Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum"We have not heard such blatant, shameless lying from intelligence and military officials......
...... since 2002 and 2003 when they propagandized the country into invading Iraq based on utterly false pretenses."
Published on Nov 19, 2015
As France and Belgium move to expand state power in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, top U.S. officials have renewed a push to defend mass surveillance and dismiss those who challenge it. On Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey said intelligence and law enforcement officials need to have access to encrypted information on smartphones, despite no evidence that the Paris attackers used encryption. Meanwhile, others have used the Paris attacks to criticize NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In recent days, CIA Director John Brennan has suggested revelations about mass spying have made it harder to find terrorists, while former CIA Director James Woolsey has said Snowden has blood on his hands. "We have not heard such blatant, shameless lying from intelligence and military officials since 2002 and 2003 when they propagandized the country into invading Iraq based on utterly false pretenses," says The Intercepts Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer-winning journalist who exposed NSA mass surveillance based on Snowdens leaks. "It is actually shocking to listen to."
Democracynow.org - Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,300+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET: http://democracynow.org
uhnope
(6,419 posts)marmar
(77,090 posts)I dare you.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)I said Greenwald is a discredited liar (in general).
The whole Two Wrongs Don't Make thing. But you probably don't get that.
marmar
(77,090 posts)And no, I don't "get" cryptic nonsense.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)marmar
(77,090 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Cut it out!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)but still can't comprehend basic sentences, even one at a time.
marmar
(77,090 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)what he's saying here is correct. Thank you.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)expose the BS part. Got it.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)see if you can't get my point.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Only fair to hear someone out then show evidence to dispute their claims if there is any. Otherwise it's just ad hominem shoot the messenger....
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and symptomatic of the mindless age we seem to be entering--all blabber is equal, let's listen to the KKK man and see if maybe he's right about white supremacy. WTF.
Okay whatever, good luck
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)You remind me of a poster called sand_wind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024399335
uhnope
(6,419 posts)anyone who goes there can see that I was pointing out that the other poster's RT video was being pushed by Stormfront--which I found in a Google search of the RT vid.
You know that--and yet you've put out for all of DU that I "read Stormfront". That's a disgusting lie and smear.
And you did it because you are defending RT and Greenwald and the other things that conform with the propaganda of you Putin supporters--who are the actual fascist supporters, not me.
Really, really despicable.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Nothing smearing about it. You're the one who read an article on stormfront and posted it here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=308964
Personally I'm open to a wide range of view points but I would never go to a vile nazi/racist site, much less use their material to make a point on DU.
You might consider toning down your attitude and contribute to threads instead of your obsessive criticism of sources, which in this thread, you admittedly don't even read/view the content. Most people here are here to argue the content of an issue, not the source. At some point attacking the messenger gets boring.
Posting a stormfront link not your best moment.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)that classic anti-Semitic hoax written by your heroes in Russian intelligence, what did you read next?
Also, why exactly do you support homophobia? Why? You should be ashamed.
But you're not.
Why do you mock the suffering of Gays and Jews in Russia? Why do you support dictatorship?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)I see you ignored my advice and doubled down. Get some help your not making much sense. Are you sand wind?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And if it should come it will be bullshit spin spin spin.
The authoritarians very much want total information awareness.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)It's so...Scientology-like.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Reminds me so much of grade school playground.
But no sooner than I posted you had already proved me correct.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)You're not even making sense tonight, uhnope.
Knock off with your private jokes and make a point.
Even if Greenwald were a liar, you've already said you can't anything false he said here.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)I'm not wasting 16 minutes on the discredited Greenwald blabber.
From the description by Dem. Now, GG seems to be comparing the Bush admins' Iraq war lies to people now saying bad things about Snowden in regards to the Paris attacks. If that is what Greenwald is doing, then once again he's hyperbolizing and bullshitting and emotionalizing, all the things we are used to from him.
Why don't you summarize GG's main points and then we'll discuss?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)He seems to be comparing the Bush admins' Iraq war lies to people now saying bad things about Snowden in regards to the Paris attacks. If that is what Greenwald is doing, then once again he's hyperbolizing and bullshitting and emotionalizing, all the things we are used to from him.
Why don't you watch the vid, outline the points he makes, and then post them?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)credible.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)otherwise you'd summarize it here.
The point is he's a discredited pseud & that's why I don't bother with what he's saying. It's like if someone asked me to listed to a David Duke presentation because "it's true." Do you get my point now?
Feel free to summarize GG's main points, if possible.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)yet you haven't watched it, don't know what he said and can't identify the BS there in. Hmmm makes me wonder who is really spreading the BS!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)I said GG is known for mixing BS & truth, the way any liar does.
You apparently can't identify what he's said either, or else you'd have summarized the main points by now. If I'm wrong, go ahead and post the summary and then we can discuss it.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)it's your logic that leaves so much to be desired. I'm not interested in discussing it when you've already condemned the content with out knowing the content. Happy to do so with more open minded members though.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)you probably haven't even watched the video either.
hilarious.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It was a great show, and it was available on Netflix for a while.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465353/
If you watched it you saw the show's creators developing a plot line about how sophisticated the most dangerous terrorists were. They know how to get around the everyday surveillance that governments use.
(lines of code in a JPEG was one method we know they used)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24784756
The list, say experts, is endless and limited only by individuals' imaginations.
Jpegs or Gifs. Also known as "steganography" or the art of hiding a message within a message. Digital images encoded as Jpegs or Gifs can in theory be used to carry other data with them using an innocuous subject title.
Twenty years ago this was obscure knowledge, yes, but today there are hundreds of thousands of people in Islamic countries who know how to employ methods beyond those encompassed in what Snowden revealed. His revelations were more about the significance of the unaccountable bulk accumulation of data.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)opinion about govts having access to encrypted messages?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It comes down to accountability, and establishing trust. For too long accountability has been something that can't be discussed with a straight face. Trust is trust, it has to be something that those in power will not squander.
cprise
(8,445 posts)The US already went through this in the 90s. Its a free speech issue.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Free speech issue as in people of influence, who know how the system works, don't feel free to speak their minds? I agree that's a big concern. Hoover with his tapes, which powerful people knew he had and might use, established the precedent to fear this.
I was pretty disgusted to learn the government paid people to go to forums and advocate for the government while posing as regular posters. To me it's all part and parcel of grinding down the public so as to be acquiescent.
"Hi, I'm from the government and I'd like to give you a friendly heads-up as to why what you're posting is wrong". lol I guess posting openly might not be much better.
cprise
(8,445 posts)The government is free to intercept traffic under public control (like radio spectrum) and they are free to *try* to de-crypt it. But people are free to run their communications through a mathematical algorithm of their choosing, too.
I think the debate suffers from confusion in that "encryption" can be added to a channel at many different points using different means. The most critical free speech issue is whether individuals are free to encrypt data their own way on their own equipment: Person to person.
You touch on another important issue: Trying to drown-out public sentiment with propaganda (especially if it contains falsehoods) should be treated as an incursion against the first amendment.
Very interesting. I half way remember a case wherein the authorities wanted somebody to provide the key to their computer HDD/SSD. No idea how it turned out, or what can be done if someone says they forgot/lost it.
That's sort of like showing up with a search warrant and demanding somebody hands over the stuff they cleverly hid, that the authorities can't find. Though the courts might see it different.
Also, didn't Gingrich once have a cell phone call intercepted, back in the analog days? IIRC the interceptor violated some regulation about what you can scan with.
cprise
(8,445 posts)IIRC the defendant was protected by the fifth amendment, against self-incrimination. The crucial aspect is that an encryption key is information, and it can reside completely in the defendant's head. Of course, corporations do not have this same level of privacy though I can imagine this Supreme Court trying to change that like they did with campaign finance.
I don't recall the Gingrich incident... the interceptor might have tried to listen on phone lines, not radio channels..?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Appearing at a news conference with their lawyer in Gainesville, Fla., the Martins said that they were listening to a police scanner in their car during a Christmas shopping trip on Dec. 21 when the scanner picked up a telephone conference call between the speaker and other top Republicans.
The couple said they began taping the call, using a hand-held tape recorder that they had with them in the car, after hearing the Georgia Republican's ethics case mentioned in the conversation and deducing that the participants were prominent congressional Republicans. Public disclosure of the conference call has sparked a political firestorm.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)embarrassing dirt on politicians, civil servants, and corporate leaders to use for blackmail.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)can you give us examples of when the collection of metadata in the fight against terrorism has been used to "blackmail...politicians, civil servants, and corporate leaders"?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)did you really write that?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.
It's a powerful tool that anyone with bad intentions can "accidentally" misuse.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Human nature hasn't changed much since Hoover kept his blackmail dossiers on his enemies in Washington.
I get a big laugh from people who think that wearing a suit and tie, and having an important sounding titled engraved on a name placard on your desk makes you incapable of sleazy exploitative and illegal behavior.
Naive.
90-percent
(6,829 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html?_r=0
Glen seems like a decent journalist to me? What did he do that makes fellow DU'ers so quick to reject what he has to say?
"America is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa
Aren't there people in prison for what Brennen and Clapper have done - lie under oath to Congress? And wasn't Bill Clinton impeached for lying under oath about a fucking blowjob? PS - Have GWB or Cheney EVER testified under oath since 9/11? I think they demand that they will not take an oath to tell the truth if you want them to testifiy? At least that's what they did, TOGETHER, when they testified before the 9-11 commission, right?
-90% Jimmy
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Posted by samzenpus on Sunday November 22, 2015 @10:32AM from the that-wasn't-very-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes:
Former NSA whistleblowers contend that the agency shut down a program that could have "absolutely prevented" some of the worst terror attacks in memory. According to the ZDNet story: "Weeks prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, a test-bed program dubbed ThinThread was shut down in favor of a more expensive, privacy-invasive program that too would see its eventual demise some three years later -- not before wasting billions of Americans' tax dollars. Four whistleblowers, including a congressional senior staffer, came out against the intelligence community they had served, after ThinThread. designed to modernize the agency's intelligence gathering effort, was cancelled. Speaking at the premier of a new documentary film A Good American in New York, which chronicles the rise and demise of the program, the whistleblowers spoke in support of the program, led by former NSA technical director William Binney."
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/11/22/1359237/whistleblowers-how-nsa-created-the-largest-failure-in-its-history
slashdot is linking the story so you can reasonably expect some pretty informed commenters. Not my wheelhouse so I'm not starting a new thread on this. Anyone who is up to such a task, feel free to use the above. Not that anyone needs me to say that.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Privately, law enforcement officials have acknowledged that prospects for congressional action this year are remote. Although the legislative environment is very hostile today, the intelligence communitys top lawyer, Robert S. Litt, said to colleagues in an August e-mail, which was obtained by The Post, it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.
There is value, he said, in keeping our options open for such a situation.
Litt was commenting on a draft paper prepared by National Security Council staff members in July, which also was obtained by The Post, that analyzed several options. They included explicitly rejecting a legislative mandate, deferring legislation and remaining undecided while discussions continue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/tech-trade-agencies-push-to-disavow-law-requiring-decryption-of-phones/2015/09/16/1fca5f72-5adf-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html