The Latest Snowden Leak Is Devastating to NSA Defenders

[n2doc]

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

JUL 7 2014,

Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden from the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency's defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy. In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden's actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations.

But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post's latest article drawing on Snowden's leaked cache of documents includes files "described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained" that "tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless."

The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected "medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam ..."

Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in the Washington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward. In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who'd read her correspondence.

more

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/a-devastating-leak-for-edward-snowdens-critics/373991/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. They're protecting us from toddler and mothers and "traditional famly values".

Not to mention muscular guys and naughty ladies in their undies.

[RKP5637]

2. This is sounding more and more like the totalitarian countries during the WWII era, something

we're supposedly above. There seem to be no reins on this outfit. It's extremely dangerous to the future of a supposed democracy.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. "Nothing is beyond our reach." (http://www.mediashower.com/img//Video_Camera_Stop_Light.jpg)

NO MATTER WHO YOU KNOW, OR WHERE YOU GO, WE'LL KNOW.

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, all over the place now, plus the interstate cameras, satellites, all of

this stuff ...

[tblue37]

109. That is one of the themes of the film

The Bourne Legacy--that government security operations, even if they are rogue ones, can call up data from so many disparate cameras, computers, and other electronic tracking devices all over the country and all over the world that they can easily track anyone they want to.

No doubt the movie presented the government's technical capabilities as being more ubiquitous and fully developed than they are quite yet--but there is little doubt that things are headed in precisely the direction the film suggests.

[truedelphi]

72. And the fact that Catherine Austin Fitts first heard of

"the Syndicate" that was running almost everything noteworthy in terms of the government way back in the 1990's, lets us realize that what the NSA collects will indeed be used to further the business interests of the few while prosecuting others. (Didn't fill out line 46123 on that application correctly? Forgot to fill out IRS Form Whatever? The deep- insider trading competitors will have that info, perhaps for a price, but they will have it. As well as your company's trade secrets, etc.)

[2banon]

130. Fitts had done the kind of investigative work few journalists have..

although she didn't start out professional life doing this. Lost track of her, I know she was in hiding for a time.

[truedelphi]

161. I discovered this video of an interview with her -

If you have not seen it yet, it is a bit lengthy, but very revealing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111654642

[conservaphobe]

3. Used to be a "defender"

No more.

Love the current administration, but future administrations with this power scares the hell out of me.

Time to reign it in.

[RKP5637]

6. Exactly! The tools are there and future administrations good, bad, or super evil will

use this methodology as they see fit. Imagine what J. Edgar Hoover would have done with these tools.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. The NSA put out a statement that I found interesting in response.

They said something along the lines of 'the only thing you can conclude from this latest disclosure is that each person we target talks to an average of nine people.'

Let's think about that for a moment. In the past, Clapper or one of the other spokestypes for the NSA said that they needed to be able to keep '3 hops' worth of info - Not just the nine people you talk to, but the people they talk to, and the people those people talk to.

So if the NSA is now saying the reason 9/10 of the data released was not on 'targets' was that it included the 'nine people on average' that 'targets' talked to, that means they at least WANTED to keep data on the 9 first level people, the 81 second level, and the 729 third level people per 'target'. (819 people plus the target, if you assume each person, target or not, talks to an average of nine people.)

Now I don't know if they actually hit their '3 hop' desired ability, but it's certainly a lot more people getting pulled in the dragnet along with each 'target'.

[Pholus]

9. Now stop thinking about what this means. You're just making it harder...

to sweep it back under the rug where it belongs.

Between that and characterizing "Linux Journal" as the magazine choice of a subversive, we find the same old reflexive bullshit that we hate conservatives for.

Then again, considering that the NSA's current incarnation was their creation I guess it isn't surprising.

[bvar22]

7. ...but it is just the meta-data,...

[Jackpine Radical]

15. They never metadatum

that they didn't like.

[Demeter]

118. DUZY

and you should be subjected to severe physical punishment....with a wet noodle. Them plastic extrusions can hurt! Especially wet....

[2banon]

131. LOL!

[DirkGently]

10. Yep. Same conceit: "We'd prefer to take it ALL;" justify it later.

Someone was bopping around the site trying, "but they can't help it if TERRORISTS talk to regular people" as a rationale for nine out of every ten intercepts being a "non-target."

But they can help it. They can not gather data on Americans not suspected of anything. At worst, this would inconvenience the NSA.

The reality is worse though. They want it all simply because knowledge is power. Over anyone. And they've developed so much excess capacity beyond any possible "terrorists" in the world that it will inevitably be put to other use. Already they are secretly feeding law enforcement and instructing them to create a false narrative to use ill-gotten information.

It's not even a leap to use the same information privately. For blackmail; to discredit political enemies, for all the things illegal secret police organizations, notably our own FBI have traditionally used secretly obtained private information for.

Except on an exponentially larger scale than ever before.

[bl968]

21. The War on Drugs

It already is I have no doubt that it's being used by the DEA as a weapon in the war on drugs. They are spying on every day americans for the purpose of purely domestic law enforcement, which is not, and has not, and will not ever be legal under the constitution, the bill of rights, or any principle of American liberty.

[DirkGently]

27. The bogeyman is always the excuse to overreach.

Notice how your authoritarian types always have several, world-threatening sets of Bad People on hand, to explain why we must Stop At Nothing to maintain security.

Conservatives have bagfuls of these boogeymen. Immigrants, other religions, other ethnicities. Commies, hippies, radical college professors.

Two guys calling themselves the "New Black Panthers."

And yes, the nomenclature of "war" is the big red flag. The War on Drugs brought us no-knock searches and cops in military gear flash-banging the wrong house and maybe shooting a grandmother before realizing they had the wrong address.

Now the War on Terror is supposed to require further shredding the Bill of Rights, in exchange for a theoretically safer world that has never been shown to be available through these means.

People catch on a little, here and there, but fear is a powerful tool. "Let us have this, or your kids will be hurt," is the basic argument. As through drugs or bombs or war would go away if everyone was watched all the time.

Even if that tradeoff were possible, who would really want it?

[Maedhros]

155. It's not even "Do this, or bad things will happen."

It's become something that simply must be done - period. No thought about why, no explanation of reason beyond "because."

"We do what we must, because we can."

- Aperture Labs slogan

[tblue37]

110. The TV show _The Good Wife_ dealt with this issue this season. nt

[riderinthestorm]

11. Its so imperative we talk about this stuff and not get derailed with "Snowden traitor!"

"Greenwald narcissist".

We must begin a national dialogue about this surveillance. Its wrong. Its illegal. And its continuing to happen despite the exposure.

Big K&R

[Chucky-Doll]

12. It's not devastating at all.

It's not devastating, because nobody is talking about this, except for Edward Snowden's fan-base. Only the conceited anti-NSA obsessed crowd thinks' this is a devastating bomb-shell. Did you hear about the German "double-agent," who tried to sell stolen documents to Russia, and then the U.S.? Angela Merkel is steaming mad because Germany has their own backstabbing version of Edward Snowden.

A German intelligence employee stole documents from Germany's BND intelligence agency, and allegedly handed them over to the U.S., or tried to. The Germans are hypocrites. They think Edward Snowden is a "hero" when he steals American intelligence, and gives it away, but when one of their own does the something similar to them, they cry foul!

Now, Angela Merkel is accusing the U.S. of using a double-agent to spy on the German committee investigating NSA surveillance in Germany. But according to the chairman of the German NSA inquiry, the German double-agent didn't sell any of the NSA inquiry's documents to the U.S, and he also said this:

"At this time, I can say that I don't have any information that the NSA committee's own documents were spied on," Sensburg told German public radio on Saturday."

"I would be very careful about making hasty conclusions about whether the Americans were spying here or whether perhaps other states were spying," said Sensburg, who's a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU).

http://www.dw.de/double-agent-did-not-spy-on-german-nsa-inquiry-says-panel-chairman/a-17760982

Germany's Green Party is blaming Angela Merkel for the security breach. Angela Merkel, and Germany are still butt-hurt over the NSA. They need to move on. France has. The Germans make everything about the NSA, now. It's always the NSA's fault, even if there's no evidence to back it up. Angela Merkel has an agenda. Her constant accusations (many unproven---including this latest one) are helping to damage U.S.-German relations. She's just Bush in a dress.

[Scuba]

14. We can work on Germany's problems after we clean up our mess here at home.

Your attempt to distract this discussion from the NSA's violation of our civil rights is pathetic.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

16. "Edward Snowden's fan base", "conceited anti-NSA obsessive crowd" ??

Name calling and deflection (Germany? ... don't care) just illuminate your agenda.

FAIL!

[n2doc]

23. Don't feed the troll n/t

[Enthusiast]

35. Your argument is not convincing.

[Aerows]

39. Your counter-argument

is about as devastating as a flea fart. I can't believe you even invested the time to type that.

[LLD]

45. Always has been from the start.

"Only the conceited anti-NSA obsessed crowd thinks' this is a devastating bomb-shell."

[whatchamacallit]

65. Yes, we only complain about being spied on because we're in love with Snowden

[Caretha]

91. New job?

How's it going for you so far?

[morningfog]

103. New DU screen name, lol.

Wonder what the old one was. Hmmm...

[Jeff Murdoch]

111. not enough links

[Luminous Animal]

98. CBS News: Official: CIA recruited German intel officer to spy for U.S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/official-cia-recruited-german-intel-officer-to-spy-for-u-s/

MAJOR GARRETT CBS NEWS
Jul 7, 2014 7:12 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - A German intelligence employee is accused of spying on his own country for the United States. The man was arrested last week.

A U.S. official tells CBS News the CIA was involved in recruiting a German intelligence officer for the purpose of spying on the German government.

This was not a rogue operation but an authorized effort to learn more about the inner workings of the German government.

[Pholus]

162. Nice explanation. Too bad rationality doesn't work.... nt

[kelliekat44]

104. ++1000 nt

[Marr]

114. Why not post under your usual name?

A little embarrassed?

[blackspade]

139. Distraction fail.

[Moostache]

13. I encourage everyone to start posting random nonsense to attract NSA attention.

Video tape the entire thing - typing, screenshots, usernames, passwords, disclaimers about intent - all in an effort to release the entire thing to the media as soon as anyone is arrested, detained or harassed. Fuck them and their intrusive spying.

Create an intentional FLOOD of disinformation to waste their time and effort and muddy the waters enough to make it impossible to separate wheat from chafe....Hell, if we could just get kids to randomly text message 15 spurious messages a day (out of their normal 100 +), we could flood the NSA AND create jobs as they hire more analysts to sift through the noise!

[Jackpine Radical]

17. The problem with this

is that all they need is the data, regardless of its validity, to control & threaten people. In fact, spurious evidence is often the best kind for their purposes.

[Babel_17]

18. Congressional oversite

Congress needs to investigate their own failure to properly use it, and then act accordingly.

And the other big issue, imo, is the constant sloppiness in seeking warrants. There's nothing slippery about that slope. Any outfit that starts shrugging off that legal responsibility deserves to get disciplined.

Edit: I posted some links recently. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200717

[bvar22]

19. Congress investigate their Own Failure?

THAT would be a hoot.

Here is the results of that "investigation".

"While some mistakes were made, overall
Congress has done a masterful job of oversight in these dangerous and difficult times since 9-11. We have prevented further attacks on the USA.
I would like to congratulate all the Congressmen & Congresswomen for their Heroism and Patriotism in defending our country."

[Enthusiast]

33. A hoot indeed.

Great post, bvar22.

[Aerows]

42. LOL!

That's what the press release would typically say.

[nolabels]

71. Maybe we might want to think about being a little more easy on some of these folks (maybe)

It's realistic they may have just come in from the rain.

You know sometimes that sunshine might be too bright for their little squinted eyes

[Aerows]

82. I'll excuse Congress

When all of them make less than the average American worker. If you get paid like "the best and the brightest" then you damn well better act like it.

[nolabels]

90. I will take that back bvar22, and no maybe's either

[Babel_17]

75. I can see that happening, and that would be sad, but ...

That would be sad, but it would undermine any right wingers who want to say that administration officials are supporting an overreach by the NSA.

If there's no there, there, then they are bloviating. If there is something there, then the light shines on those tasked with Congressional oversight. "They" set this in motion, and at the moment "they" are responsible for keeping it in check.

I'm not saying they won't attempt to have it both ways. I'm saying we need to make them work hard for it, and we need to point out their liabilities.

[L0oniX]

20. They're collecting everyone's pictures for ID ...oh wait ...that's FB ...or is it Google?

Face recognition ...the latest and greatest. There will even be a FR for Google Glass so you can ID anyone on the street or restaurant or store, etc. My point here is that NSA is or will be doing the same thing ...in co-operation with the FBI ...of course.

[MisterP]

22. EVERY revelation so far has methodically and shatteringly destroyed the defenders' talking points

they just make new ones
it's almost like their avowed motivations aren't the ones they're working with, and they just want to circle the wagons around the Presidency (which they said they'd support literally no matter what it did)

[Aerows]

55. Upton Sinclair

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[HooptieWagon]

81. I see what you did there.

[2banon]

132. ^^^This! 1000+!^^^

[reddread]

24. STASI

who would ever have conceived of Germany repaying the favor?

[tclambert]

25. But Emmanuel Goldstein is still out there. And we must hate him!

Ignorance is Strength.

[Jackpine Radical]

119. Around here we just call him "Manny."

[pnwmom]

26. IOW, Snowden now has released personal information on 10,000 people

that is currently in the hands of the WA Post, Wikileaks, and who-knows-who, and could end up anywhere.

No, it shouldn't have been collected by the NSA. And it also shouldn't have been handed over to Wikileaks and GEG.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with this if Snowden had ONLY given this to the WA Post, which I would trust not to spread it further. But there's every reason to think this same cache is in the hands of Assange.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Wikileaks has nothing. If they did, they would publish. And yes, they do redact.

[pnwmom]

46. GEG said long ago that he and Snowden had given copies of everything

to more than one recipient. So we shall see.

[Luminous Animal]

48. He has always maintained that he and Poitras are the only 2 who have access to all the docs.

Gellman, WaPo, the NY Times and Pro Publica have a limited cache.

[reddread]

30. because a libertarian?

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

[Aerows]

34. He couldn't release information on innocent people

if the NSA wasn't collecting data on innocent people.

The "cache" was there to be taken, shouldn't have been, but was. It's a little like crying foul that you were shocked, shocked that there was gambling going on in there the day you lost a lot of money.

[pnwmom]

47. It was wrong for the NSA to collect it

and also wrong for Snowden to leak it it to anyone who wouldn't securely protect it.

From what Snowden and Greenwald have said in the past, it's very unlikely that WA Post was the only recipient. So this cache could be almost anywhere.

[Aerows]

52. That's what happens

when you do things you shouldn't do in the first place. Ire directed at everyone except the people in charge of collecting this data is misguided. There is a reason the 4th Amendment forbid it, and this is exactly why.

[atreides1]

54. I just want to understand!

It was wrong for the NSA to collect this information, but it was also wrong for Snowden to leak the information that it was wrong for the NSA to collect?

But if Snowden hadn't leaked it...we would have never known that the NSA had collected it...and you couldn't say that it was wrong for the NSA to collect it!

Is that pretty much it?

[Aerows]

58. Nailed it. n/t

[pnwmom]

59. You deliberately twisted what I said. Why?

I said that I would feel differently if I knew he only leaked it to the WAPost or similar media member that would take measures to keep it secure.

But there is no reason to believe that, since they've spoken previously about giving their "cache" to multiple people in order to keep themselves safe.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-usa-security-doomsday-idUSBRE9AO0Y120131125

Glenn Greenwald, who met with Snowden in Hong Kong and was among the first to report on the leaked documents for the Guardian newspaper, said the former NSA contractor had "taken extreme precautions to make sure many different people around the world have these archives to insure the stories will inevitably be published."

[Luminous Animal]

60. They have NEVER made the claim that they have given it to anyone.

Snowden and Greenwald have been absolutely clear that the only people who have the full set of docs are Poitras and Greenwald. Bart Gellman doesn't even have a full set.

You are confusing Snowden's fail safe system with distribution.

[pnwmom]

62. Their "fail safe system" means that other people have access to the archives.

And it has already been acknowledged that there are people around the world who have the ability to break the codes that were used.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Actually it does not. I've been part of safe system and what I had was

but one of many keys. Many of these keys are duplicates in case one key holder gets "lost". I was unknown to other keyholders and the others did not know me.

My key alone allowed me access to nothing. The same with other key holders. I didn't even know what my key looked like.

[pnwmom]

67. I'm talking about computer engineers with the ability

to bypass keys.

[Luminous Animal]

87. Okey-doke

[BillZBubb]

83. You crushed the foolish "objection".

If Snowden said they did it, they deny it. Then the NSA Groupies line up to claim Snowden is a liar.

So Snowden has to release the information AND TO MORE THAN ONE SOURCE. If he released to one source the NSA and the other security state agencies might block its publication. Multiple sources prevents that.

So now the NSA apologists are saying Snowden shouldn't have released personal information. The depths of their illogic knows no bounds in an attempt to cover for the NSA.

[mike_c]

78. you persist in trying to deflect responsibility to Snowden, and away from the NSA....

Why so persistent in your defense of the indefensible?

[Babel_17]

80. Snowden argued that he gave it because ...

In an interview, Snowden said “primary documents” offered the only path to a concrete debate about the costs and benefits of Section 702 surveillance. He did not favor public release of the full archive, he said, but he did not think a reporter could understand the programs “without being able to review some of that surveillance, both the justified and unjustified.”

“While people may disagree about where to draw the line on publication, I know that you and The Post have enough sense of civic duty to consult with the government to ensure that the reporting on and handling of this material causes no harm,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html

[uponit7771]

112. So Snowdens doing wrong by people is OK because the NSA is doing it too? REALLY?!

[riderinthestorm]

40. One small sentence objecting to the NSA collection. The rest is slamming Snowden

The NSA'S illegal actions are the point.

Regardless of the.persistent effort to constantly smear the whistleblower its long past time we discussed the illegal surveillance and retention of massive amounts of data on ordinary Americans.

[BillZBubb]

84. PATHETIC!

Your sorry attempt to try to deflect the responsibility on to Snowden is disgusting.

Snowden had no option but to release what he had to multiple sources. If he only gave the information to one source, that source in all likelihood would have been silenced by the national security apparatus. Having multiple sources makes that much less likely. The more sources, the more likely Americans could learn the truth of what their government is up to.

Of course you'd be more comfortable if he hadn't. It's not hard to guess why.

[Hissyspit]

113. Yesterday: Snowden bad because he doesn't have proof of what he claims.

Today: Snowden bad because he has proof of what he claims.

[Marr]

116. Exactly. It's pathetic. /nt

[SwankyXomb]

128. We have always been at war with Eastasia. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Seems that way. nt

[Marr]

115. Seriously, just give it up. Trying to continue this smear job looks way too pathetic now. /nt

[Warren Stupidity]

124. Well there you go. I knew somebody would come up with the spin that makes this about snowden.

Congratulations. You must be so proud.

[Pholus]

163. Yeah. He should have SOLD his insider knowledge like the good General.

It's the beltway bandit way -- leverage your clearance into a retirement plan!

[BuelahWitch]

29. Any one of the subjects described in paragraph 2 could be a DU post

[NCTraveler]

31. What does the latest release have to do with Snowden and his character?

They aren't linked in the slightest. So funny how his most ardent defenders make everything about him, and his most ardent detractors make everything about him. This article could have been written much better if his name played no role in it. In fact, it would garner more serious responses with respect to the topic at hand. The first two paragraphs is a nightmare and pathetic.

The author of this is nothing short of obsessed by Snowden. Wish they were as obsessed with the NSA.

[Enthusiast]

32. We would be fools if we did not assume the NSA would abuse their "mandate".

If they actually legally have such a mandate at all.

[Aerows]

38. They don't

It's all smoke and mirrors horseshit that was flimsy to begin with.

[Aerows]

36. I'm shocked *shocked*

that all of this data on innocent people got released. Because, you know, collecting data on innocent people isn't wrong in the first place.

[Enthusiast]

37. I would like to personally thank each and every one of you that recommended this OP.

[BelgianMadCow]

51. my pleasure

and you're welcome

[randome]

41. In one of the other half dozen posts about this...

...I pointed out that it is impossible to collect only one side of a conversation in the same way it is impossible to listen in on only one side of a tapped phone call.

And of course no one addressed that point. Perhaps here someone can answer how it is possible to collect only emails belonging to a suspect if one doesn't first collect and read said emails.

And of the billions of daily emails, the NSA has inadvertently collected a few thousand? Cries of 'police state!' are just...meh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

43. No dog in this show!

[randome]

44. As an afterthought, I almost included this:

"And Aerows, if you post one more dog pic, I'll...I'll..."

Still no response to what I posted, though. I apparently killed that last thread. Asking questions is the way to do that, hm?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[winter is coming]

145. How long before you have to start repeating breeds? n/t

[Aerows]

147. I've got a million of 'em

[riderinthestorm]

49. Why are they saving the innocent parties responses?

Oh. And its illegal.

And they lied again. Oh make that twice more. Said they weren't doing it and Snowden had no access to this.

[randome]

50. I can think of two good reasons.

Last edited Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

One: many of the individual emails may not have identifying info on them. I mean how would they know that [e-mail] is an American citizen?

Two: it would probably take a lot of man hours to go through every email or contact reference to verify whether or not they are American or a suspect or what not.

So if they collect all of a suspect's communications, they are bound to get a mass of data not pertinent to a terrorist threat or whatever. A few thousand communications stored away in case it turns out later that randome16 was the leader of a terrorist cell? Out of how many billions of emails transmitted daily?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

53. Or because the NSA and most of it's head officials are full of plain bullshit

Oh, and I'm sorry I didn't rush to respond to you in another thread that I have no idea which one you are talking about.

Please provide a reference and I'll get to it right away.

[riderinthestorm]

63. Its illegal to do this to one American let alone however many more they have

And its their job to go through this stuff.

Their JOB!

Your level of disregard for the.illegality, and your apathetic dismissal of NSA malfeasance, is exactly what the NSA banks on. And why they continue to get away with this shit.

[randome]

66. It is NOT illegal. Snowden knows this. So does Greenwald.

Again, how would you capture a suspect's communications without incidentally getting non-suspect communications at the same time?

How?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

69. Your schtick keeps getting funnier every time you repeat it!

Its very amusing when you trot it out....

Since you don't think they're acting illegally by surveilling and storing Americans' stuff then it doesn't matter that they are doing this. Its Americans like you who enable them so they have no incentive to do their jobs legally and find ways to clean up their act. Why demand a fix from an anonymous internet poster if you don't think its a problem?

Regardless, fwiw, its not my job to configure their surveillance systems so they operate within the law. ITS THEIRS.

[Fred Drum]

73. when did he make the jump

from "it's only meta-data"

to "it's not illegal"

i must have missed that

[riderinthestorm]

76. Ha! Welcome to DU! nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

125. It's simple enough

The limitation to collect only metadata applies only to citizens of the U.S. If you're not a citizen of the U.S., it's the NSA's job to spy on you. Same for all other intelligence services foreign or domestic.

Seriously, it's cute watching the screaming ideologues get in a lather over signal intelligence. I picture in my mind a bunch of never-grew-up hippies in sandals, tie-dye, and patchouli oil, holding up signs saying "No military", "No police", "No spies" - "In the ideal world of our own imagination, we wouldn't need them!!!".

All I can do is proverbially pat them on the head and say, "Boy, wouldn't it be nice. We could get rid of firefighters as well!". Now run along and play with the five-year-olds.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

141. Oh, it's you again....

Taking a break from 'reality?'
Then maybe you should re-read the OP. The material was "described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

151. And it's you again!

Do you enjoy using emotes instead of actual arguments?

As with all Obama "scandals", this has turned from overwrought misrepresentation of what could have legitimately been a concern, into a farce. Apparently now, the "scandal" has devolved into people keeping backups of old forgotten data on their computers.

Are you aware that every embarrassing tweet, every "sext", every purple prose email you've ever written, is almost certainly on someone's backup somewhere? Like google's? No?

I wouldn't expect you would.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

168. And apparently your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

You're making an argument that is not based on the facts.
This is not an 'Obama' scandal per se, rather this is a systemic problem that goes beyond the current administration.
Attempting to link this to Obama apparently serves two purposes for the authoritarians at DU; it allows the unconstitutional seizure of protected data of Americans to continue under the smokescreen of 'ODS' and ties Obama to a scandal that he inherited from the Bush years which only serves to justify the RW hate for the man.

So, from my perspective, your continued linking of Obama to this obvious systemic problem within one of the most powerful agencies in the US government only serves to further erode confidence in his presidency.

But as a conservative, that is your mission correct?

As for your word salad:

"As with all Obama "scandals", this has turned from overwrought misrepresentation of what could have legitimately been a concern, into a farce. Apparently now, the "scandal" has devolved into people keeping backups of old forgotten data on their computers.

Are you aware that every embarrassing tweet, every "sext", every purple prose email you've ever written, is almost certainly on someone's backup somewhere? Like google's? No? "

What is your point? That people have forgotten data on their computers? Personal backups are available to the NSA? Company databases for tweets, e-mail, facebook posts, etc are all compromised by the NSA?
What is it? If that is what you are alluding too, THAT is a scandal and exactly what the problem is all about.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

169. My reading comprehension is far beyond yours...

This "scandal" is that once the NSA has sucked down someone's personal data to see if they're engaged in terrorism (like their buddy who just went off to Syria, etc.), and then found that they're not, they don't have a specific program to erase that data off their hard drives. They just let it sit, unlooked at.

Wow. Big scandal.

Except that that same sort of stuff is lying around absolutely everywhere. On privately owned servers which often have very little protections compared to the NSA's protections (and an economic incentive to "forget" what they promised in terms of privacy before - ala Facebook). In fact, the only people who care about this are the people who scream the word "Unconstitutional" as a substitute for "I'm not even remotely versed in the law, but I figure it's a big word I (like teabaggers who are my analogues) can use to yell about legal things I don't like."


Now it may surprise you to know that that when Bush pushed his "Unitary Executive" theory in the mid-2000s, I was firmly against him. I was also against the abuses that the NSA engaged in at the time. However, one of the things that Speaker Pelosi did in 2008 was to reform the NSA. Obama reformed it further, setting it back to the way it was before Bush came into office. And that's all fine. But the idea that the U.S. should somehow get rid of its signal intelligence program is, flat out, a nonstarter. Ain't gonna happen. Because we need one.

So you can scream all you want, but the grownups will always be in charge.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

170. You just can't stop mis-representing the facts can you?

Whether or not the information is looked at or not, is irrelevant. Storing it at all is a violation of the 4th amendment.
And your gibberish about privately owned servers and 'big words' is just a word salad smokescreen for a vacuous arguement.

And you're deceiving yourself if you think that the NSA has been reformed and put "it back to the way it was before Bush came into office."

But, by all means go back to your Reality Based Community where you can pretend that "grownups will always be in charge."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

171. Ah, the old "pointing out facts you don't like" is "misrepresenting" them

And in another thread, you're the one screaming about the NSA abuses that happened back in the 2002-2008 timeframe, while other people are calmly trying to point out to you who was President back then.

Indeed the only facts you have cited is the naked unsupported assertion that "you're deceiving yourself". Who am I going to believe, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, or some random internet troll?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/in-members-only-fact-sheet-pelosi-touts-improvements-in-surveillance-law

My "reality based community" is the majority of the country which doesn't care about this, and about 90% of its leadership on both sides of the aisle who have no intention of endangering the US over what the screamers think. Let the teabaggers and their ideological mirrors scream conspiracy theories about the big-bad government. The grownups will be in charge, and the NSA is going nowhere.

You're not in charge, now are you?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

172. Screaming, huh?

You live in a strange little bubble world.

But that's ok, I can live without convincing a fellow internet 'troll' especially one that grumps about 'grownups' being in charge.
Are you going to tell me to get off your theoretical lawn next?

[randome]

74. Glad to hear you are amused but I have no 'schtick'.

It seems very straight-foward to me. When a warrant is issued to tap a phone, the agents are bound to overhear conversations not belonging to the suspect. In that case, they can immediately break their connection. What they can't do is 'unhear' what they've already heard.

With email, it's a much more immediate process. You have no idea if randome16 in my example above is part of a terrorist cell or not. You can't pick only the pertinent emails without first scrutinizing those emails. So the question I posed was a needless one. I was merely pointing out that it is impossible to know which emails to copy without already knowing what emails to copy. Do you see the conundrum there?

Do you understand that written communications in the Internet Age make this a very different process than tapping a phone?

And if the NSA is following the minimization procedures as allowed by law, they are not doing anything illegal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

77. Please proceed Governor! nt

[Fred Drum]

89. additionally

all those lame debates that ended at "it's only meta-data"

yeah, they were losers

now you write "You can't pick only the pertinent emails without first scrutinizing those emails"

if John Young is to be believed, and cryptome does get the files released, in toto, we'll all get to scrutinize those emails as well.

should be interesting

[randome]

92. You're trying to conflate too many things.

Yes. Metadata is 'only' metadata. But when the NSA has a valid warrant to scoop up the communications of a suspect, they will always get other communications not pertinent to the task at hand.

That is a completely separate issue from metadata. And still no one can say how the NSA is supposed to only examine the communications they are after without first examining all the communications from the suspect.

None of you wants to think the issue through to its logical conclusion because it's always so much easier to imagine that vast, shadowy powers are out to get you.

And one more time...we are talking about several thousand communications -total- out of the several billion that cross this planet on a daily basis. You really think this equates to 24/7 spying? It's ridiculous and shows a lack of curiosity about facts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Vattel]

156. The NSA doesn't need a warrant to scoop up communicatuons of a foreign person.

So if said foreign person communicates with US citizen, they get communications of that US citizen without a warrant. It works really nicely for them.

[randome]

158. There is a potential loophole there, I agree.

Too bad no one has evidence that the NSA is abusing this loophole. The way to fix that is with a law, not for someone to steal hundreds of thousands of documents and flee the country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

134. Exactly! And if I was in the NSA and wanted to know what someone was saying

I'd first send an email to someone on my "target" list (check out these funny cats, this one wants to "haz cheezeburger&quot , and then send an email to whoever I wanted to listen in on and like magic, I can see their email. Stock tips, industrial espionage, insider deals and negotiating strategy, opposition research, and all sorts of other very lucrative opportunities can arise from this.

People's real concern isn't that they're going to "get a mass of data not pertinent to a terrorist threat", it's that they're TRYING to get a mass of data not pertinent to a terrorist threat and just using this as an excuse.

[randome]

136. Thousands of minimized communications out of several billion that circle the globe DAILY.

If you look at the numbers, this hardly sounds like some out-of-control spy agency.

And if you deliberately send an email to someone who is a target, then that email is likely to be scooped up as part of the target's communications, too. Which makes no sense for someone to do that. Not to mention the fact that you would likely be breaking several laws and regulations.

They do have levels of authorization, you know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

137. Hold on a second.

A few seconds ago, you said that they couldn't even tell if [e-mail] was a US citizen, now they're going to care enough to find out exactly who it is? I'm calling bullshit on that. You can argue one side or the other, but not both.

If you're in the NSA and have an interest in someone's communications, walk down to an internet cafe or public library, create an email [e-mail], and send lolcats to both an NSA target and your target. Now your anonymous strawman account is node 2 in a 3 node collection warrant, and your target is node 3. Who cares if the NSA has your anonymous email in their collection, do you think they have the resources to figure out who created it?

As far as breaking laws and regulations, I think it's pretty clear they work on their own sort of system over at the NSA, and while it might be illegal (and I'm not even sure that it is) you'd almost never be able to prove it.

[randome]

140. Okay. I'm sure you're right. Any law enforcement officer on the planet can try to spy on someone.

Or try to frame someone. The things that prevent this from occurring on a routine basis are the laws, regulations, levels of training and penalties meted out for exceeding one's authority.

Now is there any evidence that the NSA is doing this on a routine basis? None that I can see.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

142. Not any law enforcement officer, but those at the NSA have an easy formula to

pick a target and read their info "legally" (or at least, it would be extremely difficult to prove any illegality).

Have you set the bar so low that such activity needs to occur on a "routine basis" to be a reason for concern? They had a couple thousand incidents of NSA employees looking up ex-wives, girlfriends and neighbors without any authorization recently, based on their OWN accounting, but I guess that's not enough to be considered routine either.

What exactly constitutes enough of a "routine basis" that you would actually be concerned?

[randome]

143. They are a spy agency. Of course their inner workings are kept secret from the public.

'Routine basis' is like art or porn. I know it when I see it. Of course everyone else says the same which means no one agrees.

The only illegality we know about was the Love-Int scandal and that was self-reported by the NSA. All I know is that they have multiple levels of approval to prevent abuse. The entire FISA court review was put into place to prevent the abuses that Lil' Bush was doing. Congress is supposed to be reviewing them, as well. (Which we know they don't do a good job at.)

Absent evidence that they are breaking the trust we place in them, I'm not all that worried. The key to me is a few thousand communications versus hundreds of billions during the course of a year. That does not at all sound to me like they are wantonly disregarding the law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

149. I just gave you a scenario which the FISA court will do nothing about.

A warrant is given for a bad guy, and now they have access to any particular person they'd like to investigate. The FISA court has permitted these warrants for up to 3 levels of interaction and the agency APPEARS to be working within the bounds of them.

As far as "only a few thousand" goes, there's only about 150 prisoners left in Guantanamo bay, but the US prison system has MILLIONS, I guess if they're only doing this to a small percentage of people, it's okay then?

They told us about something illegal they already did (the LOVEINT, which only came out after people started calling for heads to roll and this was the "bone" they threw us), and I'm sorry if I don't buy this "self-policing in the name of security" horseshit. They've also basically come out and said they're willing to lie to the people and congressional investigators if they believe they're "protecting national security" in doing so.

I'll say this: if one, ONE, incident comes out where someone in the NSA was using or selling data they really shouldn't have had in the first place for financial or political gain, the credibility of anyone who continues to defend them will be worth as little as the NSA's credibility is now.

[randome]

150. My credibility depends on where the facts lead. Nothing more.

If Snowden or Greenwald -even now that we're into Year 2 of their show- suddenly provides proof that the NSA is the nefarious entity they want us to believe, I will support their efforts.

But Greenwald said he would name names by the end of June (first he said August then he moved it up). And we have nothing. Even Snowden, when pressed by Brian Williams, could not name one illegal act that the NSA has committed. Not one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

154. As I said, if a story comes out about people in the NSA going into the "for profit"

security business, you will have a hard time dismissing that and moving on to a new defense.

I don't think the NSA can be trusted, apparently you do. I think I've seen enough to have a reason not to trust them, and apparently you don't.

I don't think either one of us is going to be able to convince the other that their faith (or lack thereof) is misplaced. I'm just putting it out there now that when it comes out that people at the NSA were selling info or "helping out a friend" with information that the NSA had access to but had nothing to do with terrorism, I'm all done "agreeing to disagree". And let's be honest, you know it's going to happen if it hasn't already. If you let thousands of people access this virtual gold mine, someone's going to figure out a way to make a little extra cash, someone's going to do a "favor for a friend", or someone's going to let regulations slide for the sake of efficiency. It's human nature, and the way to avoid it is to NOT create such a tempting target in the first place.

[randome]

157. Of course I know it will happen. Of course it's human nature.

It happens in local police departments. It happens in the CIA. The FBI. All levels of the diplomatic corps.

So how would you spy on the electronic communications of a foreign suspect if you don't, um, spy on their electronic communications?

And so far as we know, there is no 'virtual gold mine'. That's why they have multiple levels of approval in order to do anything. It's to lessen the odds of someone doing what you suggest. That's all any agency can do -lower the odds.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hughee99]

159. They're keeping a lot of shit they no they don't need, and depending on who the target is

they could have all sorts of valuable ( to someone) information stored in their vaults. They also have the ability to add someone to their collection list with virtually no oversight with the strawman email which would appear to comply with an existing FISA warrant.

If you don't know how this sort of information might have value, go talk to the guys at the Daily Mirror or anyone in politics who does opposition research.

[ZombieHorde]

79. OK.

A bad guy is being watched. He calls his aunt and wishes her a happy birthday, and the phone call is monitored. If it stopped there, fewer people would be upset. But now the aunt is being watched. She calls her son, and now the son is being watched. This is why so many people have a problem.

[randome]

93. Who says anyone is watching the aunt or the son?

Who says any of these individuals in this cache are being watched? They were deliberately annotated as 'not relevant', according to the article.

...leaked cache of documents includes files "described as useless by the analysts...

My god, the only contact that was mentioned was by a reporter, not by the NSA!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[ZombieHorde]

94. The OP says even photos of children's baths were kept.

"medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam ..."

[randome]

95. Yeah, are these the photos of a suspect's family?

Are they the photos of a suspect posing with his/her child? The medical records of a suspect?

The article conflates all this data, too. At one point, they say Americans' data is being inadvertently obtained and then retained. And then they go on to this other stuff which may or may not have anything to do with that data retention.

They aren't specifying which data belongs to suspects, foreign individuals or Americans. They are being deliberately obtuse.

Look at the way the paragraphs are laid out in the article. One does not necessarily depend on a previous paragraph.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

100. What I find most funny is the sheer ignorance of how actual law enforcement works. nt

[randome]

101. I wonder how many police case files have the same type of annotations in them.

"Officer observed {whatever} but this was not deemed relevant to the investigation."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

102. Every single one. It's like no one here ever watched "The Wire." nt

[neverforget]

107. I know! more people should be educated by a fictional tv show!

[Aerows]

146. That has to be one of the silliest argument I've ever heard

"The American public should view law enforcement from the framework of a fictional television series."

I'm pretty sure that those who tortured suspects would like for us to view their work in the framework of 24. It doesn't make it any less abhorrent.

[msanthrope]

164. Actually, David Simon is taught in better law schools around the country in Evidence and Crim Pro.

If you've never read his brilliant work "Homicide" with his absolutely stunnning 5th amendment narrative, I highly recommend that you do so.

Ironically, one the best expositions on civil rights ever written comes from Mr. Simon.

Fuck...the Maryland Court of Appeals quotes him....

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2011/06/court_of_appeals_quotes_david.html

http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2011/06/wire-creator-david-simon-has-counter-offer-eric-holder/38706/

[neverforget]

167. If The Wire were a documentary, you'd have an argument.

The Maryland Court of Appeals quotes him from his book, not the fictional tv show. Major difference there.

Now, the Maryland Court of Appeals has weighed in (read decision here), quoting from his book recounting a year with the Baltimore Police Department's homicide unit, in an opinion on a Miranda case. They use cite a passage from "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" to explore "street-cred."

[msanthrope]

173. Lester Freamon would just look at you balefully. nt

[Rex]

56. Well it looks like the NSA defenders are fleeing a sinking ship.

If their pathetic excuses are any indication.

[Aerows]

61. It's after five o'clock

in Washington.

[BillZBubb]

85. We could only wish...just look up a few posts above yours.

We've got an NSA groupie saying this is much ado about nothing, after all its only 10,000 individuals.

They won't give up. No matter how absurd their arguments, they are true believers. They are just like Climate Change deniers. No evidence, no facts, no disclosure will change their opinion--they'll just find another nit pick argument to cling to.

[Rex]

121. Few and far between, at one time it was a rather large group that high fived each other

over saying Comrade Eddie etc.. now it looks like a few desperate holdouts fighting a lost cause. Their excuses are laughable and easily dismissed with article after article of facts and not the fiction they produce on the spot.

[Teamster Jeff]

57. J. Edgar Hoover is laughing in hell right now.

[BillZBubb]

86. He only wishes he had the NSA's technology back in the day.

All the extra evil he could have done!

[Babel_17]

88. That's food for thought, because Hoover was also dedicated

Hoover was dedicated in going after people and groups he saw as threats to (what he saw as) our way of life, and law and order. In other words, inside Hoover was someone who saw himself as "a white hat", a dedicated public servant.

I propose that the more power he got, the further off the rails he went.

So either Hoover was a bizarre aberration, or we need to take care on how we are setting ourselves up for a fall by putting such unchecked tools into play.

[BillZBubb]

97. Exactly

History has shown that Hoover wasn't an aberration. Every society since civic society has existed has produced those who would abuse power given the opportunity. They always use some internal or external threat, usually grossly exaggerated, to grab more and more power.

[WillyT]

68. HUGE K & R !!!

[snot]

70. K&R'd!

[Uncle Joe]

96. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[UTUSN]

99. For the record, I'm not an "NSA defender," I'm a GREENWALD/SNOWDEN attacker. n/t

[Marr]

117. Right, because you'd be attacking those two even if this NSA issue didn't exist.

Uh-huh.

[elias49]

105. Oh snap! "Prosense" has disappeared!

The blue-link specialist...gone and forgotten.

[riderinthestorm]

120. You're right! Where is she? nt

[klook]

106. Snooping on the medical records of people who weren't singled out for lawful surveillance...

creeps looking at picture after picture of nude children... intimate photos of women scanned by dweebs at desks in a bunker...

I doubt many of the NSA's defenders will care unless they find it was their family members' privacy being violated.

This is horrifying. Who will go to jail for these crimes? I'm waiting.

[randome]

122. Who says they are 'snooping'?

If they have a warrant to get the communications from a suspect and some of those communications include medical records and intimate photos...how is that 'snooping'?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[klook]

144. This appears to be in absence of a warrant.

We now know that the NSA collected and stored the sensitive personal information described in the article. No warrant needed, no notification required.

At first we we were told the NSA collected "just metadata." Now you're asserting (correct me if I've misinterpreted your statements) that it's no big deal for them to retrieve and store, for example, personal medical information belonging to people not currently under investigation via a warrant, or photos of naked children in the bathtub.

Because, you know, there might be a serious national emergency requiring the retrieval of the lingerie photo that woman thought she was sending privately to her sweetheart.

How is all this not snooping?

What, if any, data collection & storage by the NSA would be a problem to defenders of this program? Or is the definition of "metadata" evolving to fit the latest revelations?

[randome]

148. This has nothing to do with metadata.

No one ever said that the NSA's only job was to collect metadata. They are a spy agency. They spy on foreign countries and on foreign suspects.

A warrant is not needed if a foreign suspect is the target. If they have the authorization to collect a foreign suspect's communications, they will 99.9% of the time also collect communications to and from that suspect that have nothing to do with the NSA's task. And some of that data may belong to American citizens.

You can't know which emails to collect until you know which emails to collect. Does that not sound ridiculous?

And out of hundreds of billions of communications per year, the NSA's 'creepy' collection amounts to a few thousand communications. What is that, something like one hundred-thousandth of a percent?

I would call if snooping if they deliberately set out to spy on American citizens. But that's not what the article is alleging. And that's against the law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[klook]

165. "...some of that data may belong to American citizens."

We were assured, by Clapper and the NSA's defenders, that only metadata was being collected on American citizens (for example, "Sally Smith sent an email from IP Address 123.45.678.9 at 11:53:08 p.m. on June 12, 2014, to [e-mail]&quot . We now know that is not true. We now know that the NSA would save the content of the email, and any attachments -- for example the lingerie photo Sally thought only Ed would see. And we know that this "private" communication and attachment(s) could be, and was, accessed by a low-level contractor.

"You can't know which emails to collect until you know which emails to collect." The NSA says that the precedent set by Smith v. Maryland gives them the right to collect all Americans' emails (and, presumably, to record all phone calls). To quote Randy Barnett of Georgetown U.:

The paradigm of what the Fourth Amendment prohibited as “unreasonable” in its first sentence was the use of general warrants, which is why its second sentence requires that warrants must be particular. And, as USD law professor Donald Dripps has shown, the seizure of papers for later search for evidence of criminal conduct was the epitome of an unreasonable search and seizure that was closely akin to general warrants. - Washington Post, April 28, 2014

So, which emails to collect? When it comes to Americans' emails: Legally, constitutionally, the ones you have a warrant to collect. Not all the emails you might potentially need some day in the course of an unforeseen investigation.

And if my granddaughter's bathtub photo is among the data collected and stored, it's cold comfort to reflect that the NSA's data banks (purportedly) include only a fraction of a percent of all communications.

[pscot]

108. K&R

[Fla Dem]

123. I don't think this is anything new. Haven't we've know since the beginning

that the NSA basically used an industrial vacuum to suck up every bit of data in the universe? That Ed Snowden has pulled back the curtain on this huge overreach of the federal government and their snooping on American citizens is laudable. What I don't find as honorable is his link up with Greenwald, his flight to China and Russia, his exposing sensitive information regarding our surveillance of other countries, and now his releasing American citizens' personal information to newspapers and magazines. He is just as despicable as the Federal government.

[hueymahl]

126. Wow, you hit the Deflection Superfecta!!!

1. Nothing new here
2. Greenwald is bad
3. Snowden fled to Russia so he is bad
4. Snowden and NSA are equally bad

Next post, mention boxes and something about his girlfriend and you will win the pick six and can go home happy.

[hughee99]

135. Don't forget,

Snowden gave $250 to Ron Paul once.

[G_j]

127. I noticed there are

a few usual members missing from this conversation.

[2banon]

133. Maybe everyone has them on ignore like I do

I never see those orwellian posts anymore.. haven't for months. check your ignore list...that's probably where they are.!

[Aerows]

152. Every now and again

I open DU in an incognito window to see what the people I have on ignore post. It reminds me why I use the feature.

[2banon]

153. that's an intersting idea..

I'll try that out when I have more time on my hands..

I'm really blowing it right now, I shouldn't be on the computer at all because I've got a bunch stuff to get done, yet everytime I walk by my .puter, I open it up to du like some sort of drug addict. LOL! Maybe there's a 12 step program to help me shake this monkey off my back..

[blackspade]

138. The NSA is despicable

As are its shills in the media and government

[Divernan]

160. HRC continues to demean & ridicule Snowdon

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clinton_flaunts_her_surveillance_state_baggage_20140707
In that same interview with The Guardian she also managed to get in yet another shot against Snowden for taking refuge in Russia “apparently under Putin’s protection,” unless, she taunted, “he wishes to return knowing he would be held accountable.”

Did Secretary of State Clinton know that such massive spying on the American people was going on and, if not, why isn’t she grateful that Snowden helped to enlighten her? With her scurrilous attacks on Snowden, Hillary Clinton is either a fool or a liar.

Too harsh? Consider her continued insistence that Snowden could have addressed his concerns over the massive NSA spying on Americans and the rest of the world by going through normal channels instead of turning over the documents as he has entrusted to respected news organizations that won the Pulitzer Prize for their efforts.

In an April speech at the University of Connecticut, Clinton said of Snowden: “When he absconded with all of that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers.” That is simply not true; Snowden as a contractor to the government is not entitled to the federal protections that cover federal employees. But even those federal employees have found scant protection under the Obama administration in their attempt to blow the whistle on national security practices.

As secretary of state in an administration that has charged three times as many Americans with violations of the draconian Espionage Act as all preceding presidents combined, Clinton must know that the Obama Justice Department has effectively moved to silence whistle-blowers from stating their case in court.

[Quantess]

166. Yikes.

K & R