Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Rude Pundit: Liberal NSA Apologists Can Take It All, Want More [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)75. They published that days before their sideways "clarification"
You are showing me "before" and I am talking about "after" -- and the reference is that slide, specifically. It would help if you read the links.
Why did they "clarify" if they were so certain of their facts?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/fulsome-prism-blues-the-guardian-offers-2nd-worst-clarification-ever-on-nsa-story/
Again:
While the rest of the world plays Where In The World Is Edward Snowdiego?, The Guardian has quietly clarified a key piece of Glenn Greenwalds reporting, in comically aggressive/aggressive fashion. When news of the NSAs Prism data collection program was first broken by Greenwald and The Washington Posts Laura Poitros, the grabber was that the spy agency had direct access to the servers of large internet providers. WaPo, however, backed off of this claim almost immediately, while The Guardian let it stand until today, when it left-cheek-sneaked out a clarification by other reporters.
Calling this a clarification is actually very generous, since Greenwalds initial reporting on Prism gave the unmistakable impression that the NSA was jacking directly into the servers of companies like Google and Facebook, and that it collected information without authorization:
The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
The document claims collection directly from the servers of major US service providers.
Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users communications under US law, but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies servers.
But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies servers.
With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users.
There was even a slide that referenced collection directly from the servers of the companies. As it turns out, though, the slide was referring to a different kind of server, which I will let Bob Cesca (who flagged the correction) explain:
It sounds like an FTP server to me, not unlike Dropbox. This is how many of us transfer digital files that are too large for email. The NSA apparently doesnt enjoy a free pass to directly grab up server data at will instead, it merely downloads it from an FTP server (or similar) after its been placed there by the tech company that set it up for them. Again, this undercuts one of the most outrage-inducing aspects of Greenwalds story, not to mention the initial Washington Post reporting as well. The NSA doesnt have direct access to anything other than an innocuous file transfer mailbox. But direct access sounds sexier and therefore feeds the outrage agenda.
Oooops.
Big fail, there.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Seeing national security discussions as entertainment with popcorn emoticons
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2013
#3
When Limbaugh goes off on one of his sexists rants, they should have no reason to be outraged.
Ikonoklast
Jun 2013
#115
It's actually already been written in 2007 by Joe Conason, "It Can Happen Here".
canoeist52
Jun 2013
#38
The defining moment for me was this interview with Duane Clarridge on "national security interests"
Agony
Jun 2013
#74
Then you won't need "their" votes whenever your candidate comes up for election, correct?
CakeGrrl
Jun 2013
#21
"Alienation and condescension aren't a great strategy" especially when you represent a teeny
Number23
Jun 2013
#84
Oh, you don't want to go there. Moderate democrats dump all over liberals all the time and
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#31
doesn't work for me. I'm more of a socialist, so to me the current democratic policies are just
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#57
How does your voting straight D ticket in your precinct keep Cantor, Gohmert & Rubio
Demit
Jun 2013
#59
As opposed to being hooked on the "Ed" and "Glenn" stuff--even when it comes out that
MADem
Jun 2013
#27
Apparently the Guardian doesn't have anyone on staff with an iota of IT experience!
MADem
Jun 2013
#60
They're authoritarians, yep. "Liberal" is just a sports team for them-- and that's
Marr
Jun 2013
#19
on the simplest psychological level, it's just that they made a choice and can't unmake it, no matte
MisterP
Jun 2013
#43
Independents have more logical consistency/ethical integrity than Democrats
carolinayellowdog
Jun 2013
#71
Thing about Mssrs. Jokeline & Tube-in is: they ain't seen the HALF of it yet.
kenny blankenship
Jun 2013
#26
After this week I have no doubt the president could do whatever the fuck he wants
whatchamacallit
Jun 2013
#32
"And if we do not do surveillance and, like my examples I have given before,
Romulus Quirinus
Jun 2013
#50