I'm waiting a bit before forming a solid opinion on this NSA mess.

[MineralMan]

Right now, there are a number of very strong opinions being expressed, but prematurely, I think. This is a complicated, and somewhat confusing situation, and there's not enough information yet to form reasoned judgments, in my opinion. As someone who actually worked inside the NSA building over 40 years ago, and who has been following the intelligence community ever since, I've been aware for years of the programs that are now being more widely exposed.

Those programs have been known about by many for a long time, and some of them began even while I was involved with one of the agencies in the late 1960s. They've been discussed in a number of books, over time, and programs like the defunct TIA and the operating ECHELON and several others have received press coverage, along with a wealth of information available on the Internet for those who are interested in such things.

Like all US intelligence efforts, there's always a combination of publicly exposed information and stuff that isn't disclosed. The recent disclosures by people like Edward Snowden, through Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian, don't come as any sort of surprise. Most of what has been disclosed has long been understood to be happening, and some of it has been in the news over the past decade or so. The disclosures don't actually disclose much that isn't already known and covered on the Internet. All a person had to do was poke around to find plenty of information. Even Wikipedia offers a lot of articles on the programs that have been "leaked." The supposed leaks only inform people who have not been following this stuff.

Although these disclosures may come as a surprise to many, they're not that surprising, new, or revealing. The timing is interesting, of course, and the reactions are unsurprising, as well. Most of the documents so far disclosed by Greenwald and the Guardian are just briefing documents, of the kind used to tell Congress and other groups what is currently going on, or at least what they want to reveal about what is going on. Some have had Top Secret classifications, but that classification is widely used for documents that aren't all that sensitive.

For people who do not follow intelligence operations, some of it may seem shocking and worrisome. And, indeed, government intelligence used to capture data about us, as civilians, should be worrisome. We are rightfully concerned about it, and knowledge that it is happening is a good thing. However, despite these revelations, we still don't understand it very well, and don't know how and to what extent this data is used. I certainly don't, since it has been so long since I was involved in intelligence work. We don't know, and we're not going to know, really, through these disclosures.

However, in the upcoming weeks, we're going to find out more. What has been discussed only by a limited number of people who are interested in intelligence operations will be discussed by others, and a lot of misconceptions and misinformation is going to appear across the board. In the media, on forums like this one, and on blogs and other speculative outlets, there are going to be millions of words written. Much of what will be written will be incorrect, based on limited information, or slanted in some way for political reasons.

So, I'm waiting before forming any judgments. Before long, the bullshit will be separated from the factual information. Uninformed opinion will give way to thoughtful analysis, and outrage will yield to informed opinion. We'll learn more about Edward Snowden, the origin of these programs, and much more. It will be interesting to follow, but there will also be a lot of misinformation being bandied about. Waiting will produce a clearer picture.

[emulatorloo]

1. Same here, thanks for articulating this so well.

Waiting for the bullshit storm to be over.

[MineralMan]

2. I guess I'm too old to believe that instant judgments make sense.

This situation is going to generate enormous amounts of writing, much of it bullshit, as you say. I'll wait to let thing sort themselves out a little. I can't do anything about it, anyhow, so I might as well wait and watch.

[kentauros]

6. "I can't do anything about it, anyhow"

That alone is why I'm not all that concerned about this. Plus, when I heard it, my first reaction was "I thought they were doing that already, and started years ago. Why is this news?"

I've never been in the intelligence community like you; I've just paid attention when these stories made the news. Of course, then, like now, the reaction is still the same: What the hell can I do about it? Call my Congress-critters? Like any of those repubs care, and I suspect that most Dems in office don't care either.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, that's always a consideration. All of these programs

have been approved by all three branches of government, so it seems unlikely that they're going to get changed immediately. This exposure may, I hope, get them looked at more closely, and reconsidered, but they've been going on for a long time already, so it's going to be a tough job to change them radically.

Once I understand the situation better, I'll do what I always do and express my concern to people who have the responsibility to make such decisions. I don't have any illusions that what I say will cause anyone to do anything, though. I still voice my opinion, however.

[kentauros]

12. Yes, we should still express our opinions to them.

For me, though, they're all republicans. I know from experience that their ideas about anything are always diametrically opposed to whatever I'm expressing to them. I suppose I could do it anyway and see what their form-letter replies are...

The one thing about all this is that I don't see the government doing all that much with the data, unlike your average data-mining corporation. Which is more insidious? I'd choose the latter, but some just have a more inherent distrust of the government than civilian operations.

[MineralMan]

15. Absolutely. We should express informed opinions,

supported by facts. That's why I'm waiting a bit.

[kentauros]

17. I agree with the waiting part.

Plus by then my repub senators and rep will be on to the next scandal and not so likely to react versus reason. Oh, wait. They don't reason. Ever.

Still, it might be interesting to see what Carnival Cruz has to say about it all...

[MineralMan]

20. Whatever Cruz says will be listing heavily to starboard.

That is a certainty.

[kentauros]

23. I'd say for him the boat's been capsized to starboard!

[ananda]

39. Certainly I would not expect any positive change from ...

... an obstructionist, do-nothing Republican Congress.

But I would hope for at least some positive talk from the Dems.

I worry about the DINOs though.

[MineralMan]

40. Well, that makes sense.

It's just Monday, and many people are taking my approach before making statements. The smart ones are, anyhow.

Republicans are unlikely to use these intelligence capabilities in any good way. Some Democrats may also be willing to use it wrongly. Given the two options, I'll continue working to elect Democrats to every office. It's the only way to proceed. Intelligence operations will continue, because they can.

GOTV 2014 and beyond!

[emulatorloo]

7. We've been burned too many times by speculative "Instant Analysis" in the media

and the blogosphere. Unfortunately DU thrives on that sort of thing.

[MineralMan]

10. It's not just DU, of course. It's the Internet.

It's so easy now for reasonably articulate people to post their opinions and so easy for others to find those opinions online that instant analysis is very popular. Briefly. Once the initial flurry of relatively uninformed opinion is over, more thoughtful sources will have good analysis and commentary.

[JaneyVee]

3. Agreed. But of course the factual info won't get media airtime, only the bullshit speculations.

Speculation is better for ratings than facts & evidence.

[MineralMan]

4. True. Factual information, however, can be weeded

out from the bullshit. But that takes careful, thoughtful examination of what is written. I don't expect that kind of examination from many sources, so I'll consider the source and reject sources that have a very strong bias in either direction. Somewhere in the mess will be real, usable, fact checked and documented information. The rest should be discarded.

[liberal N proud]

5. Always wise

[MineralMan]

8. It's always tempting to jump into such things with

both feet. Too often, though, that just gets your shoes muddy, leaving you with the chore of cleaning them later.

[janlyn]

11. I agree whole heartedly.

I am still trying figure out why people are so surprised by the information provided in the leak. I have been aware for some time that our government was doing this or something similar.
I refuse to rush to conclusions based on limited information. In my opinion it is this very problem that we have with conservatives.
Reacting without proper thought, twisting of facts to fit their views or outright lying to make a point.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. I doubt we'll ever know what's really going on.

Some of the bullshit will sort itself out but I don't think the whole truth will ever come out, or if it does, we won't be able to separate it accurately from the bullshit.

In the meantime - I've always assumed nothing I do online or on my cell phone is private, which is why I pretty much stay away from social media like Facebook. Obviously the government already knows everything about me, but as much as I dislike Big Brother I also worry about identity theft and other financial fraud, the effect of which on me, personally, would be immediate and direct. So I try to stay as anonymous as I can online, at least to try to thwart crooks and thieves. I can't do a damn thing about Big Brother, unfortunately.

The most worrisome thing about all this data collection (apart from the fact that we probably won't be able to find out for sure what's being done with it) is, of course, its potential for enabling a truly authoritarian state. Even if one can assume that the intent and motives of the current administration are good and honorable, we can't forget the old adage about how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. How would all that information, or metadata, or whatever it is they have, be used under future administrations?

The Orwellianly named Patriot Act, slapped together in a panic because Congress was wetting its collective pants over 9/11, is a bad law, but it hasn't been declared unconstitutional, and probably never will be even though parts of it almost certainly are. Although spying by the government in some form has been going on for decades (Remember Nixon using the FBI to spy on war protestors?), technology has made it more pervasive than ever and the Patriot Act made it "legal." How will future legislators, judges and presidents use it? This is a cat that can't be put back in the bag. If the technology exists it will be used, and even if some future congress decides to repeal or limit the Patriot Act, the spying will almost certainly continue; the only question is how it will be used. That worries me.

[MineralMan]

16. That is most certainly true. No matter how much

information is released, there's much more that won't be. That's always a concern.

[spin]

14. It could be a carefully controlled plan at this time and it is quite possible that the NSA doesn't..

listen to many conversations. Still who can say how much data processing capacity will increase in five or ten years and who will be running the country.

Imagine "Tricky Dick" Nixon with this ability to gather data on those who were on his enemies' list.

[MineralMan]

18. Actually, Nixon did exactly that, given the technology

available at the time. The data looked at in his day, like that today, though, was tightly targeted. Irrelevant stuff was simply discarded, just like it is now and always.

[Avalux]

19. I'm with you. Better to wait and allow this to unfold before jumping on either bandwagon. n/t

[RainDog]

21. agreed

I would also make a "plea" to the Obama and Democratic Party stalwarts to consider the impact of what they say here.

To attempt to smear this guy without knowing what's going on, to pretend people here dislike Obama or the party (tho, no doubt, there are some here that might fit), to fail to understand the valid concerns of people and the plain old fears of people - this, imo, does more harm than good for their cause.

People will obviously do as they like, but maybe some of them would like to know the dismissals and attacks are alienating others from the party rather than providing cover, even among those who will vote for Democrats, no matter, because the other option just isn't an option.

[MineralMan]

22. Yup. Everyone should stop and consider before posting.

That won't happen, though. I'm just skipping the most emphatic threads, frankly. They are not a good source of information, in general.

[geek tragedy]

24. But what fun is that? nt

[Autumn]

25. I'm waiting until 2016

What's a few more years.

[creon]

26. hear hear

I agree.

[flamingdem]

27. Meanwhile Greenwald can take this to the bank

and Snowden facilitated a ripe fruit for Rand Paul and the likes to look heroic.

Very early to tell what's really going on.

[TommyCelt]

28. The 24/7 news cycle...

...doesn't allow much introspection or time to form a solid opinion. Politics especially has become a series of bad snap-judgments and reactions. That's how the Patriot Act was passed and re-authorized, and that's what's happening here.

No one who signed these pieces of legislation actually read them. That's why Congressmen and Senators who try to pass legislation requiring bills be read before they're voted upon constantly lose. Congress wants to appearto be doing something, prompted by the false panic the non-stop news cycle perpetuates.

It doesn't matter if the legislation is any good, or even if it's constituional. Just so long as it's quick on the draw.

[mick063]

29. I have concerns

The secrecy is a concern. Waiting for disclosure that my never come is a concern.

National security is legitimate when encountering foriegn governments or world wide organizations. It is a different matter when it comes to "protecting us from ourselves". Our intelligence infrastructure is structured in a manner so that individual power can circumvent the built in checks and balances of our government.

If you can smell the hydrogen cyanide, you already dead. Sometimes waiting for the smell is too late.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Another Classic Example...

...of the saying "a rumor will run around the world while the truth is putting on its pants". There's much to be learned and I'm sure will be revealed about the FISA program and PRISM in the days and weeks ahead. I'm glad its being brought forward as I was very much against the initial rulings and hope that the "outrage" that is being shown now may, just may, lead to some kind of action to curtail the intrusion into our privacy.

I doubt this will cool off those who want/need to be outraged or have an agenda to paint this administration as inept or corrupt. Just like the IRS "scandal" we find out that the real story is nowhere as draconian as initially presented but initial impressions hold strong. There's a serious question of privacy here but not only involves the government but private industry as well. Our information is bought, sold and mined constantly...the data the government has access to has long been accessible. I've long assumed that whatever goes through the wires (and now wireless) that exit my house is being monitored...just as my picture is being taken when I walk into businesses and my financial actions are being tracked with every credit card or check I use. I would love to see a national discussion in the entire concept of what is constituted at personal privacy and what rights we truly have to keep our information private.

Meanwhile its emotions and agendas that get the attention here on DU...

[MineralMan]

32. There are also thoughtful threads on DU, not just emotional ones.

That's true of this and many other topics.

[msanthrope]

31. A very measured OP. I think before the end of the week we will have a much

clearer picture on Mr. Snowden and his motivations.

[DrewFlorida]

33. Good points! I agree!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Oh, you and your whole "not jumping to conclusions" thingy...

Why can't you just throw a conniption like the rest of us?!

But seriously, if the Boston Marathon Bombing has taught us nothing at all, it should be that first reports of breaking news are almost always a) stupendously wrong or b) pretty much wrong. We need to take a collective breath, review the specifics (which appear to be changing even as I type this) and then decide as a nation where the benefit of protection from terrorist attacks becomes less important than the erosion of our civil liberties.

When we figure that out, then we create a bright, shining line that government may not cross - and the penalty for non-compliance should be at least as severe as that for an act of terrorism.

But first, we freak out. Then we have a discussion.

[MineralMan]

35. I know. I should be waving my arms around.

At my advanced age, though, I have to conserve my energy. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, too.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. One of my favorite lines from M*A*S*H

Hawkeye is giving Margaret her annual physical.

"Well you're certainly fit, Major. Perhaps because you throw so many of them."

[MineralMan]

37. This bit of doggerel comes to mind:

When in danger,
When in doubt,
Run in circles
Scream and shout!

Often attributed to Herman Wouk, it actually has its origins in the military, and is anonymous.

[Raven]

38. Exactly what I've been thinking. Thank you for

expressing it so well. This stuff is way to serious to jump to conclusions too fast.

[moondust]

41. Me too.

I've got this idea that they may be collecting a massive database of phone records for law enforcement purposes, though it obviously could be more than that. Maybe they ran a search for Tamerlan Tsarnaev's phone calls and that's how they ended up in Florida questioning Todashev??

[DURHAM D]

42. You seem a good person to ask...

What entity decides who receives a security classification?

I am asking because of this OP -

"America's OUTSOURCED Spy Force, by the Numbers" -- The Atlantic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983838

[jeff47]

44. Terminology nitpick

A classification is something applied to a thing. A document can receive a classification of Top Secret.

A person receives a security clearance. That allows that person to see things that have a classification. Someone with a Top Secret clearance can view a document with a Top Secret classification.

The instructions for what things are classified are in classification guides. The guides are published by the major entities that deal with classified information. For example, there's a DoD guide, from which Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps guides are created.

Each derivative classifier (such as the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence) sets up a program to investigate people for the purpose of granting security clearances. To again use the DoD example, DISA does security clearance investigations.

The Wikipedia entry on "Classified Information in the United States" and related articles are surprisingly detailed and thorough.

[DURHAM D]

47. So the Director of National Intelligence is likely

the entity granting clearance to hundreds of thousands of private corporate employees?

[MineralMan]

48. See my explanation below, as a reply to your original question.

[jeff47]

49. Not directly, but he set up the system under which such people can receive clearances. (nt)

[MineralMan]

45. Typically, the organization in question makes the final decision.

Security clearance investigations are primarily done by the FBI, and for high-level security clearances, are quite thorough. For the highest level clearances, which include Top Secret and Top Secret with additional endorsements, that investigation will include criminal background checks, a thorough life history assessment, and personal interviews with people who know the person being investigated.

Today, a good deal of the investigation involves online investigation, but the footwork is still done, as well. When I got my security clearance in the USAF, at the tender age of 20, the FBI went to my little California home town and interviewed a couple dozen people, including teachers, clergy, employers, neighbors, and more. The application for that clearance was very detailed and involved a huge number of questions that required truthful answers. Each one of those questions was investigated. They even included details of mail I had received from foreign countries during my life, and all organizations I had ever belonged to. They checked each answer carefully.

In my case, for example, I had been an avid short-wave radio listener in my teens. In doing that, I had sent reception reports to many, many foreign radio stations so I'd receive the pretty QSL post cards acknowledging my reports. Some of the countries were Communist countries. Some of those also sent literature to me beyond those QSL cards, including subscriptions to propaganda magazines. During that time, all mail from the Soviet Union, China, and other communist countries was recorded and the recipients added to a list of people who received such mail. I disclosed that on the security clearance form and got questioned in detail by an FBI agent who visited me at the USAF base a week later. They also asked my parents to show them any such mail I had retained. Apparently, my explanation of why I had received such mail was satisfactory, since the clearance was granted and enhanced several times during my enlistment. But the investigation was very thorough.

That was the process in the mid 1960s. They didn't have online resources then. Now they do, but the process is, I understand, still similar. FBI field agents do a lot of the legwork, and then make recommendations. The issuing organization makes final decisions, but I doubt they would go against the FBI recommendations.

[DURHAM D]

50. Do you think the FBI is actually involved in granting clearance

for all of these corporate employees? I don't think the FBI has the manpower. My guess is that they just took the word of the private contractor.

[MineralMan]

51. The FBI recommends for or against the clearance.

And yes, they do those investigations. It may be that for lower level security clearances, information from non-government organizations might be adequate, with a basic background check. I can't answer that question. However Top Secret clearances and above always involve individual investigations.

Security clearances already obtained tend to be checked less thoroughly. For example, if a person who had a high-level security clearance from a government organization or the military took a job with a private contractor, it would probably continue to be accepted, with only a minor review. It is the initial clearance that takes the most time at Top Secret and above.

During my time in the USAF, my clearance was upgraded several times, as my work changed. Those upgrades never took more than a week or two to come through, but each upgrade involved a review.

[longship]

43. Well said; nicely played.

Reason trumps all.

I am with you on this. But some here interpret that stance as my having a specific opinion against theirs. I have had posts here asking questions attacked from all sides in recent days.

So, I am trying to avoid those threads with high response counts, surely a sign of chair throwing.

Thanks MM.

[DCBob]

46. The only thing new is this guy was able to find an interesting PowerPoint presention.

probalby stole it from a unlocked computer or server at NSA.

[stevenleser]

52. I hope you will consider my piece in developing a clearer picture. It takes into account facts...

history and legal precedent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks. I'll have a look at it.

[kestrel91316]

54. Me, too. I have to admit I haven't really kept up on this newest "scandal".

[MineralMan]

55. Well, so far there hasn't been that much to keep track of.

Lots of words, but not a lot of substance. All the facts aren't in yet.

[apples and oranges]

56. Same here. His interview was weird, but also compelling so I too will

need to see what the leaks reveal. Do the classified documents show that the US committed illegal acts that aren't authorized in the Patriot Act?

The part I found weird was his comments about China as a beacon of freedom and free speech.

If nothing else, he certainly opened up a discussion, which is also good. But opening up a discussion doesn't negate committing a crime (if his leak turns out to be a massive dump just for the sake of dumping). Recent mass shooters opened up a discussion on guns, but they still committed crimes.

[MineralMan]

57. So far, I don't think they reveal anything that violates

any legal stuff. Court orders exist and the law allows what was apparently done, and has been done for some time.

It's still interesting, and I'll be following it, too.

[Auntie Bush]

58. Thanks for this post Mineral Man. Everyone NEEDS to read this post and do a lot of thinking.

MM you express what I feel............

[Proud Liberal Dem]

59. This is not one of the things that I tend to get instantly outraged over

Things like torture (in our name and by our people), yes, but (legally authorized) surveillance.........meh. Not saying that we shouldn't revisit all this now that the "war on terror" seems to have cooled down a bit with the death of OBL and the diminished capabilities of AQ, as well as the questionable effectiveness of such programs in the first place but what "grinds my gears" may not be exactly what upsets somebody else but I do question the hysterics and sheer insanity unleashed by all of these "scandals" being ground out by the corporate media since President Obama's re-election. I think that there is a zone to exist where we can be concerned about some things without freaking out and calling for somebody's head over it. Right?