Glenn Greenwald Calls Obama's NSA Speech A Publicity Stunt
Source: TPM
IGOR BOBIC – JANUARY 17, 2014, 11:21 AM EST
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has disclosed many National Security Agency secrets with the aid of documents provided by former contractor Edward Snowden, preemptively called President Obama's Friday speech centered on reforms to the agency as nothing more than a publicity stunt.
“It’s really just basically a PR gesture, a way to calm the public and to make them think there’s reform when in reality there really won’t be," he said to Al Jazeera America.
"And I think that if the public, at this point, has heard enough about what the NSA does and how invasive it is," he added, "that they’re going to need more than just a pretty speech from President Obama to feel as though their concerns have been addressed.”
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/glenn-greenwald-calls-obama-s-nsa-speech-a-publicity-stunt
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)He should know about stunts I guess.
Once again, as so common around here: throwing out the good for the perfect.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)than "throwing out the good"
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)American citizens with no due process. If they will accept THAT, what won't they embrace?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You nailed that one.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@jricole: NSA Bulk Surveillance has had no Impact on Fighting Terrorism http://t.co/nikou8SysW
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@ggreenwald: It has that effect regardless of motive RT @tnyCloseRead Obama: we don't collect intelligence "to suppress criticism or dissent"
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@ggreenwald: So let's imprison for decades he who enabled it RT @janinegibson Obama: "One thing I am certain of, this debate will make us stronger."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@ZoeSCarpenter: Obama failing to acknowledge that pre 9/11 intel failures had nothing to do with a lack of information, but rather failure to share it
Demeter
(85,373 posts)
24601
(3,959 posts)collection of a call between a known al-Qaida number a 9-11 hijacker already in the US. At the time; however, there was no section 215 (Business Records) FISA to connect the two. If you ever read Lt Gen Hayden's (then DIRNSA) testimony, then you'd know that NSA had al-Qaida information that was translated & analyzed after the fact and was ambiguous in its meaning.
If President Obama had been a RW surveillance hawk before election, I might evaluate it differently. But after you take the Presidential oath, I've no doubt that one's judgments change in many areas.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@attackerman: Nothing in these proposals addresses the weakening of encryption standards, a huge issue for businesses as well as a privacy/cybercrime one.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)They're from multiple feeds.
If you mean Greenwald, yes, a number of them are re-tweets from his feed, but not all of them, and so what?
Do you want to address the substance or just toss out the insults? Would you like to note the contrast of the substantive points versus the silly ad Hominem knee-jerk insults in this thread (based mostly on phrasing that originated with TPM and not Greenwald, best as I can tell.)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It is as entirely possible to make a substantive or valid point with 140 characters as it is to make a flippant personal attack. How many letters in the post you just made?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Make sure you let us know when he makes substantive likes on Facebook, uses Instagram daringly, or otherwise mentally masturbates on social media.....
Cha
(297,123 posts)Poster couldn't address the issues, so changed the subject.
Cha
(297,123 posts)Don't be messing with greenwald's Billion$$$$ Bread and Butter stash, PBO.
Steerpike
(2,692 posts)President Obama...War Hawk and Spymaster....who'd a thunk?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Just as with the Teabaggers - there's nothing he could have said to appease them.
Steerpike
(2,692 posts)then explain why..,or at least justify his actions...I voted for him twice. I don't hate him...just disapointed.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Without an enormous amount of public & political support. That support simply does not exist - and it won't as long as people like Greenwald, Rand Paul & all the Snowden fans repeatedly throw Obama under the bus to punish him for programs which have been going on for decades.
You want the NSA to change? Get rid of the GOP Congress that refuses to take their oversight responsibility seriously; change the law to get rid of the rubber-stamp FISA court; give OUR President the political support to make those changes.
Greenwald is a tool who does nothing that isn't a publicity stunt. Snowden is a criminal on the same level as Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. Rand Paul is a wannabe dictator. Granting them any praise undermines any argument in favor of freedom & liberty at its base.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Snowden is a whistle blower. You are a disgusting apologist for our police state. You act if as if Dianne Feinstein is nothing like the intelligence flunky she is. And well paid, since her husband is heavily involved in the 'defense industry'. Same goes for the 'yellow dog' and 'blue dog' 'democrats®'.
Bet yer a $hillary fan, too!
George II
(67,782 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)are Obama-haters, specifically Obama-haters. Now in post no. 42, you admit that Obama is not the president who is responsible for the invasions of privacy by the NSA, but rather that the abuses by the NSA and intelligence community are due to 60 years of intelligence policy and the Republicans.
The fact is that we are here and regardless of who is responsible for the demolition of the Fourth Amendment and other freedoms we are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, we need to restrict our law enforcement agencies so that their activities very clearly are as limited as the Constitution provides that they should be.
I think that a lot of Americans are too trusting of our security and law enforcement apparatus. The fact is that the people in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are human beings and public servants. We should be watching what they do. They should not be peering into the personal lives of law-abiding citizens. They, not we, are destroying the Constitution.
In this age, in this internet age, this age of long distance phone calls and teleconferences on everything from PTA meetings about kids' summer camp opportunities to big business deals, the Fourth Amendment needs to be interpreted to guarantee us the same privacy in our relationships with others in our society that it gave the Founding Fathers.
When the government snoops on the metadata about or phone calls or peers into the membership list of a political club that one of us has in our document database, it is looking into our private papers. It has no right to do that. And that is what it is doing. For example if I have a list of contacts, people to whom I have sent an e-mail on behalf of my Democratic club and the government collects the names and web addresses of everyone with whom I communicate on that list, it is essentially depriving me of privacy in my use of my right to free speech.
I could go on and on with examples that might help you understand just how very dangerous this mass surveillance and the collection of the metadata is to any semblance of democracy in our country. But I hope you can figure out for yourself based on what I have just written how horrible the mass surveillance collection of metadata is.
Place yourself in the position of the president of a local political organization whose e-mail list names all the members of the organization. All of those people could be subjected to unwanted attention from a guy like Chris Christie if he disagrees with your political point of view. I am not accusing him of doing that, but he is the sort of person who would abuse access to such a list. And it is possible that a person like him could obtain information from the NSA through various means. Please reconsider your opinions on this issue.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Your first post accuses those of us who oppose the NSA's broad-sweeping surveillance and collection of metadata as "Obama-haters."
Your post No. 7: "Of course the Obama haters are disappointed."
Your subsequent post admits that the excesses of our intelligence community began 60 years ago and are protected and perpetuated by Republicans.
Your subsequent post:
"60 yrs of intelligence policy will not be changed . . . ."
What did I misunderstand? Please explain.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)what you didn't comprehend. The poster failed to answer your question.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...you'd be good with it?
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)is for sure. Obama truly understands all the issues he speaks about whether or not you agree with him. His detractors and even many of his supporters lack the will to understand points of view that differ from theirs. I am proud to have a President once again who does.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)- snip -
“It’s noteworthy that the president addressed only the bulk collection of call records, but not any of the other bulk collection programs revealed by the media,” said Alexander Abdo, an attorney with the ACLU’s national security project. “That is a glaring omission. The president needs to embrace structural reforms that will protect us from all forms of bulk collection and that will make future overreach less likely.”
In principle, these tools have the potential to reveal unknown associates of known foreign targets, although the intelligence community has struggled to offer examples. But they rely, by definition and intent, on the construction of vast databases filled almost entirely with innocent communications. Obama’s view, like the NSA’s, is that there is no intrusion on privacy until someone calls up the files and reads them.
Botany
(70,483 posts)n/t
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@jricole: RT @KenRoth: New Obama position on metadata still seems to assume we have no privacy right in it because we "choose" to "share" it w/ a communications co
Botany
(70,483 posts)If the answer is yes then he still does not pass the smell test to me.
Are you accusing me of something? More petty personal stuff?
Do you think Prof. Juan wants his Tweets "done." Does he pass the "smell test?"
The posting of the Tweets is something I wanted done to inject some legitimate debate into the knee-jerk ad Hominem "publicity stunt" ad Hominem fallacy insult-fest. The Tweet I responded to you with is not from Greenwald.
You apparently would be surprised at how many and the variety of Twitter feeds I follow:
@jonathanalter: BO: 'What’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speed.' Strong speech.
Botany
(70,483 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)
... and after he had written that he had some doubts about Greenwald and then he got
hammered by Greenwald fans sending him tons and tons of twitter things.
Oh well I just heard yesterday in the AM about Greenwald fans posting twitter stuff as a response
to less then positive stuff about Mr. Greenwald and I see it happening here. Oh well guess it
just might be a random chance or something like that. 
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)crap, like what you're apparently trying to do with me. Nothing "funny" about it at all. There's a million things I'd rather be doing than posting Tweets to counter the pile-on of the usual knee-jerk bullshit.
You want to address the substance of the issues in the Tweets (which are NOT all from Greenwald)? Fine. Otherwise, what you are trying to pull is disgusting.
Botany
(70,483 posts).... and he made them go that way before "Snowdon." I might be wrong
about him but those are my honest feelings and they are not made up,
lack substance, or part of any character assassination on my part.
BTW I have laid my ass on the line in the belly of the beast in trying to
help some progressive "stuff."
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@ggreenwald: "Store all citizens' communications records" is a radical policy. But it's been transformed to normal- only allowed debate is: who holds it?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)instead of leaning so heavily on the crutch of twitter...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)instead of just throwing out knee-jerk ad Hominem crap.
Speaking of journalism, where did Greenwald actually say "publicity stunt?" I can't find it. "PR gesture" is not the same thing.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
frylock
(34,825 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)But you knew that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and I find it amusing how many ad-homs Greenwald can throw out on an hourly basis but any criticism of him earns the classic 'attacking the messenger' defense
Believe me; I want nothing more than to have a detailed, multi-layered 'big picture' discussion on the NSA and what should be done about this issue, but all my attempts have failed because I guaran-fuckin'-tee you that no DUer wants to venture into where I'm about to lead that conversation...
So for the time being I'm stuck wading in the shallow water with everyone else...
Titonwan
(785 posts)Oh my, I'm skeered already! LOL!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)"but all my attempts have failed because I guaran-fuckin'-tee you that no DUer wants to venture into where I'm about to lead that conversation... "
Titonwan
(785 posts)I love the Greenwald hatred/jealousy/envy. Makes my batteries stronger!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)the human rights abuses that are actually costing people their lives (journalists) or become targets of official government pogroms (campaigns against gays) and not nearly so interested in transforming their profile into an investment brand worth tens of millions of dollars.
http://www.ibtimes.com/ebay-founder-pierre-omidyars-250m-news-venture-glenn-greenwald-receives-first-tranche-funding
Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY), on Thursday, dropped $50 million, the first tranche of a $250 million investment, into his ambitious new journalism venture launched with Glenn Greenwald -- the former Guardian journalist who broke several stories on surveillance programs carried out primarily by the U.S. government.
If the President's process of evaluation continues to offer access to data which might be helpful to stop an attack and solve the potential privacy problems with increased transparency, accountability and due process, and I have no opinion on that premise, then it would significantly undermine GG's high profile attacks, reduce the number of eyes that will go to his new network and reduce the return on investment of hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is Glenn Greenwald who has made his motives and future economic wealth an issue, no one else. I suspect that GGs response was written and ready to be issued regardless of what particular reforms the President proposed.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)His having personal involvement in in the Snowden/NSA story might have something to do with his particular interest in today's speech.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"PR gesture" and "publicity stunt" are not the same thing.
Why not just put "PR gesture" in the headline?
Greenwald may have said those to Al Jazeera, but that's not what's in the quoted statement. WaPo Livefeed changed it to "PR stunt," then TPM changed it to "publicity stunt." Making it sound progressively more negative.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)real-time communication tool.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Use a phone, somebody is story the data and figuring a way to make a buck out of it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)some issue, maybe war, maybe homelessness, or on the other side, maybe abortion or no prayer in school. Whether you are liberal or conservative, the Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of association and freedom of speech as well as freedom to petition the government.
Let's say that you compile a list of people who agree with you on the issue. You send an e-mail to each of the people on the list. The NSA collects the metadata, in other words it collects the e-mail addresses of all the people with whom you communicate electronically about the protest you are organizing.
Without you knowing it, one of the parties on your list has participated in similar protests in the past and is considered by the NSA to be a person they want to watch. They notice that name on your list of e-mails and pretty soon you are also on the NSA watch list. The NSA has admitted that if they suspect someone of being a "terrorist" (which is not clearly defined anywhere and who knows who is considered to be or not be a "terrorist" suspect), they not only collect data on that person but on people who are connected to that person.
Do you see now how your organizing something and sending e-mails to people including some you really don't know could get you on an NSA list. Do you understand how many problems could arise for an absolutely innocent person simply because their e-mail list includes the name of someone who corresponds with someone who is an NSA surveillance target?
Just sending a lot of e-mails or having a lot of Facebook friends could make you a target if your opinions on issues are not what the NSA thinks is politically correct.
This may sound exaggerated, but it is not. And if the NSA dragnet is so broad that they are capturing information and maybe even content from the phones of leaders of our allies like Angela Merkel of Germany, how broad do you think that dragnet might be or could become in the US?
The NSA surveillance and in particular the wide-ranging collection of our metadata is a threat to our democracy and our freedoms of speech, association, religion to say nothing of the Fourth Amendment and the rights that guarantee a public and fair trial. The NSA's excesses are to be condemned and ended.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kind of like his review of Zero Dark Thirty, a film he never saw.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)When he talked about it before, he acknowledged he had not seen it.
When he talked about it after he had seen it, he acknowledged he had seen it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)his mind about what he claimed about it before he saw it.
Because he's always right about everything.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Plenty of people who saw the film agreed with him.
His initial concerns about the film were based on writings by people who HAD seen the film.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that while we speak in black-and-white terms, factual and moral absolutes, we also never, ever once have to worry about having misunderstood anything or making a mistake or even, heaven forbid, being wrong. To be so smart that "I'm right and you're just wrong if you disagree with anything I say" is always correct.
Titonwan
(785 posts)that has had the unfortunate situation where you tried to feebly to argue with a man trained in constitutional law and got yer fuckin' ass clock cleaned and can not NOT deal with it. (I've witnessed it many times through the years- their logical spanking drives a few over the edge into wretched and embittered antics such as hyperbole, exaggeration, ad hominem and lies).
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Titonwan
(785 posts)I wouldn't dare engage Glenn, if I was you either. He'd make mince-meat out of you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)go for it.
But your hero Greenwald is not as smart as you imagine him to be:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html
Titonwan
(785 posts)You know I meant he'd smash you rhetorically in an argument. He'd run rings around you- I've seen it many times through the years.
Obama's a weakling and you need butt-hurt ointment.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/zero-dark-thirty-torture-awards
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Remind me again how much he has received for his "stunts" and then maybe it will be easier for many to understand.
George II
(67,782 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Thy name is Greenwald.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Suck it up America.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Sounds like projection from a vile, libertarian racist.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The only reason people might have problem with Obama using the terminology "enhanced interrogation techniques" just now is that they are Libertarian racists? Really?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)This was in reference to him - not people who may disagree with Obama. His ugly, lying mug feeds off publicity stunts. Hell, his whole career was built on the idea and the only reason people give two shits what he thinks is because he parades around Edward Snowden, who is in exile, while he lives comfortably whoring himself out for the money. He would not be what I consider a good face for anything I support. He's a tool, a racist and a Ron Paul supporting asshole who will say anything to get his face on TV.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Repeat ad infinitum.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It doesn't surprise me that racist libertarian has support on DU, tho.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Got nothing else, hunh?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)He's made an entire career of 'em and, fortunately for him, found a willing audience to slop them up. Fortunately, most Americans probably look at him as a racist joke.
Can't wait to see what other racist, anti-Obama group Greenwald promotes next!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)"OBAMA EVIL!"
Rinse & repeat
frylock
(34,825 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Who does nothing but froth at the mouth about Obama. Has Greenwald even chimed in on anything positive about Obama? I'm starting to think he hates him solely because he's black!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I've got to admit, frylock, when I actually saw this headline, literally LOL'd!
frylock
(34,825 posts)proving that greenwald is either a libertarian or a racist, as he has unequivocally denied those allegations. so let's have them.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Pretty cut & dry. But, like his support for the Iraq War, I'm sure the liberal libertarians here at DU will whitewash that one too.
frylock
(34,825 posts)better luck tomorrow.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Or I fear for your clients.
But, I'd rather stand with Wyden than Greenwald.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wyden_commends_obama_nsa_changes
At least I know he's not a racist.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)I got all fucking day.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but for the money.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)COMEDY GOLD.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Are you for real or...?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You appear to lack basic logic skills, so anything would be possible I guess.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's quite comical.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That's a new one. Did they distribute that with the new talking points?
infoviro
(59 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)infoviro
(59 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)on those questioning him. From what I've seen he started that whole "Obamabots".. thinking it was insulting. Fuck GG and the Snowden Gravy Train he rode in on.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I was just watching Bernie Sanders on MSNBC this morning and he had some praise for the President's speech. He said it's a start - and then went and hit Snowden for going against his oath. Uh oh.
Cha
(297,123 posts)thank you, DI. Snowden belongs in Russia with his pal putie poot.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Greenwald is just revealing some uncomfortable truths.
Democrats can be fascists too, ya know...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Obama could have eliminated the NSA outright and Greenwald still would have found something to bitch about...It's what he does...
Demeter
(85,373 posts)then you are clueless and unimaginative about the damage already done, that which is yet to come, and the abuses that J Edgar did, even without all those computers....
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)long before it ever became fashionable...
If Greenwald was serious about seeing a real change, he would be working towards that end and at the bare minimum building a public case for prosecution of which public officials signed off on what, who knew what when, along with all (and I mean ALL) of the corporate/global players involved....
But no -- All the documents released so far have had redacted names/signatures, and some people/institutions I know for a fact to be balls deep in this mess have been conspicuously absent from all the releases and news stories so far...Which makes me start to wonder what Greenwald's motivation is, and what he's trying to accomplish with all of this...
Demeter
(85,373 posts)He is doing his job. Making change is the voters' and public servants' job.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and even then there's nothing preventing him from naming names if he's trying to expose illegal activities in the NSA, especially since signed documents are proof of criminal involvement...
It's not even about a 'job', it's more of a moral imperative since Greenwald is the one with the key to the treasure chest...So what is to be gained by shielding the names of those involved?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)As in, he's sedulously avoiding breaking any law?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But I don't know what law is broken by revealing names (especially the low-mid-high level rank-and file folks)...Yeah, I know the potential pitfalls of outing the covert operatives or whatever working abroad, so I can at least pardon that somewhat...
It's like when the FBI used to bust mafia families in court and they'd create some big organizational chart of who had what job, and who reported to who, etc...Even the Nuremburg trials tracked down most of the people who played a role, and it didn't matter how low they were in the totem pole, either...
So why can't that be done here? Or at least some steps taken in that direction? I know it's very minor by comparison, but even at this moment journalists are trying to track down the chain of responsibility from thousands of e-mails in the Christie bridge debacle, and none of their names are shielded from the public...
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Like he promised he would.
But he lied instead.
You've forgiven him for that, yes?
frylock
(34,825 posts)*crickets*
Titonwan
(785 posts)... more crickets. 
Titonwan
(785 posts)Sorry obsessed thread troll- you're first in line for that category. Continue your worship of everything Obama. The democratic equivalent of a 'Bushie'.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Small d democrats by definition are not fascists.
Large D Democrats with fascist tendencies are not democrats, and shouldn't be Democrats, either. It would be nice if we had some Party discipline....
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
Will Rogers
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Reality is a monster under the bed.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)So, Obama has redefined the Presidency from the Most Powerful Man in the World to
"Stuntman and Circus Clown for the 1% Corporate Fascists"
Other presidents have tried this rebranding, but Obama has finally succeeded.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for implementing the emergency broadcast system in 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3190546
or calling for impeaching Obama in December 2009.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7127032&mesg_id=7127101
And in 2011.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4886453
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Appointing Penny Pritzer and Rubinites? Throwing my pastor under the political bus? Shredding the Constitution in hopes of a big post-WH promotion?
I'm not embarrassing anyone. You, on the other hand...
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)Don't hide your bullshit here. Put it out on full display.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)I don't really care if NSA thumbs through my stuff at some level (maybe because I'm boring. and maybe I'd feel differently if a Repub were at the head of the executive branch).
perhaps naive, but sheeit - what kind of privacy does any of us really think we have with FB, DU, Target, etc.?
Truly - play it out: are we still fearful that if we post criticism of our government on the interwebs somewhere that the jackboots will come after us? Is that realistic in the digital age, given social networking, etc.? Think of Egypt during Arab Spring. I think governments are less likely to be able to get away with THAT sort of repression. Other stuff, for sure, but harder for governments to do things in secret - we are too connected for that now.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)"...neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 11 Nov. 1755
PB
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)"ESSENTIAL" liberty? Do I care if the NSA looks at who I talk to? I skyped with Pakistan a few years to my exchange student's grandparents. Does that put me on some list? Do I care? (again...contextual; "I am not a spy" so I don't care who knows about the call...). And what do I think would happen to me if they did?
"A LITTLE TEMPORARY" safety? I don't know...if I lost a family member in a terrorist attack, I might night consider it a LITTLE safety, nor TEMPORARY...
It's a VERY delicate balancing act, in my opinion. I trust that Obama is doing the best he can under the circumstances. But again - it's all about context: if GWB were in office (or, dareIsay, Rand Paul), I would probably feel differently...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You, or anyone that you know, are more likely to be HIT BY LIGHTNING TWICE than to be injured or killed in a terrorist attack.
That level of threat does not warrant the over-reaction by the NSA. "Terrorism" is a Bush Era excuse to abuse civil rights, an excuse that the current Administration has continued to use to the same end.
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)and Americans are naively over-concerned about security in my opinion relative to, say, the Israelis. That is, we have been largely protected from violence on our shores (so far) and that is our "normal." When an American dies overseas - military or not - or here, for that not matter - that life is always considered so sacred, so precious, so irreplaceable. When our drones kills children in Afghanistan, that is collateral damage.
I think Pres O is sincerely trying to strike the right balance. His own personal view might be more "liberal," but I believe he genuinely, strongly feels it is his no. 1 duty to protect Americans from harm of violence by terrorism (or guns, but that is another discussion). He can't appear to be "soft" on terrorism.
The right balance always seems to be more readily found in retrospect....coulda, woulda, shoulda...
I don't know why this issue doesn't animate me more; it just doesn't...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Hoover compiled files on influential lawmakers and business leaders, then used that information to manipulate them. The NSA now has a tool that allows them to compile damaging information on literally anyone, and that information can be used to destroy political opponents.
Consider the current Christie bridge scandal. How would you feel about the possibility of the NSA rooting around, say, Hillary Clinton's electronic communications and leaking some incriminating email that destroys her Presidential bid?
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)It's not like I don't realize or appreciate the risks!
Again, anyone who thinks their info is actually secure even without NSA is fooling themselves! Whether leakers, hidden videos, corporate spying by Amazon or FB, or NSA. That ship sailed a long time ago.
I have no perfect solution, nor do I believe there is one. I think we can only ask our leaders to try for the best balance. I don't think we can do away with all information gathering from those who have been shown to be plotting to harm us. And I don't know enough about the industry to come us with anything better. I have a certain level of trust of Pres. O. I do believe the connectivity of the internet - the very technology that promotes the spying - gives us a degree of insulation as well, in that it is easier to get the word out - dispense information that is helpful to the cause (i.e., anti-ruling force), as well as to them.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Conservatives sincerely believed Chimpy was protecting them from terrorism when he invaded Iraq. That did not change the fact that it was a colossal foreign policy fuck up.
We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as
power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption
allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-
past, present, or future-has taken or will take on the political scene.
We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on
his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very
thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he
does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions
perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.
The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline
upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics,
and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the
side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that
astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or
Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and
large consistent within itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences,
and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen. A realist theory
of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies:
the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences.
~snip~
Yet even if we had access to the real motives of statesmen, that knowledge
would help us little in understanding foreign policies, and might well
lead us astray. It is true that the knowledge of the statesman's motives may
give us one among many clues as to what the direction of his foreign policy
might be. It cannot give us, however, the one clue by which to predict his
foreign policies. History shows no exact and necessary correlation between
the quallty of motives and the quality of foreign policy. This is true in both
moral and political terms.
We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his
foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful.
Judging his motives, we can say that he will not intentionally pursue
policies that are morally wrong, but we can say nothing about the probability
of their success. If we want to know the moral and political qualities
of his actions, we must know them, not his motives. How often have
statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended
by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended
by achieving something they neither expected nor desired?
Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (pp. 5, 6). New York: Knopf
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Or your senator's stuff?
Or your lawyer's stuff?
Or a judge's stuff?
Do you care if the NSA shares that info with the FBI and US Attorneys, so that they may launch investigations against politicians before close elections?
Do you care if a phony story is concocted to cover up how the info was acquired, a la the SOD?
Do you care if the NSA turns over that raw info to another country, like Israel?
frylock
(34,825 posts)keep up the good work! 
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)sometimes called "catastrophizing"...which I sometimes do in my own life. 
I agree, it's not a simple question or issue; it's extremely contextual, a very delicate balance, requires trust at some level, and there is no perfect answer.
One thing I'm just sayin': what level of privacy does any of us have OTHER than NSA? I mean, really. I figure fricken' Amazon knows my BRA size, at this point. It's the deal with the devil we make when we avail ourselves of this technology. Otherwise, go all the way off the grid!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)reveals how little you know about this issue.
The NSA gathered info on Democratic politicians that it would turn over to the FBI and US Attorneys, resulting in investigations and prosecutions, operating under "parallel construction," which would occur during close elections.
On March 6, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding new procedures to apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It proposed significant changes to FISA and allowed overlapping between intelligence officers and law enforcement officers:
Prior to the USA Patriot Act, FISA could be used only for the "primary purpose" of obtaining "foreign intelligence information." The term "foreign intelligence information" was and is defined to include information that is necessary, or relevant, to the ability of the United States to protect against foreign threats to national security, such as attack, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1). Under the primary purpose standard, the government could have a significant law enforcement purpose for using FISA, but only if it was subordinate to a primary foreign intelligence purpose. The USA Patriot Act allows FISA to be used for "a significant purpose," rather than the primary purpose, of obtaining foreign intelligence information. Thus, it allows FISA to be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B).
The Act also expressly authorizes intelligence officers who are using FISA to "consult" with federal law enforcement officers to "coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against" foreign threats to national security. Under this authority, intelligence and law enforcement officers may exchange a full range of information and advice concerning such efforts in FI or FCI investigations, including information and advice designed to preserve or enhance the possibility of a criminal prosecution. The USA Patriot Act provides that such consultation between intelligence and law enforcement officers "shall not" preclude the government's certification of a significant foreign intelligence purpose or the issuance of a FISA warrant. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(k), 1825(k).
These procedures were changed or rejected by the FISA court and its opinion was publicly released in August 2002.
The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, “I do not slip things in” (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve “separation of power issues” (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). At the time of this writing, Mr. Tolman is a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.
~snip~
A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/08/criminal-defense-lawyers-demand-access-to-secret-dea-evidence/
In interviews, at least a dozen current or former agents said they used “parallel construction,” often by pretending that an investigation began with what appeared to be a routine traffic stop, when the true origin was actually a tip from SOD.
Defense lawyers said that by hiding the existence of the information, the government is violating a defendant’s constitutional right to view potentially exculpatory evidence that suggests witness bias, entrapment or innocence.
“It certainly can’t be that the agents can make up a ‘parallel construction,’ a made-up tale, in court documents, testimony before the grand jury or a judge, without disclosure to a court,” said Jim Wyda, the federal public defender in Maryland, in an email.
“This is going to result in a lot of litigation, for a long time.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425612
The government calls the practice "parallel construction," but deciphering their double speak, the practice should really be known as "intelligence laundering." This deception and dishonesty raises a host of serious legal problems.
~snip~
Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.
The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/singleton/
On the other hand, this is a genuinely sinister turn of events with a whiff of science-fiction nightmare, one that has sounded loud alarm bells for many people in the mainstream legal world. Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014592092
Source: Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101735420
At 42:32, Stephen Spoonamore expresses concern that Israel may interfere with American elections by hacking.
#t=2563
The Honorable David Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Walker:
In August 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on data mining
(GAO-05-866) that looked into the specific data mining initiatives of five federal agencies. The
report concluded that none of the five programs examined, including the Federal Bureau Of
Investigation's (FBI) Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), complied with all relevant
federal laws and executive branch guidance. This included administrative, technical and
physical safeguards as mandated by the Privacy Act of 1974, guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget and federal information security standards set forth by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology as detailed in the Federal Information Security
Management Act of2002. Further, the Computer Security Act of 1987, details requirements to
establish security plans for Federal computer systems that contain sensitive information.
The Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force was established by the President in the
immediate aftermath of the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks as an interagency group under
the auspices ofthe Department ofJustice. Its original mission was to deny entry into the United
States by aliens suspected ofhaving ties to terrorist organizations and to locate, detain,
prosecute, or deport such aliens already present in the United States.
But documents now indicate that the FTTTF is expanding its mission to encompass the
"detection, identification, and tracking of individuals or entities that pose threats to the United
States and its interests through the use of advanced analytical techniques, technologies, and data
resources." This mission will be accomplished through the use of bulk data analysis, pattern
analysis, trend analysis and other programs, according to Justice Department budget documents
reviewed by the Subcommittee. "The FBI's efforts to define predictive models and patterns of
behavior will improve efforts to identify "sleeper cells," the documents suggest. The centerpiece
ofthis greatly enhanced effort will be a newly proposed National Security Branch Analysis
Center (NSAC).
The FBI is seeking $12 million for the center in FY2008, which will include 90,000
square feet of office space and a total of 59 staff, including 23 contractors and five FBI agents.
Documents predict the NSAC will include six billion records by FY2012. This amounts to 20
separate "records" for each man, woman and child in the United States. The ''universe of
subjects will expand exponentially" with the expanded role ofthe NSAC, the Justice Department
documents assert.
The expanded and sweeping scope ofthe NSAC bears a striking resemblance to the
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's Total Information Awareness program which
Congress terminated funding for in 2003 because of privacy and other concerns. Sharing critical
information that can help law enforcement officer' s track down known terrorists is
extraordinarily important and needs to be improved. But the NSAC proposes to do much more
than simply track down known terrorist suspects. Eleven of its proposed 59 staff will constitute
a Proactive Data Exploitation unit - tasked with ferreting out "patterns" of suspicious behavior in
the data the center collects. "The NSAC will leverage existing data mining tools to help identify
relationships between individuals, locations, and events that may be indicators of terrorist or
other activities ofinterest," according to the Justice Department budget documents
Data mining experts outside of government see great potential for abuse in this sort of
proposal. Jeff Jonas, a world renowned data mining expert and IBM Distinguished Engineer,
recently co-authored a critical review of "predictive" counterterrorism data mining efforts for the
Cato Institute. "It would be unfortunate if data mining for terrorism discovery had currency
within national security, law enforcement, and technology circles," wrote Jonas, "because
pursuing this use of data mining would waste taxpayer dollars, needlessly infringe on privacy
and civil liberties, and misdirect the valuable time and energy ofthe men and women in the
national security community." Jonas supports other non-predictive or "pattern analysis" data
mining efforts that permit law enforcement agencies to "efficiently locate, access, and aggregate
information about specific suspects," he writes. But he does not believe data mining is suited to
discovering unknown terrorists as a result of culling through massive mounds of data that contain
"patterns" of individual behavior. Jonas argues that with an extraordinarily limited pool of
known terrorist patterns of behavior a hunt for terrorists in this way would inevitably "flood the
national security system with false positives - suspects who are truly innocent." In addition,
argues Jonas, collocating massive amounts of data in a central repository poses significant
logistical and security challenges and may invite misuse of the information.
Given the scope ofthe NSAC endeavor, Congress has a duty to understand fully what
information will be contained in the "records" it collects, whether the "records" of U.S. citizens
will be included in its database, how this data will be employed and how the FBI plans to ensure
that the data is not misused or abused in any way. A critical question is how the FBI will ensure
that the records it obtains from other agencies is accurate, valid and complies with federal legal
guidelines and policies. The FTTTF, for instance, shares "innovative technology" with the
Defense Department's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) and the proposed NSAC will
presumably maintain or expand on this relationship. This is of particular concern given the fact
that the Defense Department has acknowledged that CIFA was compiling data in one ofits
databases on non-violent war protestors and civil rights activists in violation of DOD's own
policies. The Bureau needs to beware that it does not repeat the mistakes of other agencies.
Even with those assurances the agency may have difficulty developing and operating the NSAC.
The FBI has historically been unable to develop information systems in a reliable, cost
effective and technically proficient manner. In 2005, after investing $170 million, the agency
cancelled its Virtual Case File computerized records management system because oftechnical
troubles. Sentinel, the replacement for this system, is now reportedly running behind schedule.
Most troubling, last year it was revealed that a FBI-computer consultant managed to hack into
the FBI's classified computer system, gaining access to records on counterespionage and the
Witness Protection Program, as well as the passwords of 38,000 employees, including FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller III.
In March 2007, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report
on the FBI's use of National Security Letters. That report found that the Bureau had demanded
personal data without proper authorization, improperly obtained personal telephone and banking
records and underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to obtain
information on thousands of U.S. citizens and legal residents. Inspector General Glen Fine said
that he found 48 separate violations oflaw in the use of national security letters that resulted in
as many as 3,000 violations among more than 143,000 requests for information between 2003
and 2005.
These examples lead the Subcommittee to question whether the NSAC design,
development and implementation is incorporating the lessons learned by the Bureau from
previous systems. Are the safeguards required for such systems in place within the NSAC's
database? We request a review ofthe NSAC to address the following questions:
1. What is the specific role and purpose ofthe NSAC and what requirements in the
center's mission explain the size and scope of this planned database?
2. What types of "records" will be incorporated into the database, from which agencies
or commercial enterprises will they be obtained and will any other entities be granted
access to the database and under what restrictions?
3. Will the NSAC include any records on U.S. citizens and what provisions are in place
to guarantee that any records collected or accessed are consistent with existing law,
regulation, policy or other agency guidance?
4. How does the center intend to exploit the data it collects by utilizing specific
analytical tools - including "pattern recognition," "predictive data mining," "social
network analysis," and related software programs?
Please have your staff contact Douglas Pasternak, Subcommittee professional staffmember
at (202) 226-8892, Bart Forsyth, Counsel to Rep. Sensenbrenner at (202) 225-6371 or Dan
Pearson, Subcommittee staff director at (202) 225-4494 to discuss this request further.
Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
BRAD MILLER
Chairman
Subcommittee on
Investigations & Oversight
JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
Ranking Member
cilla4progress
(24,725 posts)2. Sure, I don't know anything.
Thanks!
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)great post
randome
(34,845 posts)It was under Obama that changes to the Patriot Act and FISA courts occurred.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Titonwan
(785 posts)For the worst. Obama now thinks killing a US citizen by drone is perfectly legal without any due process, whatsoever. You forget how he caved on filibustering the new 'improved' FISA Act? You know, the one written by TelCo lawyers which exonerated them from any crimes they committed before they were exposed? Retroactive immunity? Fuck Barack.
randome
(34,845 posts)If the NSA forces telecoms to give them the metadata, why would they not be exonerated if something goes wrong with the transfer of data?
Things are usually not as nefarious nor as melodramatic as they seem at first glance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
George II
(67,782 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)oh well, i guess it makes him happy.
we can form our own opinions without his wisdom.after all everyone`s opinion is just as valid as another.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Greenwald is obviously relevant enough for you to spend your time trying to discredit him.
"everyone`s opinion is just as valid as another"
Where did you get THAT?
Do you ever consult with other people more knowledgeable than yourself to solve your problems?
If you do,
then, obviously, you don't believe what you just posted.
If you don't consult with people more knowledgeable than yourself because "after all everyone`s opinion is just as valid as another"
then I pity you.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)let that sink in for a moment.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Now it will likely be batshit insane or more twisted then the Jokers brain, but her opinion is still valid(its just that nobody sensible would listen to it )
Titonwan
(785 posts)Once again, someone has a hard on for Glenn Greenwald. That statement above (by you) is the dumbest thing I've probably ever read. Hat's off, sir.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)questionseverything
(9,646 posts)to the irs or the dea and hiding the source of the info,with agencies doing parallel construction
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560052
the speech told the same ole "no content" line but i have seen le state on tv that"we have a way to retrieve that content"
the speech said,congress was informed as current admin changed procedures but keith ellison was saying not 5 minutes earlier,he had never been breifed
Demeter
(85,373 posts)given that Snowden is now acclaimed World Hero by billions...
Just remember, Snowden carefully sifted through all the available journalists and media, and picked Greenwald.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Why? because he is an idiot.
They are all idiots.
Titonwan
(785 posts)and you're giving Edward Snowden shit for protecting your privacy? Glenn Greenwald's an idiot for not only writing critically against Bush's attack on our civil liberties and doesn't stop under another administration- regardless if it's another political party?
I hope you stretch before half time where you got to do splits and other cheerleader activities. Sis boom bah! Yay!
"Now pick up these damn pom poms all over the floor" (h/t George Carlin)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347077
randome
(34,845 posts)A friggin' genius is that one. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't have much hope that he will say anything promising. The NSA should not be collecting our metadata. Years ago when I worked for a phone company, I saw a lot of phone bills and even did a little phone fraud investigating. A phone bill can tell you a lot about the person or people behind the bill. The government does not need to collect that information and should not collect it. We cannot claim to be a free country if our government and maybe even if private companies are collecting that information.
That principle also applies to our credit card purchases. That information should be kept confidential for the card-owner's and card-provider's uses. Only in cases of crime should the government be able to obtain that information. The purchases you make on your credit card are your business. The line items on your credit card bill draw a portrait of you. That is no one's business but yours and your credit card company. Same for bank accounts, etc.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Now excuse me while I climb into my Spitfire MkIX and strafe the idiot comments.
allinthegame
(132 posts)came up with that response so quickly it could easily be marked "canned"
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)close captioned 'cuz the TV was on mute. Yup, PR move, nothing more.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)got nothing, do you?
George II
(67,782 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Titonwan
(785 posts)But it seems there's still a contingent of folks that cannot bend their minds to the fact that Santa isn't real, Batman won't save you and the people you elect to office are screwing the shit out of you for big business. You sell out your preacher, lie about FISA blockage, drone kill US citizens without due process, appoint corrupt bankers for Wall Street's pleasure, drags his feet on Immigration- then what have you got?
I'm being kind.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Applies to absolutely everything that's going on.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And none too original.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)So nanny nanny boo boo yourself!
LostinRed
(840 posts)I've lost all respect for Greenwald
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)gholtron
(376 posts)
it's like damn if he do and damn if he doesn't. At least the President addressed it. Glenn can go and fck himself.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . and really don't even begin to address the substantive constitutional concerns of the NSA's overreach. They are intended as a bone to throw to quiet NSA critics -- a bone that provides a pretext of real reform, but really does very little to substantively change what the NSA has been doing.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)And absolute entertainment.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Totally dedicated to the Democrat brand, but will deny any facts they might just be wrong on how our 'leaders' are screwing us over. This isn't good cop and bad cop, anymore- it's more like psychopathic cop willing to tear you to pieces and the merciful cop who'll end it all quickly with two to the chest. Gee, thanks merciful cop.
Being critical of government is what patriots do.
And I share your mirth at the idiot cheerleaders who defend corruption.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Those who hate Obama no matter what he does.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It's projection and outright dishonesty. You have interpreted every criticism of President Obama as some sort of plot from extremists while being simultaneously unable to rationally address any of that criticism. That's the main fuel to the perceived anti-Obama sentiment. It's the way people like yourself are able to turn every single topic that finds fault with something Obama has done into a confrontation filled with lies and character assassination from people like yourself.
randome
(34,845 posts)Those who most wanted reforms at the NSA now have them. And they are still unhappy even though Senator Wyden -one of their professed heroes- applauds the President's changes.
It doesn't make much sense to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The "reforms" are mostly meaningless.
randome
(34,845 posts)The President has set up the metadata collection to be ended. Having privacy advocates in the mix is a big step, IMO. And extending privacy rights to Americans overseas is another.
Those seem like real reforms to me. What else would need to be done for you to give this President his due?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)I'd say with the hyperventilating, paper bag breathing level of rage on this thread we're very late in the third stage.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)What a loser.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Of all the people out there- scratchin' and stretchin' to get famous and rich- you have a problem with a journalist exposing massive civil rights corruption? Where's your outrage about Linday Lohan's antics? And what of value have we learned from the dizzy woman? Why ain't you hatin' on her 'publicity' needs?
Pathetic, you are.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I would say there's not much difference between Glen Greenwald and Lindsay Lohan types... both are attention whores and publicity hounds with little substance
BTW, personal insults to fellow DU members is usually frowned upon here....fyi.
Response to DCBob (Reply #165)
DCBob This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Considering that is the only thing you seem capable of commenting on.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I don't really care about Greenwald, one way or another. Is anyone disputing what he had to say though? Is the President's speech truly anything more than a PR stunt - a way to calm people -? Is anyone convinced that this is a real reform effort?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)What a bunch of maroons. The same drones have been bleating that all is well anyways so of course any token would automatically be more than enough.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)today.
I don't even bother alerting anymore. Chances are greater than not, the post will stand.
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)with Greenwald's fucking Billion$$$$$$ bread and butter?!!! 
What are you nuts!!??!!
