130. yes we do

need someone like Snowden..

obviously

[Dustlawyer]

3. They lost whatever trust they may have had when Clapper out right lied to Congress and the American

people! Can we ever believe they have stopped if our pressure forces them to say they did? They do not plan on stopping and it will take more than a few Senators and Congressmen to move them.

[moparlunatic]

8. I have no way to

prove what I believe but i seriously doubt that meta data is the only thing they are collecting. I believe they collect every phone call,email, internet post made. Technologically it is easily possible. Hell my Dvr can store hundreds of hours of "high def" video. I would imagine that if it were used to just record phone conversations and emails it could possibly store every one I make as well as my entire neighborhood for years.

[sabrina 1]

32. According to Whistle Blower, Binney, you are correct, they are collecting every email, phone call

internet post made. Which is why they are building that huge, Orwellian underground secret storage place.

What is needed now is for some technological genius to invent blocks for private citizens to keep the government out of our lives unless they have what they are supposed to have, an actual warrant from a real court.

[treestar]

35. What could they possibly

Even do with all that. It's useless to them.

[sabrina 1]

61. I believe we now know some of what they are doing with it. And it is pretty shocking frankly.

[treestar]

107. Like what?

What are they doing with my emails? How can my emails help them persecute anybody? (I'm assuming you give them no quarter for the question how do my emails help them fight terrorism).

[sabrina 1]

116. You don't have to worry unless you are out there protesting against the drone warfare or the

massive spying programs we have learned about. So long as you continue to make excuses for what we refused to excuse when Bush was doing it, you are safe from having them using your info.

But we have learned that the NSA has been funneling the data they collect to LOCAL, STATE and Federal law enforcement agencies on people who apparently are not properly subservient to the 'security state'l. And THAT is extremely disturbing and certainly NOT what their job description requires. They claim they are protecting us from foreign terrorists, but the Panel that was convened has determined they have caught NO terrorists over the course of ten or more years.

But they HAVE gone after American Citizens, hiding their involvement, who dare to oppose these Bush policies.

I get the impression you support these policies, so you have nothing to worry about.

[treestar]

119. Cite one example of a person who has been

persecuted in any way for protesting drone warfare, or the "massive spying state," or not being "properly subservient to the security state."

[sabrina 1]

129. One? How about thousands? How about being brutally beaten and pepper sprayed by Robo Cops

and falsely arrested and having your home/apartment raided because you are exercising your 1st Amendment rights?

How about being accused of terrorism simply for exercising your right to protest? Or getting 35 years for exposing corruption, war crimes, in your government?

Have you not been around for the past several years or so?

[treestar]

141. So cite 5 real examples

Pepper spraying those occupy posters? The local police did not need the NSA to find those protestors.

[sabrina 1]

146. Somebody gave them names and addresses to raid. I wonder where they got those names and addresses

we all wondered back then. But now we know, there is simply no question anymore, the NSA which is supposed to be spending the billions of dollars they get from us on Foreign Terrorisim, have no caught a single terrorist, see the report this past week from the Panel.

But we know now that rather than looking for foreign terrorists, they have been sending the 'data' they collect, (yes, I remember, we were told they are not USING it, they are just STORING it, lol, not that most of us ever believed that) to LOCAL, STATE and FEDERAL agencies and people have been ARRESTED based on those illegal activities by the NSA. I guess there will be cases overturned now, hopefully, since those arrested were never told where the prosecutors got the info from. NOW they know.

So this whole billion dollar operation over the past ten years was never about terror after all. All of us CTs have been vindicated. We knew it when Bush was lying about it and we knew that no one collects the info of over 3 million people just to 'store it'.

You do remember you were one of those who told us we had 'nothing to worry about' that they 'were not using it, they were just storing it'??

I can't wait to see how the goal posts are going to be moved now that the truth is out.

I could almost write the defenses myself at this point.

The whole thing is disgusting, especially since they keep pretending we live in a Democracy.

Thank YOU Snowden, Manning, Binney and all the others who risked everything to alert the people to what their money is being spent on.

It's probably one of the biggest scams every perpetrated on the people, well next to the illegal wars, the drone wars, Gitmo, The Patriot Act, the upcoming 'trade' agreement.

And shame on anyone who tries to defend any of it.

[Th1onein]

68. You bet they are collecting content and storing it.

Your searches, your texts, your emails, your phone calls.

What galls me is that they redefined the word "collecting" to mean accessing what they've already collected. This means that they are collecting and storing all of our data, whatever the source, and can access it at their leisure. They've got dossiers on me, you, everyone, and if we step out of line, they'll use any little thing they have, to prosecute us and ruin our lives.

I'm afraid we have lost our republic.

[JEB]

12. This old empire is pretty rotten in the core.

[boomersense]

19. Snowden may in fact have bought us enough time to reverse or at least attenuate

future damage done by NSA and keep us away from our own version of Hunger Games. Saviors sometimes come in strange packages. I wish the man the best and thank him for his efforts.

[stevenleser]

24. He really didn't as my link in #16 illustrates.

There has been continuous litigation, hearings and other things going on regarding FISA and the NSA for years.

[sabrina 1]

37. Tell that to Ron Wyden who warned us as much as he could that we knew very little about what they

were up to and that if we did, we would be very angry. He was right, we are. Thanks to Snowden for helping Wyden and Udall and a few others who took their oaths of office seriously, we now have an idea of what Wyden was not free to tell us, but definitely tried to issue warnings about it.

None of this would be happening if it wasn't for Snowden, period. No use even trying to defend it all. Obama even AFTER the revelations told us that they were not 'using' the data for one thing, we know now that is not true.

But who would be surprised at any of it when after we elected Dems to get rid of Bush loyalists in our government like Clapper and Alexander eg, that for some reason didn't happen. Right Wingers like them can not be expected to respect the rights of the people to freedom from Government spying, it was their Boss who escalated these egregious programs.

And why any democrat who was outraged when we first found out about the collaboration of the Government with Telecoms under Bush, now be trying to defend it?

[stevenleser]

38. The EFF timeline completely contradicts your story. nt

[sabrina 1]

44. So Ron Wyden was lying when he told us we would be angry IF we knew what they were up to, and

I for one, know a whole lot more than I knew one year ago despite following Wyden, who I admire greatly, on this issue.

[stevenleser]

46. Let me know when you have read the EFF timeline. nt

[sabrina 1]

62. Well, you still haven't answered my question. So here's another, why did Clapper lie to Ron Wyden

if we all knew what he was trying to cover up, and only admitted to lying when Snowden's revelations exposed the lies?

We all knew that Bush's criminal, unconstitutional spying, using the Telecoms to do so, was covered up for by Congress by amending the FISA Bill RETROACTIVELY to cover the period of the crime. That would have been laughable if it wasn't so damaging to this country.

We all knew that when Congress violated their own oaths of office to do that, the spying would continue. We know that people like Wyden and a few others tried to raise the issues over the years.

But we now know just how far they have gone which no, we did NOT know until Snowden rightfully exposed what they are up to which the people have a right to know.

Clearly they are terrified of what we are finding out and will find out. They should be. The NSA is supposed to be about National Security. And it's looking more and more like that has been the least of their concerns.

[stevenleser]

63. Let me know when you have read the EFF timeline. nt

[Th1onein]

71. Instead of posting duplicate posts, why don't you provide a link to the EFF timeline?

And tell us what you are talking about?

[sabrina 1]

69. Let me know when you can answer my very simple questions. Why did Clapper lie if we all knew

everything anyhow and risk being charged with perjury and only admitted the lies because of Snowden's revelations?

And what was it YOU knew before Snowden's revelations, that the rest of us have just found out and how did you know it?

And why, if Congress knew what we know now all along was no action taken against the law breakers, the violators of the Constitution?

It's probably better to believe that they did NOT know frankly because if they did, SHAME on them for not putting an end to it all.

NOW we are seeing SOME action, although the Perpetrators so far have not been charged so it's nowhere near enough, but at least they are reacting to the anger of the people, as Wyden predicted IF we ever found out what they are up to.

[boomersense]

54. " continuous litigation, hearings and other things going on regarding FISA and the NSA for years"...

My point exactly. Without Snowden that baloney would have gone on ad infinitum. And that's the name of that tune.

[stevenleser]

57. It's still going to go on ad infinitum. Snowden didn't change that.

The conversations going on for the last 12 years are going to continue for the next 25-50 years about how much surveillance is necessary. Snowden will have no impact on that.

[boomersense]

76. Don't want to argue with you. nft

ddddddd

[Logical]

72. It is funny how naive you are to not understand the outrage Snowden caused.....

The EFF has been complaining for years. The ACLU has also. Did much happen? NO!

When foreign countries throw a fit and the UK papers get pissed, that is publicly!

You really think you would see this headline if Snowden did nothing.....

Obama to meet with tech bosses after judge rules on NSA data-mining

Obama weighs NSA limits

White House task force urges limit on NSA snooping

Come on Steve, you are not this clueless. You honestly think if Snowden did NOTHING that you would have seen these headlines on December of this year?

[riderinthestorm]

74. He can't possibly know how bad his argument looks with the EFF link he's posted

I'm pretty surprised he keeps thinking this is a great argument for the authoritarian side

[L0oniX]

30. What is the cost effectiveness of the NSA and or DHS??? Is that a secret too?

What is the cost per captured/detained/wisked off to a never never land dark damp dungeon terrorist?

[sabrina 1]

41. Billions for Security Contractors?

They provide BILLIONS of dollars for Right Wing backed Security Contractors. It works like this, a Republican CEO (Clapper) of a Security Contractor, like Booz Allen, somehow manages to be appointed, by Bush, to a position of power in a Government Agency, coincidentally a Security Agency where he gets to petition Congress for Billions of Dollars to 'fight terror'.

It's a very clever system to funnel tax dollars into Private hands when you think of it. Using the now standard money making racket, terror, to ensure that no member of Congress will want to risk being called 'soft on terror' by refusing to fund these Security Corporations.

Talk about Conflict of Interest. The revolving door is ready for Clapper to pass back through right into his former or another multi billion dollar Private Security Corporation in gratitude for all successful work he has done to keep the money flowing into their businesses.

For we the people, what do WE get? Nothing, according to Diane Feinstein, although I doubt she meant to reveal that while defending their practices. According to her, after over a decade of spending these Billions of Tax Dollars, she, of the Intelligence Committe, tells we are in MORE DANGER than ever!

If it all wasn't so tragic, if so many lives and so much money had not been wasted it is almost like a comedy take off on a third world tin horn dictatorship. But that's just my opinion and there doesn't seem to be a thing we can do to stop them.

[L0oniX]

123. Yep ...we are in MORE DANGER than ever all right ...from our own government!

Tragic and yet pathetic.

[Enthusiast]

140. NSA surveillance is like the "war on drugs"® .

The more they spend, the greater the threat becomes, requiring ever more funding. We have drugs coming out our ears after decades of zealous law enforcement and mandatory minimums.

Like you say, it's a money making racket. In the meantime the GOP claims we have no money for extending unemployment benefits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Yep. His shining the light on the dark doings of the spies has sent ripples around the world.

What we're now getting is weasel words and CYA from the spies and politicians as a result. Oh, and the inevitable committees to "study" (aka cover up) the embarrassing revelations and do nothing.

[idwiyo]

51. k&r

[ucrdem]

56. Well, he Dem-washed another Neocon depravity, but other than that . . .

Where's the warrantless wiretapping he exposed? Still waiting. His pièce de résistance was a warrant for pete's sake. Also, the BO admin had already made commendable progress cleaning up the NSA, and about all Eddie did was run his swiftboat through it. Libertarian "leakers" are good at that. Meanwhile he's peddling his purloined intel to dog knows who.



JMHO, YMMV.

[Th1onein]

73. You've got to be kidding?

You're saying Snowden didn't lift the veil on what the NSA is doing? Geez. I guess that's why the powers that be want him back at all costs?

Even the warrant that he showed us proved that the NSA was targeting ALL of Verizon's AMERICAN customers. They asked for ALL of them, and this particular warrant wasn't for some foreign communications--it was targeting Americans.

[ucrdem]

77. Seriously? What Snowden showed is the NSA is under control.

Warrants, check. Compliance reports, check. Hypervigilant self-scrutiny, check. And the warrant is for one provider. One provider's business customers' metadata, and set to expire last July 19. Not exactly super-snooping.

Now Booz-Allen is another story altogether but strangely enough, the conversation hasn't been about them. Hmm.

[Th1onein]

78. That's laughable. Do you understand that the NSA is NOT supposed to spy on Americans?

So why are they asking, exclusively in this warrant, for AMERICANS' data? Why are they tapping directly into the lines?

[ucrdem]

79. Collecting "telephony metadata" with a warrant is not illegal.

And we don't know why they made that request, I don't imagine such details help the Neocon narrative, so we won't find out from Greenwald et al.

[Th1onein]

82. You are missing the point: the NSA is not supposed to be collecting info on AMERICANS.

That is not their task, so why are they doing it? AND, why are they doing it EN MASSE?

[ucrdem]

83. I get that. But without knowing why they issued the warrant

about all we can say with any certainty is whether or not it's legal, and it is.

[Th1onein]

87. Let me tell you why it is NOT legal.

Just because a FISA judge rubber stamped it, doesn't automatically make it legal. A warrant needs to be specific:

A valid search warrant must meet four requirements: (1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer; (2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search; (3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and (4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

Not ONLY is the NSA NOT tasked with spying on Americans, but the search warrant must be specific. This warrant asked for ALL of the data on Verizon's American customers' calls. All Americans; all calls. That does not meet the requirement of specificty, even IF the NSA were given the task of spying on Americans, which it was not. This warrant is, on it's face, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus is not a legal warrant.

[ucrdem]

89. At the moment, it's legal.

But I understand your objections.

[Th1onein]

90. Sorry, that's not the way it works.

It's not legal, at the moment or otherwise. And, if I'm not mistaken, a judge just ruled that it's unconstitutional.

[ucrdem]

91. A Bush-appointed judge waggled his wig.

Shocking.

[Th1onein]

94. I don't get your point.

[ucrdem]

96. Look up Richard "almost Orwellian" Leon. nt

[Th1onein]

102. Nah, not going to bother. You are the one making a point; it's up to you to explain.

Your posts make no sense. I don't have time to decipher them. Maybe you should actually make your point, outright, instead of engaging in these cyphers. After all, isn't that what discussion is all about?

[ucrdem]

106. Paulbot leaker + Bushbot judge = FOXbot hero.

Hope that helps.

[Th1onein]

108. Geez. Are you serious?

Okay, let me guess:

You are saying that Snowden along with a judge that Bush appointed, makes Snowden a hero on Fox News?

Good grief, no wonder you didn't want to speak in a real language.

[ucrdem]

109. FOX: "Why Judge Leon is right about NSA spying"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/almost-orwellian-why-judge-leon-is-right-about-massive-nsa-spying-program/

Would I lie to you?

[Th1onein]

110. Wow. Your argument is really bad.

First, you're saying that Snowden didn't expose anything. THEN, you say that even if he did expose something, it was legal anyway. Then, when you can't win the argument that it was legal, you blame the judgement that it was unconstitutional on a Bush-appointed judge.

I give up. You make absolutely no sense at all.

[ucrdem]

112. People see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

So it really doesn't matter how much I type. Anyway happy hollies.

[neverforget]

113. And all of the FISA judges are appointed by right winger John Roberts. Do you have

a problem with that?

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/courts_special_fisc.html

[treestar]

120. It is legal if it comes from FISC

That's how the system works under the statute.

[Egalitarian Thug]

125. "The law, in its majestic equality,

forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Only someone with an agenda or a fool believes legality precludes wrong. Legalizing atrocities doesn't make them any less atrocious.

[sabrina 1]

131. Warrants? From a 'Secret Court'? When I learned we were spied on by

Verizon we cancelled our cell phone and I asked them if I could see a copy of the warrant they had obtained to spy on our phone. They DENIED it of course, and I have yet to see that warrant. Maybe when they get to court they will have to produce it??

Since WHEN do people not get to see warrants when the government decides to spy on them? And what court has ever issued a 'Group Warrant' on the entire population?

I would not be using that to try to defend their Unconstitutional activities if I were you, or THEM. The FISA Court is not a real court, it is a Republican appointed Secret Court, unfit for any Democracy where the corrupt Spy agencies can to, AFTER THEY FINISH SPYING, to get a rubber stamp for what they just did.

Thanks for reminding me about the whole, absolutely corrupt system once again. It should make the blood of any citizen who cares about this country BOIL, that they have set up this cozy little system all for themselves and their Multi Billion Dollar 'Security Corporations'.

[Blue_Tires]

67. Meanwhile Chelsea Manning has become a largely forgotten persona non grata...

sad to see, since Manning's revelations were arguably just as significant....

[riderinthestorm]

75. Im sure the treatment of Manning, Binney etc

Was exactly why Snowden decided to take a different tack.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. A situation that our "transparent" government would like to put Snowden in.

[malaise]

80. Just the truth

One day he'll receive the medal of honor

[Orsino]

86. Thanks, Mr. Snowden.

I'm not ready to declare you a hero or villain, but I know you helped make this happen, and happen more in the public eye:

Here.

These are useful recommendations, especially 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8. Recommendation 7 is already a dead letter, since President Obama has said he plans to keep dual-hatted leadership for the NSA and Cyber Command.

How much of this will survive the president and Congress? I'd like to say I'm optimistic, but I'm not, really. These recommendations are useful but modest, and I suspect that Congress will whittle them down even more. Stay tuned.

That's something, and helps make further reforms possible.

[AzDar]

99. K & fookin' R!

[MrScorpio]

105. Also brought to us by the letter Y and the number 8. nt

[Whisp]

111. Spoken like a paranoid Libertarian of the Rand kind.

the guy is delusionally nutz.

[Uncle Joe]

117. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. indeed - history will absolve him - if freedom and democracy survives

[Egalitarian Thug]

124. K&R Never in history has power taken not been abused.

[jsr]

126. Recommend

[woo me with science]

132. K&R

[99Forever]

133. Edward Snowden, a true Hero for We the People.

Despite what the tools and toadies might say, actual patriots KNOW better.

[another_liberal]

136. Great quote from Snowden!

Thanks for posting this.

[NealK]

138. K&R

[gulliver]

139. He has arisen.

And lo, the people were freed of their yoke.

[Oilwellian]

142. kick

[PowerToThePeople]

143. My opinion, ANYONE supporting any data collection on US citizens without warrant

or approval for ANY reason whatsoever, does not belong on DU.

edit- and click through screens saying you approve in order to do this or that do not count as approval.

[bigwillq]

144. I am glad Snowden did what he did.

K and R