So all that hysteria yesterday

[pnwmom]

was just hysteria.

One more fake scandal to add to the other three. You'd think we would learn. Wait a day or two, Henny Penny, before deciding that the sky is falling.




http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/


SNIP

The story alleges that the NSA is “reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.” It specifically names nine companies: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple. And the story alleges, “From inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes.”

Within hours after the story broke, it had been amplified by other news agencies and tech websites and had inspired expressions of outrage over this invasion of privacy. And seven of the nine companies named issued categorical denials that they knew of or participated in any such program.

And then a funny thing happened the next morning. If you followed the link to that story, you found a completely different story, nearly twice as long, with a slightly different headline. The new story wasn’t just expanded; it had been stripped of key details, with no acknowledgment of the changes. That updated version, time-stamped at 8:51 AM on June 7, backed off from key details in the original story.

Crucially, the Post removed the “knowingly participated” language and also scrubbed a reference to the program as being “highly classified.” In addition, a detail in the opening graf that claimed the NSA could “track a person’s movements and contacts over time” was changed to read simply “track foreign targets.”

SNIP


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in The Washington Post or The Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

That former official's account -- that the process was created by Congress six years ago and includes judicial oversight -- was independently confirmed by another person with direct knowledge of how this data collection happens at multiple companies. The leaked presentation slides say the program began in September 2007, only weeks after the foreign surveillance law was amended.

The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement requests information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.


http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/



But with new contravening information emerging since the original stories were posted by Greenwald and the Washington Post, it’s clear that the reporting by each news outlet was filled with possibly agenda-driven speculation and key inaccuracies.

Greenwald told CNN, “It’s well past time that we have a debate about whether that’s the kind of country and world in which we want to live.”

Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

It’s a shame because there’s a way to have this debate without selling out to misinformation. Instead, we appear to be careening way off the empirical rails into hysterical, kneejerk acceptance of half-assed information.

SNIP

AND MORE HERE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2974284

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. What do you mean?

Was Obama's domestic surveillance curtailed and I just didn't see the headline?

[pnwmom]

5. The WA post story has already been walked back

and debunked.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. Oh, got it. But the massive domestic spying program is ongoing

Despite the WP's shitty repoerting, the Greenwald Guardian story has been confirmed, and constitutes a huge and ongoing breach of trust with the three hundred million Americans being spied on. This is nowhere close to being concluded.

[pnwmom]

20. The WA Post and the Guardian reported the same thing -- both incorrectly.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/



But with new contravening information emerging since the original stories were posted by Greenwald and the Washington Post, it’s clear that the reporting by each news outlet was filled with possibly agenda-driven speculation and key inaccuracies.

Greenwald told CNN, “It’s well past time that we have a debate about whether that’s the kind of country and world in which we want to live.”

Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

It’s a shame because there’s a way to have this debate without selling out to misinformation. Instead, we appear to be careening way off the empirical rails into hysterical, kneejerk acceptance of half-assed information.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. Sorry, your facts are incorrect

The Guardian/greenwald/Verizon story stands in its entirety. The White House has admitted to the ongoing existence of the program.

[pnwmom]

25. The Verizon story has also been falsely described.

It exists but not in the way it has been reported.

[JaneyVee]

28. The difference is no direct access, Feds still need judicial oversight.

Checks & balances.

[pnwmom]

29. And that they have to get judicial approval just as they would in any crime case.

Which is a critical difference.

[JDPriestly]

85. And here is the judicial approval.

Please read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[pnwmom]

115. I read it. So what is your point? n/t

[rhett o rick]

149. Judicial review that proves blanket authority to surveil isnt oversight. The idea of judicial

review was to have a judge agree that surveillance was justified for a specific case based on evidence showing probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the prsons or things to be seized."

I know the terrorists are going to get us but I still think we need to uphold the Constitution.

[okaawhatever]

171. that was the court order to store all the information. The info doesn't even include names. It's the

specific information once a lead is generated that comes under scrutiny. The example of the NY train bomber was that the guy in America emailed an address they had tied to a bomb maker in Pakistan. Then they went and found out who sent the email. Two separate things. In other countries the phone companies store the info. Scotus looked at this program and the storage facility in Utah.

[rhett o rick]

173. So we allow our government to gather massive data on each of us that they promise not

to use except if they need to. This is only as good as your trust of your government. It is a tool that can easily be misused against citizens that the government decides are threats. Like whistle-blowers, leakers and protestors.

[okaawhatever]

174. I'm okay with that. I would rather the gov't keep it than the phone companies. They have a better

chance of keeping it safe. The gov't can spy on protestors anyway. This doesn't change that. It's what happens if the gov't is caught using it inappropriately. Ditto with these programs. This doesn't change the gov'ts ability to do wrong. Having a facility that stores the info adds an extra layer. I think we should make it law that those who oversee the storage facility only release the info by court order. Give them a nice jail sentence if they fail to comply.

Protestors (those who march or collect in groups) will always be watched by the gov't. That is a terrorists favorite situation. Always will be.

[rhett o rick]

182. If the govment has it so do the phone companies. Corporations run the govment. nm

[Eddie Haskell]

157. Bush/Cheney were spot on then?

[dkf]

42. The tech guys say there is a way to do this so that the Govt gets the info without going to the

Actual servers.

The tech companies have to deny this...they are scaring their international customers away.

Frankly we may see one part of it, while they keep other parts top secret. There is no way to really know the entire truth. And the government has been debunked once too often for me to believe their characterizations.

It would be best if the legal cases were reviewed for their constitutionality. Since there is no ruling, and a rather convenient interpretation from the FISA court it's untested and unrestrained.

[JaneyVee]

50. But will unwarranted info stand in a court of law? Even the tech companies would sue the Fed

once the Fed tried using it as evidence.

[dkf]

53. You think the only purpose of information is to convict in a court of law?

Oh my. That is not what makes me nervous about being spied on.

[JaneyVee]

64. What other non-tinfoil hat reason could there be? We know they're using it to convict people

in terror related cases, what other factual statement can be made besides that one, any other theory is just speculation & hyperbole. But I'm willing to hear you out.

[Aerows]

143. LOL

I know. My lord, the naivety around here is amazing.

[JDPriestly]

87. They don't need to use it as evidence. They can do a lot

of damage without having to present it in court.

Read the court order in case you have any questions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[JaneyVee]

156. Can you explain to me the damage that can be done? Possibly include links to instances?

Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

180. In the first place, just by retaining this information at the

command at the government, they "chill" speech. That is the legal term that is used to describe a situation in which a citizen hesitates to say or do something because the citizen knows that "Big Brother" is watching. It is a very important concept in constitutional law especially as it pertains to the First Amendment.

In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.

An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre where the constitutionality of a criminal law prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use was challenged. The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the legalization of marijuana.[3] The court noted that it did not adopt the same "chilling effect" analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the law as a part of its own analysis.[4]

Recognition that a law may allow for a chilling effect as a vehicle for political libel or vexatious litigation provides motivation to change such defamation laws, and therefore prevent censorship and the suppression of free speech.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28law%29

The damage is done the minute that you know that the government is interested in your speech, your phone calls, your whereabouts, etc. Doesn't take any more than that. It is a restraint on the free exercise of basic rights due to the existence of a system of surveillance or control, even passive control, of those rights.

[okaawhatever]

175. SCOTUS ruled on parts of this. There have also been court cases that went to Fed appeals court. nt

[dkf]

176. How's about this...it would be nice if they would drop the secrets privilege and let the 2 cases

The EFF wants to go through the court system do so.

[okaawhatever]

177. I think opening up secret cases is a slippery slope, but I do want scotus or the legislature to give

boundries as to what can't be kept secret. Such as when an American citizen is involved. If it's an American citizen who has traveled overseas and trained with terrorists (what is considered voluntarily giving up your citizenship without the formal paperwork) I can see how we should be forced to have a trial based on the info that they have in fact renounced their citizenship. Only then can we treat them as non-citizens. I also don't like having sweeping scotus rulings on issues where the facts are very different in each case. Gay marriage is easy. It doesn't matter what gay couple you choose as an example, it's a pretty black and white issue. Marriage or no marriage. With some of the top secret cases there is a different scope of info, much different situations. American citizen or dual citizenship? Are they training inside a country currently recognized as an enemy state or are they training with enemy individuals inside a friendly country. So on and so on. That's just my opinion, but I do know that there are very good reasons to keep info top secret. The question always comes down to, is this one of those times?

[dkf]

179. Well now that they declassified maybe there are no secrets to protect.

We will see how that goes

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. Super. Which parts of it are untrue, and where's the documentation for that?

You can't just slip and slide around and hope people don't pay attention enough to notice that you're conflating two stories, only to change the subject to "...the Verizon story was wrong too" when asked about it. Bottom line is that the spy program is still happening, and because of the support from people who stand on no principles, it's very likely you'll "win" in your quest for the President to continue violating the rights of all Americans. I hope you're happy with the results.

[pnwmom]

40. The first reports about Verizon claimed that the government

was gathering information about the contents of U.S. calls and email, which has proven to be untrue. They have been collecting information on some phone numbers called in the US, without names or content included.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-r-wagner/the-nsa-nonscandal_b_3401783.html

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. This is an opinion piece

The original Guardian story listed the target of the subpoena as Verizon's business customers. It correctly stated that meta data, including geographical location, was covered in the subpoena. It clearly stated that the calls themselves weren't being recorded. I haven't seen any retraction, or any notion that The Guardian got the facts wrong.

[pnwmom]

73. That story was instantly blown up, distorted, and exaggerated

all over the rest of the media.

The original story about collecting telephone numbers of business customers was much too tame.

[JDPriestly]

89. Read the court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[JDPriestly]

88. The court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[JDPriestly]

84. Yes. Here is a copy of the court order that set this off.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

A lot of Obama fanatics just don't want to believe the truth.

[magellan]

103. That order is specific

Hand over everything: (i) call detail records for communications between the US and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the US, including local calls.

It seems doubtful, from the very wide net they cast here, that Verizon was the only telco required to do this.

[JDPriestly]

106. The order speaks for itself. But I think it fair to draw

the conclusion that all the telecom companies are implicated. Note that they have to at the least remain silent pursuant to the law and order.

[magellan]

109. Yep. And I know that order doesn't deal with the internet

...but most if not all telcos provide internet service as well. What are the odds on there being similar "requests" for ISP customer metadata?

[JDPriestly]

112. Pretty good regardless of what the government says.

And now with smart phones and I-phones, it is hard to separate your telephone number from you e-mail service or Google or similar searches.

[magellan]

119. I came a little late to the game

It didn't occur to me that the government was spying on us until BushCo came along with the Patriot Act, at which point others here shared stories about it having gone on for some time even before that (though obviously not to the same degree). So since Bush**, I've been aware that we can be tracked online as well as on the phone. I assumed it was happening, much as I hated the idea due to the chilling effect it tends to have on free speech.

I'm not outraged by these recent revelations. I'm outraged that they've "legalized" it through the FISA court and Dems are defending that -- as if we've never seen the illegal "legalized" before. (Torture -- er, I mean "enhanced interrogation" being a great example.) I'd love to know what the significant difference is between government warrantless wiretapping and a court granting the government secret approval to collect "metadata" on every telecom and ISP customer.

You didn't ask for that explanation of where I stand on all this, but you got it anyway.

[pnwmom]

116. Implicated in what? Passing on telephone numbers? n/t

[JDPriestly]

118. If you have ever done any paralegal or legal or investigative

work, you know how easy it is to use one bit of information to find out and figure out a whole lot more.

Other companies are implicated in passing on telephone numbers that lead to a lot of other information with regard to any number that is further investigated. And you never know why a particular person is chosen as the subject of investigation.

Remember when Ted Kennedy was reportedly placed on the no-fly list? The entire surveillance business is really dangerous because it is gives those conducting it the sense that they know what is going on or can figure it out when the truth is more complex.

Besides, when the court order permits this blanket collection of numbers and information, a logarithm can be devised to find out all kinds of things about people or a specific person that the government should not have the capacity to know. It is about privacy. Obama recognized that in his statement on this mega-surveillance, but he did not indicate to me that he really grasps the danger of this kind of power, the extent of the capacity to collect data that the government now has. And by the way, the owners of the telecom and telephone companies also have the ability to acquire this kind of information. That also needs to be changed. Laws need to be devised and imposed that generally protect our privacy.

[pnwmom]

123. Corporations are collecting more information than this every day.

IMHO, there's a much larger privacy issue to deal with and Obama's just the scapegoat here.

Just a few weeks ago he was being blamed because intelligence hadn't given him advance warning of the Boston bomber attacks. Now he's being blamed for Congress passing the Patriot Act and giving Obama the authority he's been using to prevent attacks.

[JDPriestly]

181. You mention the Boston bombing attacks.

Doesn't the fact that they took place strongly suggest that the government is spinning its wheels when it comes to investigating and controlling not just terrorism but the epidemic of violence that is taking place across our country since maybe the 1950s?

This kind of surveillance is not the right approach. It makes a lot of people even more paranoid than they are. It chills speech and the exercise of other fundamental rights, and it separates people rather than bring them together. It creates distrust rather than trust. All those feelings make the extreme amount of violence in our society, the fear and the excessive separations between people more likely to occur.

I note that this surveillance and the record-keeping did nothing to deter or help identify the Boston bombers in time to prevent the damage.

I note also that the Sandy Hook massacre cost more lives than the "terrorist" Boston bombers.

[Aerows]

144. I have no doubt

whatsoever that if Verizon was ordered to do this, so was everybody else.

[leveymg]

158. No, the FISA Court Order expressly said all data from all users. If that is representative, the

similar court orders served every 90 days on MS, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, etc. are indiscriminate blanket warrants that obtain data on US citizens, not targeted foreign entities, as this anonymous source claims.

If Obama and Clapper are going to declassify these programs, show us the papers, and let us all see for ourselves.

[rhett o rick]

146. Did Verison's political donations enter into their selection? Why spy on only 66% of phone conversa

conversations?

Just sayin.

[rhett o rick]

153. Interesting article here.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/nsaverizonobama-connecting-the-dots-or-not.html

[leveymg]

159. Same orders have been served on all the major telcos.

At least that's the consensus opinion. I've seen that at several major media reports, including The Guardian.

[rhett o rick]

161. I must have missed that. Can you give me a link? I am not doubting just like to

read the article.

[leveymg]

165. Here's The WSJ and NYT reports, 6/7:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.'s VZ +0.54% phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA's operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. T -1.01% and Sprint Nextel Corp., S -1.36% records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/07/us/comparing-two-secret-surveillance-programs.html?_r=0

The leaked court order involved a subsidiary of Verizon Communications. Sprint and AT&T have also reportedly received demands for data.

As far as I know, there's been no backpeddling on this. The only revision was in the WaPo article that said NSA had direct access to the servers of the other companies (MS, Yahoo, Google) - appears that the arrangement is for the companies to hand over data pursuant to Orders - but if that's done on the same revolving blanket basis as the Verizon order, there is effectively no difference.

[rhett o rick]

167. Thank you very much for the articles. nm

[leveymg]

169. UR Welcome eom

[woo me with science]

2. Um, nope.

But nice try.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. It's unreal isn't it?

The level of denial. Absolutely unreal.

[villager]

17. "It can't happen here"

Especially not when a worship object occupies the Oval Office!

[KittyWampus]

34. We don't worship Obama. We just aren't stupid enough to fall for the ratfucking hyped-up "scandals"

that regrettably get so many others torqued up.

But carry one with your outrage. It's what some do best.

[villager]

55. Though you fall for every single "official" explanation of unacceptable policy...

...or government behavior.

But power elites love that stuff. Carry on.

[sheshe2]

92. Though you fall for every single "Conspiracy Theory" from our notorious right wing corporate

owned/ Koch owned media.

Carry on.

[ucrdem]

133. Greenwald works for the Kochs, not Obama.

And that remark was totally out of line.

[JDPriestly]

91. Read the court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Speaks for itself.

[rhett o rick]

162. If you dont ever question his decisions and adamantly defend them to a fault, you can see

how some might think that.

[morningfog]

35. It is pure double think.

A pitiful bunch.

[Skittles]

59. in a way I envy them

life would feel better being like that, wouldn't it?

[AllyCat]

83. It's kind of a red pill/blue pill kind of thing, isn't it?

Must be nice to live in denial and have it all be better now.

[Mojorabbit]

75. It is amazing and it is the same group of people. nt

[JDPriestly]

94. Here is the court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It allows the government to obtain the information on Verizon calls, the telephone number calling and the one receiving. The contents of the call are not obtained by the government nor are the names of the parties involved in the calls. But if the government has the numbers, I would imagine they know or can easily find out your name. This order covers US to foreign calls as well as US to US calls including local calls. This order is very broad and very intrusive.

Combined with all the other information the government obtains on us, this is very, very intrusive.

[Mojorabbit]

97. I totally agree

and it amazes me to see it downplayed or downright denied on this board.

[JaneyVee]

4. Depends on who you ask.

[quinnox]

6. I think this is just getting started actually

I hope this story lasts for months. Its not fake at all. The U.S. citizens should become aware of all this stuff going on. I bet most of the general public don't have a clue about all this stuff that is being done re:spying.

[BeyondGeography]

16. What's just getting started is the drip, drip, drip of bullshit

Benghazi/IRS/AP/Verizon or whatever it is Gate. All in the space of, what, a month? Open your nose and smell the wondrous odor of Republican nihilistic loser bullshit.

[JDPriestly]

96. Here is the court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It's no joke. It isn't a Republican trick. It's permitting the collection of information on individual Verizon calls including local US calls. Very broad. Very bad.

They don't get your name. But then they wouldn't need it if they have your phone number. They can just call your house and see if you are who they think you are.

[JDPriestly]

95. Here is the court order. It's pretty awful. Broad as broad

can be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[Generic Brad]

168. And what will we do with that awareness?

I am not seeing much constructive change being proposed. Instead, all I see are variations of people saying "Obama sucks" and "You suck because you are not saying Obama sucks".

[Andy823]

7. Yep

Simply amazing, isn't it? Of course I doubt very much those who promoted the BS so hard will come around to the facts, or admit they may have jumped the gun.

[JDPriestly]

98. Here is the court order that backs up what you call "BS."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It looks really bad to me. Verizon calls. US to foreign. US to US including all local calls. Just the numbers, but how hard is it for the government to find names based on the numbers? Not very.

[Fumesucker]

9. Yeah, I understand they're opening an investigation of the leak

No doubt the trail will be a bit cold since 2006 but I'm sure they will be persistent.

[JaneyVee]

12. U bring up a good point. This was leaked in 2006, wouldn't surprise me if its still the same person.

[jazzimov]

18. You seem to be confused -

we've know about the program since 2006 and some of us worked hard to get it updated - which it was. The leak was a recent FISA Court order.

[Fumesucker]

27. I was repeating stuff I've read on DU

No wonder I sound confused.

[JDPriestly]

100. This court order does not expire until July 19, 2013.

It is in effect right now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It was signed by the judge in April 2013.

It's the first court order proving the allegations that I have seen. This is not a vague or erroneous piece of journalism. This is the actual court order. That is what makes it "new." I don't think I saw anything like this in 2006.

[DirkGently]

10. You're kidding, right? Because no one thinks that.

[JaneyVee]

13. Actually it's gaining steam on social media:

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

[pnwmom]

14. Thanks for the additional link. n/t

[DirkGently]

19. Yes, apologists are spinning furiously.

[pnwmom]

21. The WA Post has already walked back its own story.

Get over it.

Karl Rove's stink is all over this.

[morningfog]

39. OMG! Rove! Poor Obama.

[JaneyVee]

24. I don't know if I'd call it spin, they seem to be bringing more facts than hyperbole with them.

No one is saying this isn't a serious issue, but it's went from Greenwald stating "Obama is trying to destroy privacy around the entire globe" to the administration is following legal laws to routinely intercept data they suspect may be useful to National Security.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Is the President still spying on Americans?

Then it's still a problem, still an issue.

[JaneyVee]

66. I agree, the article agrees to. It's just referring to the hair on fire stuff.

[JDPriestly]

102. I may already have responded to you with this.

If I am overkilling this, I'm sorry. But I want to make sure everyone sees this because it is the real document, not a news article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

The court order in question.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

107. It's cool

I had already read the warrant. I was just challenging this collective dissonance that has taken over a percentage of posters here. There are people attempting to create truths that never existed, and are easily debunked. Yet these people still persist, with some acting as though all of this news has been debunked. This reminds me of the favorite tactic of the Bush admin--repeating an untruth often enough that it takes on it's own false aura of "truth". So for me, I don't mind seeing the actual source document as often as you want to post it. It will help to foil some falsehoods that are being spread.

[JDPriestly]

108. Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

163. The problem here is that pesky word "spying". THe govment isnt "spying" they are just collecting

massive data on everyone. See not isnt that better?

[JDPriestly]

101. Here is the court order signed by the court in April 2014

and due for renewal on July 19, 2015.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Read it yourself. Don't just discount it as hype. It appears to be the real court order. It is very broad and obtains information even on local Verizon calls.

[DirkGently]

148. Nothing routine or demonstrably legal about it.

That's the problem. Obama was going to bring transparency to Bush's unprecedented, secret interpretations of the law that turned the NSA into a domestic spying network, which was never its mission. Instead he ran in the opposite direction.

The quirks of how they are technically granting themselves access to the entirety of Americans' electronic communications are not the issue.

And, no, them telling us there are "safeguards" is not presumptively legal, and to the extent it's now "routine" in that Bush's gigantically unconstitutional "interpretations" of the law go on all the time now, that is not a plus.

[OnyxCollie]

22. If it's on social media, IT MUST BE TRUE!

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.

The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries"

[JaneyVee]

26. The link cites sources, not hyperbole.

[JDPriestly]

105. I wonder whether we have a couple on DU.

That is one of the bad effects of this kind of media and internet manipulation and surveillance. It makes people suspicious of each other.

That interferes again with our trust and is not helpful to good government. What is more, when we have people obviously getting on the internet and posting or printing what looks very much like propaganda, it causes us to feel LESS LOYALTY to our government and country and more suspicion of both than we would normally have.

This manipulation is counterproductive. It is stupid of our government to do this. The brightest and best in the country find it downright insulting.

[jazzimov]

30. Awesome article!

I especially liked this part:

Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

And this part definitely sounds this forum:

To summarize, yes, the NSA routinely requests information from the tech giants. But the NSA doesn’t have “direct access” to servers nor is it randomly collecting information about you personally. Yet rending of garments and general apoplexy has ruled the day, complete with predictable invective about the president being “worse than Bush” and that anyone who reported on the new information debunking the initial report was and is an Obamabot apologist.

Thanks for that link!

[sheshe2]

41. ^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^

Thanks jazzimov!
+1000!

[Cha]

46. Ya beat me by a

miinute, she! I'm old and slow..

[sheshe2]

61. LOL' two to be exact~

And you are Not Old Or Slow!

Yet rending of garments and general apoplexy has ruled the day, complete with predictable invective about the president being “worse than Bush”

Snort






No more

Seduction...on sale now, reduced price for quick sale~ book category fiction at its best!



Best selling author of Temptation!

[Cha]

68. No, I was talking about my

6:06pm post.

That "old and slow" thing came from an exchange way back on DU2 when this guy, username, "RummyIsFrosted", beat me in replying to a post at the same exact moment but his was first. "He said "You're old and slow, zidzi!" For some reasome that cracked me up and I'm never forgetting!

Yet rending of garments and general apoplexy has ruled the day, complete with predictable invective about the president being “worse than Bush”

Oh NOES, PBO's a "Fascist"! We were called "Enemies of the State", yesterday! Right before the post was hidden for being crazy talk..



she~

[Cha]

43. It's so true, jazz..

Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

Wonder if he's ever heard of Karma?

[JaneyVee]

52. Especially this:

Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda.

[Cha]

58. Yeah, that's bullseye, Janey!

Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda.

[Tarheel_Dem]

136. Greenwald routinely refers to supporters of the president as "cultists". I hate to tell you how I..

refer to his "supporters". It's probably a bannable offense.

[otohara]

154. Greenwald Has An Agenda

and it's been to get Obama - the guy can't stand our president.

thanks for posting this.

[rhett o rick]

160. Doesnt that apply to all that dare challenge the president? How do you know what his "agenda" is?nm

[otohara]

164. Oh, I Don't Know, Maybe Because He's

always been anti-Obama.

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

[rhett o rick]

170. I believe that Hillary Clinton said much the same about trusting Bush. nm

[jazzimov]

15. Really?

[Life Long Dem]

31. Seems like chicken little is off duty tonight

Compared to the past 24 hours anyway.

[pnwmom]

32. LOL. Yeah, I guess that's why I had

Henny Penny stand in.

[freshwest]

114. Don't worry, they'll dig something up. They can always go back to the motherload:

This explains most of it.

[ucrdem]

121. LOL

that's about the size of it

[NYC_SKP]

36. I was consistently on record in maintaining that this was nothing.

Not that anyone would listen...

.

[Cha]

38. I heard ya!

[madokie]

134. Me too

Not only not listen but talk shit to me and anyone else who sees it for what it is, on top of it
I'll be perfectly honest with anyone reading, I'm surprised that the owners of this site is allowing this shit to continue. The sky is still there, it did not fall, it is not falling, furthermore it is not going to fall. This story is to be added to the other three bullshit made up of whole cloth stories of late.
Hey outraged ones, maybe you should head on over to rimjobs site and register there and spend all this energy with like minds. Just a thought you know.
I'm sure this reply will be my second conviction by jury. sad, so sad that this place has been reduced to this conspiracy bullshit site like it has been here lately. For proof of what I'm getting at just review where we've been on the latest outrages and where we've wound up finding out that it was all bullshit's bullshit.

[Cha]

37. "Misread"!? Say it ain't so!

And, so many don't check facts.. just go with the Obama is a "fascist meme"?!!!111

KSK(africa) @lawalazu

In the age of Obama, leaking classified info &MSM outrage is in vogue. Under GWB , not so much. Then, Cheerleading a war was all the rage.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/08/night-owls-white-house-performances-music-for-the-soul/#comments

thanks pnwmom

[Puzzledtraveller]

44. It's over?

Thank goodness!

[sheshe2]

48. jazzimov,

post #30, Cha!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022974638#post30

[Cha]

62. Do you mean

that we both posted at the same time only I was a minute slower, sheshe?

[GoneFishin]

47. Nothing has changed. The spying continues.

Oh. A "LOCK BOX" instead of a "BACK DOOR".
Well that's totally different.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.

Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program

“The U.S. government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers,” Google’s chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. “We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.”

Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction.

But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?pagewanted=1&hp&pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[bhikkhu]

86. Under court supervision, with congressional oversight

...and so on. I'm not concerned about the internet in any case, as that's always been inherently public, which is the opposite of private.

[sheshe2]

49. Dear lord~ K and effing Rec!

Thanks pnwmom!

[LittleBlue]

51. How do you explain this?

A little hard to misread when it's this explicit.

[Initech]

56. The Republicans are framing Obama for the crimes committed under Bush!!!

Only difference is they won't think twice about impeaching. If 2014 goes their way, they will attempt impeachment. We cannot allow them to get away with it again!!!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

57. This real scandal is not going away until our gov abandons it's Stasi policies.

It's way past time that these unconstitutional policies are discussed openly and abandoned.

[OilemFirchen]

70. Right on brother!

Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy)[13] and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo).[17] Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment.[17] Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras.[17] Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.[17]

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

I fucking hate the eyeballs in my toilet. Damn you IMs pigs!

[tblue]

72. That's why I noted got a Constitutional professor.

That's exactly why. Or part of why. What the heck happened???!

[OldRedneck]

60. Yep, you broke the code . . .

Just the press not doing its job and the handwringing and hysteria following right along.

[MotherPetrie]

63. Yeah, that's why the NSA want a criminal probe into the leaks

[cantbeserious]

65. I No Longer Trust The US Government And The Politicians That Run It

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

eom

[a2liberal]

67. Uh-huh.

They totally weren't pressured to walk back the story and the government is in hysterics over an inaccurate leak that isn't true. Totally. I completely believe that.

[pnwmom]

74. The media went into hysterics over an overblown, inaccurate story

and the government needed to refute it.

[a2liberal]

135. If it wasn't true

they wouldn't be going into hysterics over how dangerous the leak is. It's only dangerous to them because it exposes the true extent of the spying

[pnwmom]

137. The government isn't going into hysterics. They're responding appropriately

to all the false reports out there. These leaks are damaging; providing potential terrorists with information about the government's methods interferes with their efforts to protect us.

(By the way, your argument is similar to the argument that if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't care if the government was collecting information.)

[a2liberal]

138. So...

The reports are false but at the same time are providing information to terrorists about who the government "protects" us. Ok, I'm done here.

[RobinA]

69. Is This Post

for real, or satire?

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. I'm sure it's satire. Some people here have no sense for irony

[SidDithers]

71. DU rec...

and Greenwald is still a clown.

Sid

[Zorra]

77. Damage Control Unit 3, do you copy? nt

[Marr]

78. It's like Ghandi said:

First they claim it never happened.

Then they insist it never happened.

Then it's proven to have happened.

Then they say it's old news.

[kenny blankenship]

93. It's like stumbling into the hotel hosting Denial-Con 2013 in here

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. It's the "FOX-i-fication" of the news, and Greenwald is perfect for it. Is there any wonder....

people don't trust the media?

[freshwest]

122. As Bill Maher said, Reagan began the process of just 'making shit up.' The media has that script...

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. You're right. Sadly, the telecommunications act allowed for the fusion of news & entertainment.

When actual "news" came under the auspices of the networks' entertainment division, it fell victim to the mad dash for ratings & internet clicks. I just read a review of Greenwald's "revelation" at another site, and the author points out that GG doesn't care if he gets it wrong, because he knows it's the original story that gets all the attention, and retractions or "walking back" gets printed in the back sheets, and in hushed tones in the M$M.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. The Washington Post decided to rile up the Crazies

None of this will be remembered in the least five years from now.

Much ado about bullshit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. exactly! kooks and cranks like Al Gore have been exposed as the crazies that they are

good thing that nut never made it into the White House

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/05/al-gore-calls-obama-administrations-collection-of-phone-records-obscenely-outrageous/

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Has Gore commented on PRISM?

Your link doesn't seem to say so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. Al Gore calls Obama administration’s collection of phone records ‘obscenely outrageous’

Former Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday night leveled some rare and harsh criticism at the Obama administration, attacking its reported collection of phone records for millions of Americans.

The 2000 Democratic presidential nominee took to Twitter to call the monitoring “obscenely outrageous.”


In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous? ow.ly/lKS13

— Al Gore (@algore) June 6, 2013

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/05/al-gore-calls-obama-administrations-collection-of-phone-records-obscenely-outrageous/

[LovingA2andMI]

81. And the band plays on....

Stop the high-fives, back slaps and "Oh, we saved our fearless leader B.O." battle cries....

Back to the story that originally LEAD to Glenn Greenwald Groundbreaking Article

By the way....the article is from MARCH 15, 2012. Good luck with your efforts to defend this one.

And Maybe CNET Reporter Declan McCullagh -- needs to do a BIT more research:



"Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.

But “this is more than just a data center,” says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial, because much of the data that the center will handle—financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications—will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Oh, one more correction -- Greenwald first story broke on Wednesday night/THURSDAY Morning US and the Second one on Wednesday night/THURSDAY MORNING US time --- So what happened on Saturday....oh, this story by Greenwald, which does President Obama's NSA no favors indeed.

And the band plays on....

[JDPriestly]

82. Here. Read the court order for yourself.

I would have to say that the hysteria is justified.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[OnyxCollie]

120. I agree with you.

I think the WaPo backing down off its story was due to pressure by the gov't, much the same way the Times held off on its story until after the election.

(I wasn't able to respond to you on the other thread. I was barred from responding merely because I so generously chose to provide some constructive criticism. After watching the pathetic flailing about, I felt compelled to do something, ya know? Poor thing. Limited faculties will only go so far...)

[okaawhatever]

172. That court order is only to store the info. Not access individual numbers. In other countries the

phone companies store the info. Are you okay with that? The only difference is who is storing the info.

[JDPriestly]

178. No. I am not OK with that.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

90. If the Food Stamp/Farm Bill is to be Voted on this Monday...

Then we will, more than likely, see one more "scandal" . I think it will raise it's head Sunday night.

If this vote is on the 17th., more than likely we will see two more to keep the people sidetracked.

[pacalo]

104. Too many scandals bunched together should raise a red flag.

Many billionaires are bitter because they lost a lot of their precious money to put another clueless billionaire into the White House & failed despite their power & influence. The Republicans have to do something to win back their favor. Elections are coming in 2014.

Bob Woodward & the Washington Post were used to get rid of another president (only because the Republicans were for it); &, again, the Washington Post saddled up with this one. It may mean nothing, but I no longer trust Bob Woodward; I think he's more than likely a spook.

I took a break because of the latest hysteria, but I've decided to use the key-word "trash" function.

[JoeyT]

110. No, most of the "hysteria" was over the Verizon thing.

Which the administration confirmed after everyone found out anyway.

But let's all pretend they're the same story! Cue six more OPs with the same people running around saying "I told you so!!!!" and refusing to acknowledge that what they're talking about wasn't what everyone was mad about.

[dkf]

111. You do realize they have government owned equipment duplicating 50+ companies data?

So they are telling us they need a warrant to look at the data on their own equipment, but really they own it all.

What makes you feel comforted knowing the Government has all this in their possession, probably almost everything you have ever created in terms of an electronic record? You think the fact that they currently need a warrant in order to look up their data on you contained on their own equipment will keep it protected for eternity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

[pnwmom]

113. I think Obama's in a catch-22.

A few weeks ago he was being blamed for letting the Boston Marathon bombing happen -- as if he should have had the information to stop the bomber.

Now he's being blamed for legal powers that Congress gave him, in conjunction with the judiciary, to gather information that could stop some terrorist attacks. Or at least identify networks of terrorists after an attack occurred (and prevent future attacks).

No, I'm not comforted that the government feels it has to take these measures. But I'm even less thrilled that attacks like 9/11 -- and even much worse -- can still happen.

[dkf]

117. That's even worse, that they have all this access and still can't prevent things...

That makes the trade off seem even worse. Give up your rights and still get bombed.

[Amonester]

124. It's because, well, they don't really know what to do, but...

there is one thing they know, and it's, they want to keep their high-paying jobs...

So they run around like headless chickens, justifying this, justifying that, and all around they go again.

[dkf]

126. If they actually seemed competent with the info maybe I would consider it.

But to screw up a tip from the Russians and miss the guy traveling in and out of the counrry and miss a MURDER. Geez.

[Amonester]

127. Hey, nobody's perfect.

And nobody will ever be.

[dkf]

128. Honestly that was almost comedic though.

I still can't believe how they screwed up so many times.

[Amonester]

131. Get ready because, one thing is for sure...

they will screw up again.

But, not always.

[pnwmom]

129. No, it's not worse. The system mostly "looks back" after a crime has occurred

or a terrorist has otherwise been identified. That's why it can't prevent a lot of the crimes.

The way to prevent more crimes would be to collect more information and not just by looking back. Wouldn't THAT be worse?

[dkf]

132. The problem is there is too much data, not enough focus.

They are getting caught in the weeds.

[BeyondGeography]

139. What specific rights have you given up

and, more important, how is this impacting your life or anyone's life? Something concrete would be appreciated. You could also note the irony of freely discussing all of this in an unrestrained fashion on a public message board complete with the unfettered ability to support your arguments with information gleaned from any number of useful sources on the Internet.

But don't get distracted. How has the government's ability to access your communications records, which isn't new, impacted your life?

[GoneFishin]

141. How would it harm you if everyday a stranger walked a circle around your house snapping

photos of your house through a telephoto lense? He isn't hurting anything. So I guess there's no problem. No need to get hysterical, right? Just ignore him, right?

If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.

[BeyondGeography]

142. Arne Svenson, is that you?

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2013/05/people-who-live-in-glass-boxes-the-arne-svenson-tribeca-telephoto-controversy/

Don't really see the relevance, btw.

[GoneFishin]

145. Then I understand now why you are perplexed by the outrage.

[DCBob]

140. Yeah, people are over-reacting to this for sure.

I am fine with it as long as they are doing it legally and getting warrants. There are legitimate reasons for collecting this information. This was my same attitude during the Bush/Cheney regime... although I didnt trust those f'kers a bit no matter what they said.

[99Forever]

152. Give away your rights as you wish.

But you sure as fuck aren't going to give mine away, just so you can stroke the Cult of Personality fan club. Those that are in office have taken a SOLEMN OATH to uphold the Constitution, this a direct failure to do so. Shame on them and shame on every citizen that is willing to let them get away with it.

[burnodo]

155. why do Obama and others keep threatening to send the leaker to jail

if it was old news?

[graham4anything]

166. Yup. another day another smear another Darrell Isaa yawner. Yet they persist.

[cantbeserious]

183. Another Day - More Confirmation That The Scandals Are Real

eom

[WinkyDink]

184. First of all, knock off the "hysteria" crap. Secondly, if it's much ado about nothing, you think the

govt WON'T move to extradite Snowden?

Who's the "hysterical" one, here?