Snowden: NSA employees routinely pass around intercepted nude photos
Source: Ars Technica
Edward Snowden has revealed that he witnessed “numerous instances” of National Security Agency (NSA) employees passing around nude photos that were intercepted “in the course of their daily work.”
In a 17-minute interview with The Guardian filmed at a Moscow hotel and published on Thursday, the NSA whistleblower addressed numerous points, noting that he could “live with” being sent to the US prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He also again dismissed any notion that he was a Russian spy or agent—calling those allegations “bullshit.”
If Snowden’s allegations of sexual photo distribution are true, they would be consistent with what the NSA has already reported. In September 2013, in a letter from the NSA’s Inspector General Dr. George Ellard to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the agency outlined a handful of instances during which NSA agents admitted that they had spied on their former love interests. This even spawned a nickname within the agency, LOVEINT—a riff on HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence).
“You've got young enlisted guys, 18 to 22 years old,” Snowden said. “They've suddenly been thrust into a position of extraordinary responsibility where they now have access to all of your private records. In the course of their daily work they stumble across something that is completely unrelated to their work in any sort of necessary sense. For example, an intimate nude photo of someone in a sexually compromising position. But they're extremely attractive.
Read more: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/snowden-nsa-employees-routinely-pass-around-intercepted-nude-photos/
This is precisely the kind of activity that can prompt the masses to abandon their "meh" attitude.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)EOM
jayfish
(10,037 posts)but they'll come up with something.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)That's how it will be spun. He and he alone is the bad guy.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)18-22 year old enlisted guys LOL-
Sure Snowy, sure- NSA picks them up right out of high school 
fasttense
(17,301 posts)After boot camp and an A school and other training, maybe a year or 2 at the most, they are off to the NSA to look at your most intimate and personal correspondence.
I know, I use to be in Navy recruiting AND in contact with NSA employees when I was stationed in DC.
The NSA was noted for being overly secretive about everything, even a CFC fund raising campaign, and full of young enlisted members.
So roll your eyes at Snowden all you want but he knows of what he speaks.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That we have to put up with this nonsense online. It takes up valuable space. If I had lots of taxpayer cash I could pay people to comment here to make it look like I have supporters but I don't have to because one thing most Americans agree upon is that NSA is criminally in the wrong on just about everything.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... valuable function. Do they need tighter oversight? Yup? But that doesn't mean it's worth essentially blinding our policy makers to satisfy some misguided campaign against that agency as a whole.
And while Snowden performed a service in bringing the issue of surveillance on American citizens to light, he also revealed perfectly legitimate foreign intelligence operations that don't come even CLOSE to violating the Constitution. AS usual, the world is cast is shades of gray, despite the efforts of some to portray it as otherwise.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They spend most of OUR money illegally chasing down drug suspects for DEA and then help them lie about the trail of evidence using parallel reconstruction. In other words lying to judges and defense attorneys. They also use a lot of energy gaining leverage on US attorney's, politicians, judges, generals and journalists to influence their actions according to other previous whistleblowers.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Kids often go visit the military recruiter right out of high school or during their senior year. The potential recruits take a host of aptitude tests. If they score high enough it the right categories (like off the charts), the military offers them training and opportunities that they can't refuse. When they excel in the training, they send them to language schools or other intelligence schools. Eventually, they wind up working for NSA, or some other not so popular branch of the government.
Kids often enlist at age 18 or 19, and by 20 or 21, they could be working for the NSA.
And if you don't think that that the NSA gets a lot of their staffing this way, then you deserved to be LOL'd at.
I know that I was doing highly secret work, as an enlisted person, by age 20, and I wasn't in that elite category that we are talking about here.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They pay not so bright young people to post here in support but they lack intelligence and the ability to spin an argument.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... back in the early '70's my sister in law worked for a photo processing concern developing film*. The employees regularly made duplicates of the more "interesting" pictures they came across and kept them in a scrap book for easy ogling.
Yep, it happens! Someone in payroll knows how much someone else is making. Someone over at the local hospital is "browsing" through someone's medical records. Someone at the IRS is "browsing" through someone's tax return. Whenever you have a group of employees in charge of an activity that requires a measure of trust and discretion, you have some individuals who violate that trust.
It shouldn't happen. It should be punished. But it does happen and some of them get a way with it. You can't stop cutting checks for empolyees, you can't shut down the hospital, you can't stop collecting taxes because of it.
Meh.
* Nowadays, there might be some who don't know what "film" is or understand what "photo processing" is all about. Wiki it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You can shut down the superfluous "self-licking ice cream cone" that pumps up vague threats so as to justify a universal warrantless surveillance system that doesn't actually do anything against the vague threats, but makes a lot of money (out of your taxes) for some very bad corporate plunderers.
Please don't tell us we need this criminal agency. Thanks.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... we need signals intelligence - it has great utility for or nation, and, actually, is absolutely necessary to our security and well being. That happens to be the considered judgement of your fellow citizens from all walks of life and levels of expertise, and they are right.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I'm not talking about signals intelligence or whatever other technology you think is necessary in a world of antagonistic nation states constantly preparing for war and creating and inventing threats. Those may be necessary under such circumstances, but you are diverting from the real issue.
I'm talking about the specific power structure of the deep state, as exemplified by the NSA and the "intelligence community," which are a racket designed to suck up taxpayer funds and divert these into the accounts of the military and intel industries.
Don't divert from the issue! The NSA and Co. are a bigger threat to our securities and freedoms than the supposed threats they purport to address.
Oh, and here on DU, you and I each speak for ourselves. If you can't even cite these purported "fellow citizens from all walks of life and levels of expertise" whom you invoke to make yourself feel right, then it doesn't count.
I can do the same thing, right? "Millions of people agree with me"! And they do!
So what!
Make an argument using your own ideas, like a sovereign human being, not as a slave to some nationalistic "security" fetish. Thanks.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... of the United States of America, who, acting through our democratic institutions and representatives have indeed recognized the value and necessity of signals intelligence (the NSA's mission) to our personal and national security and well being.
You don't like? Gee, that's tough. Oh well.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)That's just obnoxious. You speak for yourself. Including in your rather ludicrous opinion that the United States is some kind of pure democracy, untainted by oligarchy, money, power and manipulation. When did we get to vote on what the NSA does, sir? Democracy is incompatible with a secret state and vast classified sectors. (The NSA wasn't even admitted to exist for a decade!)
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... that I speak for "We the People". I said "We the People" have spoken. The NSA, and other national security institutions are, by any reasonable measure, supported by and serve the interests of the American people.
Democracy is certainly not incompatible with state secrets and classified institutions. And it certainly could not exist without them.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...to the process of democratic decision making.
I'm with the majority. We shouldn't. Nor have we.
My opinion also. Leaving the "meta data" with the phone companies and jumping through some barrel hoops to request it doesn't really change the situation much, if any at all. But, since I don't think access to the meta data constitutes giving up privacy and freedom in the first place, it doesn't concern me much at all.
Once again, I'm with the majority. Isn't democracy great, or what?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)as the product of democratic will.
e.g., Americans democratically chose consumerism and to elect governments that serve the oil and coal companies, so burning fossil fuels is no problem!
Any status quo can thus be justified through this sophistry of blaming the people.
Luckily, right and wrong are still independent of what "the people" think and what the people think can change. We don't have Jim Crow any more either, that was once the popular preference.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... I is one. I don't think "the people" have it wrong, and I don't think that what is being done by the NSA in the pursuit of national security is wrong.
This isn't a matter of the forces of good verses the evil empire of darkness and injustice. Its a matter of balancing the "pros and cons" in crafting a reasonable policy decision.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Now, finally, you're speaking for yourself and what you believe. I believe you're woefully wrong, but at least you're not supporting yourself on narratives about how this is the democratic will, etc. etc.
Your NSA justifies itself by claiming it is the forces of good against darkness and injustice ("terrorism."
While in general I don't support good-evil dichotomies, in this case the opposite is clearly much more true than their own claim.
randome
(34,845 posts)By your token, the FBI is 'black vs. white'. So is the CIA. Your local precinct. DHS. Interpol. United Nations troops. And on and on and on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They exist to break laws in other countries, by definition, and they have a long and well-known chronicle of war crimes to answer for.
FBI has functioned as a political police, you can't blot out the history of COINTELPRO, the harrassment of Martin Luther King, or the construction of bogus entrapment cases against domestic "Muslim terrorists" in the current century.
Otherwise you're just throwing in everyone. Why not the wonderful law enforcement forces of Honduras, Mexico, China, Iran, Russia, etc. etc.? They're also "just doing the job they were established to do," blah blah blah.
I get it, you love all cops, all the time.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... for my self and what I believe. I have done so consistently since the beginning of this conversation. And part of what I believe is the moral value of democracy and the value of the thoughts, considerations and discourse of my fellow citizens.
The NSA does not, and does not have to, "justify itself". It serves the interests of our nation as determined by our elected representatives. Terrorism is a very real threat that can't be ignored. Not to mention what is "necessary under such circumstances" as "a world of antagonistic nation states constantly preparing for war and creating and inventing threats."
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You were almost free of it, but there you go again.
Again you're trying to create a false consensus by abusing the first person plural. You don't get to identify who this nation is. I'm this nation too, and with tens of millions of others I refuse your attempt to make "us" into some kind of abstraction united under one flag (waved by powermongers) and against whatever the Enemy Du Jour is supposed to be ("terrorism" is the best, since it can be anything, literally change by the day).
You're trying to equate NSA with USA. Ain't happening. Not everyone is that much of a sucker.
A secret agency engaged in clearly unconstitutional (therefore illegal) and lawbreaking activities around the globe -- employing a total surveillance system unprecedented in its reach, power and technological prowess -- is by definition a threat to freedom and absolutely must justify itself! (All government must justify itself, obviously. All concentrations of power, public or private, must do do.)
"Terrorism" is an abstraction that has always been used as a political attack word, a way of branding enemies for "us." The NSA programs exposed by Snowden have done nothing against attacks on U.S. civilians. They can't come up with a single example!
The U.S. national security state maintains the capacity to destroy the world many times ever, intervenes to create chaos around the world. It is responsible for the greatest international crime of the 21st century in Iraq, and the killers have not been brought to justice. There is your worst terrorism of the last 20 years.
The national security state exaggerates and invents threats to justify its swallowing a trillion dollars in taxpayer funding every damn year, at the expense to peace. This is why our highways crumble and our schools are overcrowded and some part of our people, mostly children, actually go hungry. So that outfits like your NSA can get their secret budgets to spend unaccountably on whatever the fuck they claim they're doing.
The U.S. national security state is not my country, even if you want to make it yours. It is self-evidently the greatest threat to world peace and to the interests of people living in the Americas, north and south.
I am a human being, a citizen of this world first, and an American second. That's my WE - and it doesn't include deadly military parasites like the NSA, one of the world's worst enemies.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... a "consensus". I'm sure there are tens of millions who agree with you. As there are many millions that disagree with you, But, as you yourself note, me, you, them and us are all "this nation too", and "this nation" which you admit to being a part of, is hardly a vaporous abstraction.
As far as abstractions are concerned, there isn't a much better example than the idea of a "citizen of this world". Such a thing, very literally, does not exist, cannot exist under current conditions and will never exist in any real sense until and unless there emerges a true world government. And while there are some peaceful attempts in that direction, such as the EU, there probably will not be such an institution in the absence of a significant world power that maintains the capacity to destroy the world many time over and has the will to use that power towards the goal of international unification under a world rule of law.
So if you genuinely want to become a true "citizen of the world" under an effective international rule of justice, you might want to reconsider your stance against the national security state. Who wills the end wills the means.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The indispensable nation! We must have total dominance to make the world safe for democracy! Only we can be trusted, only we are fully civilized, the rest are benighted and dangerous!
A "citizen of the world" is not at all abstract. They're called human beings, and unlike the nations they make, they've been here the whole time.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)NSA spying on private citizens is blatantly illegal and photo processing, tax collection, hospital care is legal.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... even on some number of private citizens... is not "blatantly illegal". In fact, it is obviously legal, and beyond that it is necessary for our security and well being as a people.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- You know they're reaching when the sister's tales are brought into the issue as proof......PosterChild
(1,307 posts)That given a variety of people put into a position of trust some number of them will take advantage of that trust and engage in some monkey business? That doesn't seem to require proof - it's just common sense.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Without knowing the complete context of why this is done it really is slight of mind to think Snowden is revealing breeches of privacy for the sake of sick work jokes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)....
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)page 32, Greenwald quotes from Snowden's very short resume attached to Snowden's statement regarding why he revealed the information on the NSA surveillance as follows:
Edward Joseph Snowden, SSN:_______
CIA Alias: ________
Agency Identificaiton Number: ________
Former Senior Advisor: . . . United States National Security Agency, under corporate cover
Former Field Officer: . . . United States Central Intelligence Agency, under corporate cover
Former Lecturer: . . . United States Defense Intelligence Agency, under corporate cover
End of quote.
The ellipses represent a vertical line that I do not know how to type on my computer.
He's the real deal. He presented his ID cards at one point in his encounters with Snowden, Poitras and the Guardain.
You really should read Greenwald's book. We used to have a lot of apologists for the NSA here on DU. Shortly after Greenwald's book came out, they either disappeared or became very quiet. The book is quite astounding.
AnnieBW
(10,409 posts)not an analyst.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I saw things that sickened me when investigating people for pornography on the network for a corporation. The difference? I was sitting with a Human Resources representative. It was FAR from snickering over dirty pictures.
Maybe I just happen to have a sense of honor and don't act like a 12 year old boy when keeping up the network and people put trust in me. People that didn't, and there were two of them, got promptly canned for invading the privacy and trust placed in them, because my VP is a decent human being, too, and didn't put up with that shit.
Management is your problem at the NSA.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)So the context doesn't matter.
You don't give a group like the NSA an excuse to mission creep, no matter how good an idea it seems at the time. Either everyone is protected by the constitution or no one is.
So what you're proposing is not a bit better than what Snowden claimed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
tymorial
(3,433 posts)People who base all of their views on emotionalism will always find a way to validate their feelings. To many people, supporting their elected political leader means that they must go "all in." Obama was president when this scandal was leaked and even though they might find the news uncomfortable, the fact that they voted for the president means that they must continue their complete and undying devotion. Sometimes they seek to get around their discomfort over the issue by blaming GW and citing legislative gridlock as proof that Obama really "hates it" but can't do anything about it (this of course ignores the 2 years when both houses were democratic). It is intellectually dishonest but they don't see it that way because they feel that they are correct. Logic and reason are frequently ignored in their calculus. These are the people who only surround themselves with like minded individuals. They never attempt to understand or absorb opposing viewpoints. Instead of fostering health debate they engage in strawman argument, misdirection and insult. I'm certain that people like this have always been present but never have they had a means to communicate like they do today with the internet. I really do believe that one of the biggest reasons why everyone seems to hate each other over politics is due to these people. They have the biggest voice even if it is sometimes uninformed.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Finding Snowden not credible has nothing to do with the truly simple-minded idea that it has anything to do with one's support of Obama. It has to do with Snowden making assertions that he has yet to provide any evidence for.
Finding Snowden not credible does not make one an NSA cheerleader or defender. It is simple-minded thinking to believe that the NSA lying automatically means that Snowden is telling the truth. Both are more than possible.
It is equally simple-minded thinking to believe that if one isn't 100% on-board with one position, it means they are 100% on-board with the extreme opposite position. i.e. if you are a not a Snowden fan, you must be an NSA "fan"; if you support stricter gun control legislation, you want everyone's guns confiscated.
"Logic and reason are frequently ignored in their calculus. These are the people who only surround themselves with like minded individuals. They never attempt to understand or absorb opposing viewpoints."
This is THE most simple-minded thinking imaginable, the notion of attributing such broad-brush behaviour to one group of people as opposed to another. There are many Snowden fans who have frequently ignored "logic and reason" where he is concerned. A perfect case in point is the fact that many Snowden supporters still point to the released email in which he asked a question about training material as the "smoking gun proof" that he had raised his concerns with his superiors - when even the man himself never claimed that, or attached any real importance to that particular exchange.
"I really do believe that one of the biggest reasons why everyone seems to hate each other over politics is due to these people. They have the biggest voice even if it is sometimes uninformed."
Exactly who are "these people"? The people who don't agree with your assessment of things? The people who don't simply defer to your superior judgment, and have the audacity to voice opinions you don't share?
There is nothing more simple-minded than the idea that this site (or the world at large) consists of black-and-white positions, where disagreeing with A means one is firmly in the camp of Z, where those on one side of an argument "engage in strawman arguments, misdirection and insults", while the other side does not.
I realize (quite sadly) that this kind of black-and-white thinking has become prevalent here on DU. However, it's prevalence does not equate to it being right, logical, or acceptable by those who recognize the myriad shades of gray that exist between one position and another.
"These are the people who only surround themselves with like minded individuals."
You might want to investigate how many DUers (and, more to the point, which ones) brag about the size of their Ignore lists. THEY are the people who have proclaimed, and rather proudly, how important it is to "surround themselves with like-minded individuals", with absolutely no tolerance for the opinions of those who disagree with them. Rather than be exposed to differing opinions, they simply block those who hold those differing opinions from view.
"The fact that they voted for the president means that they must continue their complete and undying devotion."
In truth, there are many Snowden fans here who proclaimed him the Greatest American Hero within twenty-four hours of his name becoming known - and many of them feel that "they must continue their complete and undying devotion", regardless of what unsavoury facts about him - e.g. his comments that SS recipients are parasites, that whistle-blowers should be shot in the balls - subsequently became known. If you want to see "complete and undying devotion", you need look no further than that.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Do you have a reference for this? I did an internet search and couldn't find it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... on Ars Technica message boards as TheTrueHOOHA. He was identified as such by the fact that he posted many photographs of himself.
He was an advocate of eliminating the Social Security system in its entirety, and wrote that the elderly "wouldn’t be fucking helpless if you weren’t sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day."
It was also as TheTrueHOOHA that Snowden stated that whistle-blowers should "be shot in the balls".
candelista
(1,986 posts)...about whistleblowers. Maybe he changed his mind on SS, too. He is a young guy, and young guys change their political views a lot. But to me, it doesn't matter. The important thing is that he provided information valuable to all Americans, whatever their politics, and did this at great risk to himself.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)so I'm guessing the "meh" attitude will continue. If anything, the nonbelieves will shame all the people worried about something like this for having nude pictures on their computer at all (or having nude photos of themselves at all).
Personally I'm less worried about this than my bank information, lol.
jayfish
(10,037 posts)Can't happen here, can't happen here
All that you fear they're telling you, can't happen here"
Ritchie Blackmore
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)"If you aren't sexting, then you have nothing to worry about"
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)How many politicians are leery of crossing the NSA because of ... well, you never know.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)group of young men and pass around intercepted nude photos...."
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Internet is a public domain,,,,,, Yall are like somebody being surprised that a nude picture you displayed on Main Street is being looked at by somebody. geez.. Comrade Snowden is getting down to the bottom of his "attention" bag. Yall make me laugh!
klook
(12,151 posts)So I guess you have no problem with the actions of The Most Hated Man on the Internet then?
Weren't these women naive when they emailed suggestive photos of themselves, or allowed their doctors to store images of their post-operative anatomies on a server?
Or is it OK if guys look at these photos just for their own amusement, without using them for blackmail? Where's the line that makes one permissible (and legal) and the other not?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)The Internet is a public domain. Whether you like it or not,,,The Age of Privacy is Dead and Gone Forever .
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Mind if I hack your computer and find out what you have been looking at?...who your friends are?
Nothing to hid nothing to fear.
And long live the surveillance state.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that what I put on the Internet is not public,,,,,, btw go ahead and hack away on me... Im sure the Gubermint already knows all those things you seem to be interested in learning about me and has known for at least 30 years or more.
klook
(12,151 posts)to tap your phone or read your emails?
Such innocent days of yesteryear!
I'm not willing to subject to blanket surveillance of my communications. People around the world agree with me.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I really don't want to know what is on your computer...but my guess is that as long as you offer support and excuses for the NSA spying they will have no problem with what you have.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)I guess if government agents came to your door and asked if they could do a thorough search of your place...and as long as they told you that this is all perfectly normal now and no one actually expects that ANYTHING about their lives to be private anymore, ESPECIALLY to the government...(Democratic or Republican), you'd be just fine with that too.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the Internet is...... seriously if you going to engage in discussion of topics, you maybe need to study the topic before hand. geeez
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)And its the mindset that allows this creeping fascism.
First its having no problem with authorities to put video cameras on every street, to put GPS trackers on cars and phones. Then having the power to read all your emails with no real oversight. It happened in East Germany, like a frog in heating water, soon they will also have "national security" or "fight on Terrorism" reasons to make that knock on your door.
Personally I shudder at the thought of some future Republican administration having the power the NSA has at their fingertips now, let alone in the future when technology gets even better, and faster. What if you said something at a town meeting that your local Republican leader did not like and had that kind of power to scan every document you ever sent out and listen to phone calls...looking for the slightest shred of a reason to go after you or anyone of your family.
But hey...the water feels fine...relax.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)amd it is a deliberate tactic we are seeing more and more.
When you can no longer dispute the abuses of power being committed against Americans by our own government, you launch an all-out campaign to try to give the impression that people don't care and to normalize them, ...even when they include the most outrageous, unconstitutional violations of privacy imaginable.
I just came from another thread where I posted links showing the US government (1) refusing to let citizens know what information has been spied upon and stolen from them, (2) actively defending LYING about what they have collected not only to citizens, but also to the *courts,* and (3) actively abusing information gained illegally from spying to ARREST, FABRICATE EVIDENCE TRAILS, and IMPRISON Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5251289
It was greeted with a yawn and a comment that it would be "normal" and that citizens need only get a subpoena.
Trying to normalize the unconscionable is pretty much the only tactic, aside from lying, that they have left.
"Third Way blase" serves only to drive home exactly how corrupt the Third Way machine has truly become, and the depths of the corruption and abuses of power they are willing to engage in and defend.
.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But they want to sing us a lullaby and put this to sleep...and if we let them then maybe we deserve what we get.
But I skimmed through that thread...it is mind blowing to see it happen...and if it is happening here then you know we are fucked...rat fucked I guess you could call it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)A collection of some of the most dishonest NSA/Third Way rhetoric, all in one place.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)All the kewl kids know we're powerless and its a waste of breath to rage about it...
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)By your logic if a mailbox doesn't have a lock on it then it's free reign for people to take your mail which is a felony. We create laws for people like you who argue that should be able to get away with anything if you have the ability to do so. Us adults know that's an extremely weak argument. Anyone who actually actively argues against privacy has an agenda in my so humble opinion.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We're talking about private emails and phone calls. And conservatives want mail to be privatized. No one is talking about what you post on the Internet. That's fair game I guess although there are privacy contracts.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)are you arguing with yourself? you have no right to get stuff out of someone else mailbox whether it has a lock on it or not ---- it is not public domain, but a letter laying on the sidewalk is public domain and you have the right to read it., ,,,,,,,Fact: data packets moving thru the Internet are public domain, whether you like it or not there are people who may be reading them if they wish. ,,, and that's the Truth.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Just claiming everything on the internet is public domain does not actually make it so. They require a warrant to read our e-mails, period end of discussion.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)you really think a postal letter is in the Public Domain while it in the possession of postal worker? Hello?,,, No wonder you think you they need a warrant to read your email.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Sorry you don't like facts.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that postal workers have the rights to open and read your mail ........ I will have to see SCOTUS ruling on that one.!
I hail BS Alert
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Quit trolling.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The circular logic is just a distraction. They make no sense and only disrupt.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)If I access someone's email or hack their Facebook account I can go to jail for 5 years. You don't know what you're talking about. You have no credibility.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)require a password in order to view their contents.
Nor are we on DU in the public domain with regard to our identities. We use pseudonyms like Cryptoad that we choose in order to protect our identities from public including government scrutiny and knowledge.
Our government has better things to do with the limited tax revenues it collects than collecting all the information we post on the internet. Really. What a waste!
The money could be spent on pre-school education. Did you know that the most important period for the development of a child's mind is not K-12, but pre-kindergarten. Perhaps really even the first moments and months of a baby's life?
And yet we do not even have paid maternity leave in the workplace or supported by the government in this country. No. What do we have - 24/24 internet surveillance. The most absurd waste of money I can think of. Even if they do catch a few terrorists, the waste of money does not justify it. We are neglecting our children so that we can fund a bunch of over-sexed young men sitting in a room reading our internet postings and priate e-mails. What a crazy scheme?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)are something in a mail app. on a server or client PC which are private domain,,,,, they are not the Internet which is public domain. You are arguing about something of which you seem to have very little knowledge. Good luck to ya....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)manufacturers, etc., all the businesses who do research in various locations and send their trade secrets to each other and discuss company business with each other via e-mail.
Tell that to law firms that use the internet to communicate with each other. The internet has many levels, some of which are mores private than others.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)mention are public domain when they are moving thru the Internet. You can read them all if you have the skills and hardware to decrypt them. I am not sure you know what the Internet really is and/or how it operates.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... if you have any expectation of privacy on the internet, you are being foolish. You have no control of the bits once they leave your computer, and limited control of them ON your computer. If you want it private, encrypt it and don't send it out on the internet.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)and I might add that there are no public encryption keys that can not be decrypted.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the password permits to be seen is private.
Why do we use passwords if the information that we see only when we use the password is in the public domain?
I go to the website of a company that sells yarn. They have a public page that is in the public domain. They may also choose to have a page on which I can see the history of my transactions, my purchases, my credit card number that is on their file. I use a password to reach my private information on that page. Once I use a password, I expect the company and those who process the information I hand over to the company to keep it private for me. I do not want a zillion other companies to find out that I like, say, chartreuse and wear a size 10 sock. (I don't. It's just an example.)
My medical information is sent to me via an internet website. There is a very strict law that protects that information from public view. It is most definitely not intended to be in the public domain. There is a lot of very personal information that is on the internet. If my doctors thought that the government could access the information they place on my personal healthcare website, they would not put it there. They are obligated by the HIPAA to protect my privacy with regard to my healthcare information.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/
The internet is not entirely in the public domain. The government needs to get a warrant based on probable cause.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
The FISA courts issued warrants or orders that did not comply with the portions of the Fourth Amendment that are in bold above.
The British use of the general warrant to harass and steal and enforce tax laws was one of the major reasons for our American Revolution.
Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable mercantile business from his uncle. Hancock began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men later became estranged. As tensions between colonists and Great Britain increased in the 1760s, Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause. He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dropped, he has often been described as a smuggler in historical accounts, but the accuracy of this characterization has been questioned.
Hancock was one of Boston's leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and as president of Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Hancock returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock
Hands off the internet. End the general warrants issued by the FISA court.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)about thingys that are on computers that are connected to the internet.... yes they are private Domain. All my threads on this topic have been pertaining to data as it moves thru the Internet, that is PUblic Domain. I am not sure you understand that difference.
btw if you going to drag our Constitution into this you should realize that document says that no rights granted by it are absolute. ref: 9th amend.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Here's a good post:
122. Phone records are only a small part of this issue
We're talking about geo-location from cell towers. While at some points you are in the "public sphere" and can legally be monitored by anyone without warrant (so long as it isn't stalking), there is no way to differentiate whether or not you have entered a private location (be it business, home, or private residence). Therefore it is ILLEGAL to data mine for the geo-location data for cell users as the US government HAS done.
Without a warrant, you (person, company, or government) are not constitutionally allowed to obtain this information on anyone. The courts have dealt with this issue in the past A LOT in dealing with the definition of "expectation of privacy". The only place where this is allowed is by the company that you are dealing with. For instance, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to your geo-location information from the cell company themselves, because you agree to their services.
The Obama Administration would contend currently that under the precedent for expectation of privacy that they are then allowed to take your data because of the lessening of the expectation of privacy precedent regarding emails after they've reached their destination. That is, they hope to argue (although invoking state secrets means at least for the time being they won't have to) that your data enters the public sphere when it is aggregated by the telecom. That is however false. Otherwise it would also be required to be publicly available, as would your SSN, any product you buy on a club card at a grocery store, all online purchases by accounts made on Amazon, EBay, PayPal, etc. Additionally all searches on search engines by your computer, all tv shows watched from many cable providers, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, AIM, Skype, etc. If they argue that they have entered the public domain then they are also arguing that ALL people are legally ALLOWED to view that data because it is no longer covered by the protections of the expectation of privacy.
The courts have left this area extremely gray and for good reason. Government agencies want the leeway to use your information but at the same time keep up the idea that you still have privacy. You can't have both.
It comes down to the fact that the Administration is intrinsically WRONG in their belief that what is being done is legal. Because if it is legal, then you have no expectation of privacy in ANY of this aforementioned information, including your SSN for instance. Either the information is in the public domain and they and everyone can see it legally or it isn't and no one can. That is the law and that is the precedent as it relates to the Fourth Amendment.
Here is a BASIC description if it for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
neverforget
(9,436 posts)
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That slash through the GOP sign doesn't fool me into thinking you are one if us. To use your word...we would be naive to think you are who you say. I'm sure we do make NSA laugh with all those pictures. Opening mail is a felony and should be when it's an email. That's not displayed on the internet or "Main St". Calling Snowden comrade is a joke. Something an 18 year old actually could come up with or a senile Republican NSA lover. People are so into the prolific NSA defenders here that NSA should find a new disinformation tactic and stop wasting the people's tax dollars for support online.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Diane Feinstein is a Democrat too.
And Hillary, while blowing smoke about placing (meaningless) controls on the NSA, goes all Tasmanian Devil on Snowden.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Because they have financial interests involved. Anyone here at this level I'm more suspicious of their motives.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I just don't believe you. Is that a purity test?
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My e-mail account is closed to the public. If I have to use a password to get to my own information, that means I have an expectation of privacy to that information. The NSA breaches my privacy when it tries to identify who I am or looks at any information that I have protected with a password. That is where the line is drawn. If I have information posted on a website that is my own and bears my name, that is intended by me to be for public viewing, then any branch of government and any person using the internet may view it.
But if I use a pseudonym when I post on DU, for example, it is because I am claiming privacy as to my identity on DU. That means I do not want the government to look behind the veil of my pseudonym and find out my identity. The authors of the Federalist Papers, Benjamin Franklin as a journalist, Mark Twain, all used pseudonyms for various reasons. This is a great American tradition. Some used the pseudonyms for reasons other than privacy, but the pseudonym, the password is to be respected.
The government does not have the right to investigate or find out the private data, statements, etc. as to which I have expressed that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A password creates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Think of a corporation that has trade secrets. Would you require that corporation to keep the trade secrets off the computers of company employees? Can company employees, let's say researchers for a pharmaceutical company or financial analysts for a pension company be expect privacy with regard to the trade secrets they may discuss on the internet? (Most of them use encryption but still the government is specifically targeting those who use encryption I understand.)
The internet could not be used by businesses for receiving payments and processing credit cards if the internet were truly in the public domain.
Think about it. The internet is not simply public domain. Some of it is public domain. Most of it is not.
The government is constitutionally barred from collecting or reviewing private information without a warrant based on probable cause.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and have the trust of thousands of people in your hands. Can you violate that trust? Sure you can, but if you have an honorable set of employees and honorable managers, your ass gets fired.
I've never taken the trust people put in my hands for granted. Sneering at that trust is as bad as violating it. Maybe I am just one of those weird people that knows the difference between right and wrong.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and blowing it off is the same damn thing as saying it should continue. So, no, you didn't claim it was ethical, but you don't seem very motivated to speak up and say it needs to stop. THAT'S my issue with what you have to say about it.
It's essentially shut up and stop criticizing the NSA when they have EARNED it, and need to be reined in HARD.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)discussing the ethics,,,,, I was discussing rights. Sorry I will try harder to follow your opinion of what and how to post next time....... geeez
treestar
(82,383 posts)The FBI, combating sex trafficking, perhaps.
It's just more of Eddie's nonsense that they can see everything we have and waste their time looking at it, risking getting fired of course, since they are supposed to be looking for something to do with national security.
Eddie expects me to believe the NSA employees spend their days fooling around, unsupervised, having a good time looking for nudies and such.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that Comrade Snowden is sharing his NSA Porn collection with Putin?
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts) AnnieBW
(10,409 posts)A lot of criminal organizations and black-hat hackers finance their operations through running porn sites.
Also, ever hear of something called "steganography". It's hiding information inside of images.
A good example is this: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/steganography-how-al-qaeda-hid-secret-documents-in-a-porn-video/
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)If nothing but a practical standpoint, a government spending billions intercepting the public's personal information while so many people
are struggling in this economy and our real "public domain" roads, bridges are rotting away.
There's no money for schools, creating jobs, the cost of higher education and medical care is going through the roof, we can't seem to run a postal dept. anymore yet we still have the resources to pay a bunch of people to comb through you and your neighbor's e-mail?
The "internet is public domain" so what's wrong with the government helping themselves to the public's personal info? Why would anyone take the time to defend this is beyond me. And you're calling Snowden comrade?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to follow our Constitution, which it seems to be doing. Do I agree with everything it does? No. but Hello, the government is helping itself to the public's personal info! I am not defending anything but the Truth.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)There are many people who don't agree with you, our 'comrades" over at that Socialist organization the ACLU along with comrades Al Gore, Sen. Wyden,etc. and, oh and let's not forget comrade Feinstein, especially when the "public domain" included Congress...
And I guess using your public domain argument comrade Snowden was within his rights to expose "secret" government docs since they too are public domain?
Our first amendment rights aside, my question was simply from a practical taxpayer standpoint and is this the roll we want the Federal Government to be playing.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the role of Federal Gubermint, including even our everyday actions are defined and bound by our Constitution. So you see they can not be separate arguments.
Comrade Snowden was bound by legal contract not to expose secret documents, and has nothing to do with whether they were harvested off a public domain.
I have already stated that I was not defending anything or body or role of Gubermint,,,just the Truth.
So if i may suggest, if you dont agree with the Constitution's bounds on the role of our gubermint, change it.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Political decisions are made all of the time that are within the boundaries of the Constitution that are neither wise or astute. Not to say the the actions of the NSA aren't in complete disregard of our 1st amendment rights.
Using the argument the Government has the right to harvest public information from the net because it's public domain, then why should the Government expect a right to privacy not provided to the very people they claim to protect...Use the net at your own risk. Isn't that what you're pretty much saying?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Duh!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)never intended for them to be distributed on the Internet.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Young people can be incredibly naive when they're 'in love', and sending a racy pic to someone they think they'll 'be with forever'. It's a lot easier for us older, more experienced folks to be cynical enough to realize just how stupid an idea 'sexting' can be.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)And the boss who broke balls, and the gym teacher everyone hated? What harm might get sent their way? And these are low level techs, not very motivated. A Cheney loyalist could do so much damage. And maybe that's why Cheney and that crowd get a pass.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because they can find dirt on anyone who opposes their plans and use it like Hover did to stay in power and in control of government.
This is no small matter.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)Imagine what J. Edgar Hoover could have been/done if he'd had the Internet at his disposal.... [[[shudder]]]
lamp_shade
(14,816 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)They've never done anything like spy on people for sexual reasons, and there's no reason to believe they spy on Americans anyways. It's just metadata, which doesn't reveal anything.
The NSA is just doing their absolute, patriotic best to keep us safe from terrorists who want to take away our freedoms. And install the Good Times virus on out computers.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The judges are all hand-picked by the Chief Justice, using secret criteria.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)They've got all the tools they need to make sure those terrorists don't take away our freeeeedoms!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)How much harm can that do?
90-percent
(6,828 posts)When naked pictures of Dianne Feinstein in a sexually compromising position become public, then we'll see some legislative action on the NSA!
-90% Jimmy
sad to contemplate such a terrible event is all we can ever hope for to get out Forth Amendment rights back!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is far to valuable for that...But Di Fi might see them in a folder she is handed when she is about to vote for more funding for the NSA...used as incentive to vote for not against.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...would have to be classified as Weapons of Mass Disgusting.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)The people floating around Stratos, if Memory Alpha serves, were more interested in turning a buck peddling zenite.
Stratfor: executive boasted of 'trusted former CIA cronies'
By Alex Spillius, Diplomatic Correspondent
9:08PM GMT 28 Feb 2012
The Telegraph
A senior executive with the private intelligence firm Stratfor boasted to colleagues about his "trusted former CIA cronies" and promised to "see what I can uncover" about a classified FBI investigation, according to emails released by the WikiLeaks.
Fred Burton, vice president of intelligence at the Texas firm, also informed members of staff that he had a copy of the confidential indictment on Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
The second batch of five million internal Stratfor emails obtained by the Anonymous computer hacking group revealed that the company has high level sources within the United States and other governments, runs a network of paid informants that includes embassy staff and journalists and planned a hedge fund, Stratcap, based on its secret intelligence.
SNIP...
Mr Assange labelled the company as a "private intelligence Enron", in reference to the energy giant that collapsed after a false accounting scandal.
CONTINUED...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9111784/Stratfor-executive-boasted-of-trusted-former-CIA-cronies.html
Inside dope rules.
riqster
(13,986 posts)There ain't enough brain bleach in the world to erase that image.
That would stop it, right there. 
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Mass surveillance and shredding of our Constitutional protections is just so funny.
Third Way blase.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It's a coping mechanism.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)Let us all hope that is the case.
"The horror...the horror".
Pholus
(4,062 posts)They are politically minded, they stumble across something completely unrelated to their work that just happens to sink the next Democratic Presidential Candidate's chances right before the election.
And there are some complete clueless idiots here who don't think the Bush appointed NSA leaders would do it cause of laws and stuff.
Yeah, I remember the Bushies being real into following the law!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's all about blackmail, leverage and control. You should respond to the cloak and dagger dimwits posting in support of peeping toms here.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)and give it to the FBI, who might pass it on to corrupt US Attorneys, who might start an investigation on said Democratic politicians right before a close election?
Like what happened during the Bush years?
Tell me, what has Obama done to prevent that from happening again?
Pholus
(4,062 posts)dismantle the infrastructure for domestic dragnet collection. Ideally he should have choked it down immediately back in 2009 but for whatever reason he allowed them to grow and even oversaw a fairly substantial increase in their budget.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)He could have cleaned house, but instead succumbed to pressure, even choosing to appease Richard Shelby by keeping on Leura Canary (the wife of Karl Rove's friend, and prosecutor of Don Siegelman.)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)in this country.
randome
(34,845 posts)This is his 'boxes in the garage' moment. Not only does the NSA spy on everyone, they're also not very nice!
As usual, long on supposition and zero on evidence. Of anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
neverforget
(9,436 posts) randome
(34,845 posts)Snowden has nothing. I can say I saw my coworkers engage in satanic rituals at work. Will you believe me?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Funny how you have not once worried about the NSA providing evidence because on even cursory examination their track record sucks. It sucks because they have to hide behind "it's oh so secret" or we find out how feeble, how mismanaged and how ineffective they really are.
http://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-by-nsa-spreads-despite-lack-of-evidence
Remember Alexander and Inglis saying the NSA has “contributed to keeping the U.S. and its allies safe from 54 terrorist plots.”
When Senator Leahy FINALLY asked the right question in the right words that allowed NO prevarications, it turns out that
only 13 of them were domestic.
And when pressed farther?
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/27/nation/la-na-nsa-politics-20130728
Only ONE case was cited that was conclusively discovered by rifling the nation's collective underwear drawer instead of classic investigative work performed at a fraction of the cost.
How many billion dollars went to Cheney's campaign contributors to stop one guy from sending an $8500 check?
Then again, people gotta get paid and the closer they are to the neocons the more important it becomes they get paid. There are certain expectations in the MIC.
randome
(34,845 posts)No one is 'rifling the nation's collective underwear drawer'. You do know that the NSA is forbidden from spying on American citizens, right? If there is evidence to show they are violating that law, let's see it. Then we'll have a scandal. Until then, I won't presume to micromanage a spy agency.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)1) It was always about more than metadata (http://www.propublica.org/article/nsa-data-collection-faq)
2) The NSA spies on Americans outside their mandate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/).
3) They play word games with "laws" by childishly redefining terms to that they have meanings other than the common ones (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-intelligences-word-games-explained-how-government-deceived).
4) After years of lying through their teeth about "good network security is a national interest, so we're here to help" it turns out that they were hoarding vulnerabilities and hell, for good measure putting a few more in there. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/nsa-said-to-have-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html AND http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220 )
I think you are hard pressed to demonstrate that this group is more than a bunch of pimply faced script kiddies trying to protect their bloated budget and future lucrative consulting contracts -- as bad as the russian cybercriminals when it comes down to it. Hell, worse, because I am paying them to attack my networks and my data security.
At its core the NSA is an organization to protect American citizens using unamerican tactics. During the cold war they managed a degree of professionalism, but "after the gloves came off" it obviously descended into lord of the flies. Opportunistic neocons took over as the cold warriors got shut out and look at the bullshit they started. Time to clean their house and cut their budget so they regain a sense of priorities.
I believe you probably need to defend the premise that they deserve any latitude at this point.
randome
(34,845 posts)Your article doesn't even specify where the NSA's data comes from because they don't know. Most likely, it's data obtained overseas since that's the NSA's responsibility. Why would you be worried about that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Pholus
(4,062 posts)But we both knew that was bull. I love how you take solace in the sources of the data remaining secret though.
Then again, the actual truth coming out would be rather inconvenient. For the NSA. Because that secrecy hides so much bullshit.
You know why the NSA is fundamentally unamerican? Exactly because they don't have to play by the rules. They got an exception because of foreign threats and the first thing they do is turn it around and shaft their own people.
Why did we need the Church commission again? Oh yes, cause you can't trust spooks. When they have power, they can't help but abuse it.
They invented Minaret once, they probably have already done so again. Because they believe in Ollie North's "Dangerous world..."
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that there are a lot of people that don't know what the meaning of trust is, nor the difference between violation of that and doing your job as well as you can.
Furthermore, we seem to have a dearth of folks that know the difference between right and wrong if they defend this bullshit.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I gotta figure that at least some of them are die hards not because it is right or wrong but because of more personal stakes.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and managed to do the right thing. Why is it such a trial and travail to ask other people to do the right thing? I'm hardly the most upright human being on earth, but I know right from wrong.
randome
(34,845 posts)If revealing sources endangers the NSA's mission or intelligence agents in the field, what's so hard to understand about protecting that?
Drug smugglers outside our borders are not protected by our Constitution and laws. The world does not rotate according to the dictates of 'right vs. wrong'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)The Church Commission is older than Comrade Eddie.
Guess we know who has a longer history of shitting on our laws and way of life.
Game, set, match.
Thanks for the easy shot.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The law does not try a defendant or judge a defendant based on any previous crimes. The trouble with knowing a little is that you think you know it all.
By your standard, since one time you were bound to have been wrong and made an error, you are always wrong and so I can accuse you of anything and if you try to defend yourself, bring up your past errors as proof you are wrong this time.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Snowden must get a fair hanging after a fair trial.
Bwahahaha. Weak stuff, dude. I don't know it all, but I know enough to not trust overpaid blowhards who break the law and think a security classification should save them from the consequences.
Having extraconstitutional power granted because of extraordinary circumstances means you need to completely be above reproach in your actions and completely honest in your communications.
I know that, the 1980's NSA knew that, why don't the current generation of dumbfucks over at the NSA know that?
Oh, that's right....they learned their concept of "legality" from Dick Fucking Cheney.
And I'm supposed to give that a pass? Dream on, man!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They're just making shit up in collusion with him?
randome
(34,845 posts)Evidence that the NSA spies on other countries. Even Snowden couldn't specify to Brian Williams one single thing that the NSA has done that is illegal. Not. One. Thing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Now that you've failed at the "Snowden hasn't provided any evidence" meme.... (oh not THAT evidence!11!!!)
randome
(34,845 posts)Look, I can show you evidence that gas is priced at more than $3 a gallon. Would it mean anything to you? So Snowden shows us evidence that a spy agency spies on other countries. Same thing. I don't care. Why do you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't see how you could make that conclusion unless you believe everything that comes out of Eddie's mouth, without evidence. And of course don't see where he might be biased or have reason to lie.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)It's in the same file folder as the proof that he could have read Obama's emails, proof that he could watch anyone's on-line purchases, proof that he could read your thoughts as you type them - along with his copies of those emails he sent to his superiors raising his concerns about all of the above.
Fact is he doesn't need to produce proof of anything - the Snowden fans believe whatever he says anyway.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)One doesn't even need to click on the link.
Read it.
In the Op.
Above.
Duh.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Snowden says something - has no proof to back it up.
Duh.
Snowden says a lot of things he can't provide any evidence of.
Duh.
And his fans believe his every word anyway.
Duh.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)The NSA has lied repeatedly. Oh, excuse me, gave "least untruthful" answers.
And their fans are every bit as rabid, just without the good sense of "once bitten, twice shy."
Oh, and "no proof" obviously explains why the US wants to charge Snowden under the espionage act... 
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... for stealing and disclosing confidential documents. Whether he has proven his claims or not has nothing to do with that charge.
Believing that the NSA has "lied repeatedly" does not mean that Snowden has repeatedly told the truth. It's not an either/or situation. He is just as capable of lying.
Thinking that anyone who finds Snowden not credible does not make one an "NSA fan". I know that kind of simple-minded logic is accepted as the norm here. In the real world, it is exactly that: simple-minded.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Sorry, it was plain old flat out lied. Demonstrably. In front of congress at one point, without consequences.
But, accountability is only for the little folks it seems.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that one party lying does not go to prove another party's truth-telling.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I have a way higher standard. I still cannot believe those vain, arrogant Bushie Retreads actually paid extra for whooshing fucking starship doors in their "fortress of ineptitude." Waste and fraud is all I see from what isn't classified, pretty much figure they've kept the REALLY embarassing stuff classified "More than Top Secret" cause that might cost them their jobs.
Given how surprised they were in Ukraine even though the satellite imagery showed the massing of Russian troops I think I can justifiably add incompetence to the list. When they blamed Snowden for that and promised a "surge" of analysts I laughed for half a day. What a bunch of assclowns. It begged a simple question -- where the hell did that "surge" of human resources come from? Oh yeah, they were sitting on their collective asses trying to identify nekkid people on skype with facial recognition databases among other idiotic and unproductive activities. Then again, that kind of script kiddie stuff is easier than doing actual intelligence work I figure.
So, trying to say "they both lie" to deflect from the massive embarassment that the NSA has become is also pointless.
BTW, one year out more than one of Comrade Eddie's claims have been verified so calling him a liar is kind of desperate. I take that as another sign you know how weak your position is in the light of day.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... "the point being", knowing full well that the point is invariably lost on those who insist on posting pointless, over-the-top, "I know better than anyone", hyperbolic nonsense in lieu of something of substance.
Please forgive my lack of originality and a momentary loss of creative imagination, but seems to be a more apt response than any I can conjure up at the moment.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)So rest up, have a good Sunday and I'm sure I'll see you defending the indefensible with a bit more aplomb in the near future!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why is Eddie above the law? Oh, because he's Eddie, the god. He says he would not get a fair trial, in spite of all the publicity he has brought upon himself, and so of course it must be true. Oh, therefore he should not be tried.
So the President should do the right thing. And that of course is to tell Eddie he's not going to be charged! Welcome him back and put the NSA under his guidance.
Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #57)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You would be surprised to find that people with access to personal data collect and show off nude photos?
You cannot really know so little about human behavior.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)What I discount is Snowden's word for anything at this point. He has a habit of making allegations without any evidence whatsoever to back them up.
What surprises me is the people who always tout their "healthy skepticism", but have absolutely NO skepticism about anything Snowden says. They simply accept it as the truth.
If this is yet another of Snowden's shocking revelations that he "risked his life to make known to his fellow citizens", I'd say the bottom of his barrel of shocking revelations has been officially scraped.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But, in this case, and indeed in all cases, we tend to favor the 'story' that best comports with our preconceived views of how reality probably is.
So, if you are not surprised about the nude photo story, why would you demand proof in order to simply come out and say "Oh well, it's probably true"? And I speak specifically about THIS particular allegation only.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)There is a bit of irony there.
I am not surprised that human nature being what it is, certain behaviour may - and often does - manifest itself. But by the same token, certain behaviour that is usually expected can often be surprisingly absent.
I've been a court stenographer for thirty years. I have socialized with lawyers who are unrepentant gossips about everything - except their clients' information. I have known medical professionals who will tell you everything they've witnessed about their neighbours' conduct - but would die under torture rather than reveal their patients' private information.
To say that passing around nude photos at the NSA should be accepted as a given as per human nature is not the same as saying that by virtue thereof, it actually happened.
"So, if you are not surprised about the nude photo story, why would you demand proof in order to simply come out and say "Oh well, it's probably true"?"
I wouldn't say "it's probably true" because I have seen no evidence that it is - just as I have seen no evidence that a lot of Snowden's allegations are true - or even "probably true", or even "possibly true".
Snowden has set himself up for being disbelieved by virtue of his many allegations that he has yet to support with proof. So this latest revelation comes down to: You haven't proven your other allegations - why should this one be accepted as the truth any more than the others?
I understand you've said "this allegation only" - but it is just one of many allegations that have yet to be supported by any evidence. It is impossible to say, "Well, yeah, this one might be different," when the boy who has repeatedly cried "wolf!" has yet to produce one.
Given Snowden's history of making allegations he can't back up with evidence, common sense dictates that this is yet another tale that gets thrown into the same bin with all of his other allegations that he has yet to prove. I didn't put him in the position of being viewed with skepticism - he put himself in that position.
Snowden's allegations about the NSA's conduct are - I think we can both agree - extremely serious. He has yet to prove the most serious of those allegations. So when he gets into "and the guys at the office passed around naughty photos", it smacks more of desperation than anything else.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)the Guardian etc are all in on fabricating these stories in collusion with Snowden.
They have the documents that support him...
Even the NSA believes he has the documents. I'd go even further and stipulate that Obama and the rest of his administration also believes it since they've charged Snowden under the Espionage Act.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... have included being able to read anyone's emails, including the President's, being able to track anyone's on-line activities, being able to "read your thoughts as you type them", etc.
Where are the documents that prove any of the above?
Of course the NSA and the Obama administration believe he has classified documents which he has disclosed to third parties. And that IS why Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act.
No one is disputing that Snowden has and/or had those documents - did you think anyone was?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The documents that support Snowden's statements reside with Poitras, Greenwald, the NYT, the Guardian, Der Spiegel etc. We know that for a fact. Either they support Snowden's statements or they don't. Since they're being published, it seems logical to presume they do indeed support Snowden and that he's not lying.
Its not as though one single person is a gatekeeper/factchecker on this stuff. Its being vetted by a boatload of the top journos/papers in the world.
You can't have it both ways - either he's making unsubstantiated claims or the supporting documents exist and Snowden gave them to the reporters/papers.
From the Pulitzer Prize committee to the UN high commissioner - virtually everyone believes Snowden and his claims (along with a whole host of other luminaries not known for being suckers). You are amongst a tiny minority of folks who don't believe him and persistently call him a liar. Well good luck with that position.
FWIW, I reiterate this part from the OP. I think its incredibly naive to believe they aren't sharing naked pictures. Its ultimate revenge porn on steroids.
In September 2013, in a letter from the NSA’s Inspector General Dr. George Ellard to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the agency outlined a handful of instances during which NSA agents admitted that they had spied on their former love interests. This even spawned a nickname within the agency, LOVEINT—a riff on HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence).
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... read the president's emails, could track any individual's on-line activities, could read someone's thoughts as they typed them - have you seen any proof of those statements? I haven't.
And now we're down to the NSA passing around nude photos - any proof of that?
Point is that no matter what Snowden says, his fans accept is as fact.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Especially certain Muslim ones?
Have you seen the proof that the NSA is collecting and storing information on thousands of American citizens?
We could play this game all day. "I" haven't seen those documents that support these allegations. But Der Spiegel has. So has the NYT and the Guardian. Or they wouldn't be publishing these stories. The Pulitzer Prize committee wouldn't be giving out awards for outstanding investigative journalism if they weren't convinced of the validity of these reports.
Face it, no matter what Snowden says, his detractors call it a lie.
I believe you are on the wrong side of history on this. Demonstrably so unless all these other folks are in on Snowden's "lies". Before Snowden there was Binney, Drake, Wiebe, etc . Add all of their information, their leaks, the reports from Der Spiegel, NYT, the Guardian etc etc etc and the preponderance of evidence is inescapable no matter now much you hate Snowden and HIS leaks.
randome
(34,845 posts) It was Bush, Junior's regime that twisted the law to spy on Americans. Remember?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... the NSA is surveilling American citizens, especially certain Muslims?
No, I haven't. I take it you're referring to Greenwald's "naming names fireworks extravaganza", where he names five Muslims who were targeted pre-2008.
As per super-duper "investigative journalist" Greenwald's usual habit, he failed to include the fact that the FISA amendments of 2008 put an end to this activity, which was rampant under the Bush administration. But GG has a penchant for "forgetting" to add relevant facts to his news stories when they don't mesh with his view of things.
As for the proof that the NSA is collecting and storing info on US citizens, it's called "metadata" and I require no specific proof that the NSA has been collecting it for years - based on the fact that they've said they've been doing so since 2006. This is not news to anyone who's been paying attention.
Look at the replies in this thread. You don't see any of the Snowden fans asking for proof of Snowden's latest assertions about nude photos being routinely passed around. They don't even raise any curiosity as to whether this is true, or to what extent it happens.
As always, if Snowden said it - they just accept it as fact. No proof necessary, no evidence required, not a single question raised as to the veracity of anything he says.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Also, Snowden is not operating in a vacuum. He has plenty of other whistleblowers who corroborate his leaks PLUS he has the weight of some serious heavy hitters in the journalism field backing him up as well as many, many, many well placed personages like Pillay. Disregarding them looks silly when you try to desperately paint Snowden as a liar.
So yeah, I do believe him. I believe these leaks wouldn't be published if there wasn't documented source material. Your DISbelief is what's pretty hard headed. Your loss.
Finally, I will never understand your nonchalance that Muslim Americans were targeted ever by the NSA. I don't give a shit when it was, its just another demonstration of their utter illegality. FWIW, if you believe that kind of illegal surveillance hasn't continued, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.
With that I'm done. Feel free to have the last word. This is utterly boring.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that GG's "explosive new revelations" about Muslim's being targeted under the Bush administration equals "nonchalance" that it happened?
"I don't give a shit when it was, its just another demonstration of their utter illegality." That would be an "illegality" that was dealt with and corrected by the FISA amendments in 2008. Why do you suppose GG didn't include that fact in his self-proclaimed "fireworks display" of naming names? Could it be that he was intentionally trying to mislead by insinuating that the pre-2008 abuses were still ongoing?
Snowden is not now, nor has he ever been a "whistle-blower". By definition, a whistle-blower exposes illegal activity - and when asked point-blank by Brian Williams what illegal activity the NSA is currently engaged in, Snowden couldn't come up with a single thing.
My DISbelief about Snowden's allegations is based on the fact that he keeps insisting that certain things are going on within the NSA, but he never has an iota of proof to back up those allegations.
When he comes up with an Obama email, proving he could access the president's emails, I'll believe him. The same goes for everything else he's alleged and has never proven.
The fact remains that the Snowden fans will swallow anything and everything he says, and apparently have zero interest in any evidence thereof. And that's just sad.
treestar
(82,383 posts)posts like post #1.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The FBI is even more likely to have nude photos, given some of the crimes they prosecute.
Any police department prosecuting those types of crimes, like porn, will find those as evidence.
If Eddie is claiming they are putting bug cameras in our living quarters, or those of their former love interests, just for revenge, that's a stretch that every NSA agent will do such a thing, that it wouldn't result in their getting caught and fired, and that they could effectively use these photos somehow if we became activists of some kind, in order to stop our activism. Enough government opposition is expressed publicly that we'd have a hard time believing that is effective.
For instance, wouldn't the current administration go against someone like Boehner? Maybe they have film of him getting drunk. But yet Boehner has not backed down at all, if they've shown him those photos.
I suppose you are going to say this Administration would use these nude photos against leaders of Occupy. If so, why are they instructing local police department to persecute them? Are leaders of Occupy so weak they are going to let the dissemination of nude photos of them get in the way of their stand for freedom? And they would really be afraid of NSA agents who come to them telling them to shut up or nude photos of them will be published?
It is really human nature for the NSA to do this stuff? A terrorist attack happens, and they are going to get blamed for not finding out about it. Human nature for that job is look for terrorist activity. Wasting time on the rest of us just for kicks could get them fired.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He's like a god to them now.
Wonder why Eddie hadn't mentioned this before? I suspect it's because he hasn't gotten any news coverage in a little while. We can expect another pronouncement when this one dies down.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I suspect the next one will have to do with NSA employees regularly stealing each others' Lunchables from the break-room fridge.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)up to you what you want to expose of your private life.
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #76)
woo me with science This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)because the alternative would just be too sad.
You act as though you have no comprehension whatsoever of why it's inadvisable for governments to have the ability to spy into the private lives of citizens, and to store details about their lives and activities in databases that can be accessed at any time in the future. You act as though you have no comprehension whatsoever of the power governments can wield against inconvenient politicians, inconvenient protesters, and inconvenient citizens.
You act as though you have never read history and don't understand why surveillance states are dangerous.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)looking through those files for decades to come. I don't think that was one random 'whistle blower' at all.
I think the NSA crap is a total waste of trillions of Americans money and another massive 'for profit' scam for federal money, like our prisons, schools, student loans, medical insurance and war profiteers just to name a few.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)obviously squandering billions of Americas Federal funds if employees have no management.
If Snowden ever comes up with even ONE or TWO of the emails HE said he sent whistle blowing.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Imajika
(4,072 posts)Hanging around in Putin's Russia, the country that almost certainly had a hand in bringing down a commercial jet killing 298 people because Putin continues to send heavy weapons and train thugs in an attempt to destabilize the Ukraine.
Hard to have any respect for a whistleblower that runs away and hides out in Russia. Russia of all places - that just seized a chunk of a neighboring country, stifles all meaningful dissent, and sides with the worlds worst nations like North Korea. If he returns home and faces the music many might change their views of him, as long as he is hiding like a coward in a place like Russia it's hard to get past the view that he is simply guilty of espionage and deserves little sympathy - even IF his intentions were good. And as that goes, many spies have had good intentions, thinking they were on the right side of things - doesn't mean they were hero's or that we can let them get away with violating the law.
AnnieBW
(10,409 posts)n/t
Trillo
(9,154 posts)they are also passing around other information? Maybe stock tips based on insider knowledge, etc., say watching that CEOs private records?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)(and LOL at his little "bullshit" line...Methinks the lady doth protest too much)
George II
(67,782 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)maybe we finally found out what's in those boxes in his garage (just kidding at the risk of those who take that seriously claiming what they usually claim about victimizing poor Eddie about his boxes).
KoKo
(84,711 posts)in the bathtub playing with baby toys.....You will be marked Pedophile!
Think how far this can go.... and it's disgusting...
leftyladyfrommo
(18,864 posts)Doesn't that happen everywhere?
Not that it's rights. It's an incredibly tacky thing to do. Well, and probably illegal, too.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Putting aside he's not going there and that it is a ridiculous charge to make against our government, then why can't he "live with" answering the charges to which he claims a perfect defense?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and even if it does, they have a warrant to do that... and even if they don't, it's old news... and even if it's not, it's a matter of national security.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts) 
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)This argument has been lost for over 30 years! Rand Paul will not ride this issue to election, since he won't even make it out of the primaries. Get over it, Paulbots!
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Would people really be trying to brush off this kind of thing if Bush were still in office?
AnnieBW
(10,409 posts)It's a well documented way of hiding information inside of images. And, what makes up most of the images on the Internet? Porn. Just ask Trekkie Monster. Here's an example:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/steganography-how-al-qaeda-hid-secret-documents-in-a-porn-video/
Okay, so maybe some asshole enlisted guys passed around porn pictures. Surprise. They're 20-year-old boys. But, did Snowjob ever find out if they were disciplined for that or not? Because, if it was known that they were doing such things, their command sergeant would probably be up their ass so fast it would make your head swim. What's the rest of the story?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Though the definition of "routine" here is a little vague.
