|
Kalman posted:Because they cast it as the judge saying that this wasn't a violation of the Constitution, when the opinion says precisely nothing about that and everything about procedural precursors to being able to maintain a case.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Sunset posted:It may have started a bit further back - but the current administration certainly seems to have gone full speed ahead in the same direction. Add in the campaign to shut down/contain whistleblowers and Obama/his administration takes on a pretty negative light. Not quite the hope and change thing he touted a lot. I think it might extend into his administration just a bit also. Bush did the same or worse regarding whistleblowers. It's also fairly likely that no matter who is president next the same policies will continue (yes, even a hypothetical Rand Paul scenario). Again, it won't be a positive aspect of his legacy but it won't be the defining moment either (that will be "first black president " + "Congress that doesn't want to work with first black president", plus the Obamacare stuff). The NSA and co is an issue that spans presidencies and decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Doesn't a constitutional rights violation entitle you to some sort of remedy at trial? Wouldn't the judge saying there was no harm and no remedy thus imply he thought no violation of constitutional rights? No. Welcome to standing doctrine. And, well, actually a lot of legal doctrine. Rights don't imply remedies,as much as they seem like they should. http://www.bostonreview.net/pamela-karlan-supreme-court-rights-legal-remedies http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/617/supreme-court-creates-right-without http://opiniojuris.org/2009/02/18/constitutional-right-no-gitmo-remedy/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v107/n1/169/LR107n1Lee.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No. Welcome to standing doctrine. And, well, actually a lot of legal doctrine. Rights don't imply remedies,as much as they seem like they should. This is clearly bullshit on so many levels. It is a onion of bullshit, where every layer is more bullshit than the last one. What the hell. How does that even make sense? What does a right mean if there's no possibility of remedy? What the gently caress? Is this why lawyers drink so much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Because they cast it as the judge saying that this wasn't a violation of the Constitution, when the opinion says precisely nothing about that and everything about procedural precursors to being able to maintain a case. the judge posted:For similar reasons, the Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that they were targeted solely because of their religion. The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself. While this surveillance Program may have had adverse effects upon the Muslim community after the Associated Press published its articles; the motive for the Program was not solely to discriminate against Muslims, but rather to find Muslim terrorists hiding among ordinary, law-abiding Muslims. The program is inherently discriminatory against Muslims even if the intent was not to infringe on their rights. Either the government is investigating Muslim terrorists more acutely than non-Muslim terrorists, or the government is assuming that Muslims are inherently more likely to be terrorists. Either one is a discrimination based on religion. Now, if that is still totally A-OK 100% legit under case law, I'd really like it if you could enlighten us as to what standard of misconduct would have to be met in order to successfully sue the police.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Welcome to the standard for invidious discrimination, in which disparate impact isn't enough, you have to prove disparate intent. (Ie you have to prove they're doing it because you're a Muslim and that there isn't some reason to look at Muslims, not just that Muslims are unduly impacted by surveillance of what communities the police consider to be likely to be associated with the 9/11 attackers. Which, good luck, after the Supreme Court pretty much stated this kind of targeting is ok in Iqbal.) It's stupid and racist and stems from scaling back civil rights law's ability to actually help people of color, but the opinion isn't some huge legal error - he's a district court judge, he should be following precedent, and precedent is on the side of the cops on this on a few major aspects. I wouldn't be shocked if some aspects of this opinion were successfully challenged on appeal, but I think Laird is going to be a huge hurdle to overcome to actually maintain the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Bush did the same or worse regarding whistleblowers. No he actually didn't, not that that has anything to do with how lovely Obama has been in this regard. computer parts posted:It's also fairly likely that no matter who is president next the same policies will continue (yes, even a hypothetical Rand Paul scenario). What else does Biff's almanac say? Or are you reading Tarot cards? Or are you just making things up that sound pleasant? Just because Obama turned out to be a bust doesn't mean that all hope is lost for a good Presidency. computer parts posted:Again, it won't be a positive aspect of his legacy but it won't be the defining moment either (that will be "first black president " + "Congress that doesn't want to work with first black president", plus the Obamacare stuff). The NSA and co is an issue that spans presidencies and decades. Obamacare, the expanded drone program, and the NSA mass surveillance will be his biggest legacies. Nothing else is close as of right now. I guess Bin Laden could be associated with him but Obama had nothing to do with it except the delay in killing him (which perhaps helps to explain his new found trigger happiness with drones).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Leaking classified information is illegal by definition, though, and I'm not aware of any court decision that gives people immunity for breaking the law if you claim your actions were done in the spirit of nonviolent protest. If you think the information shouldn't have been classified, you can call it civil disobedience, but that still doesn't count as a legal excuse - you're breaking the law because you disagree with the law, but that doesn't somehow get you out of the possibility of criminal investigation or even jail time. Snowden appears to have been well aware that his leaks would likely get him prosecuted, which is why he got the gently caress out of US jurisdiction before going public about it - not because he feared he'd be singled out for ideological reasons, but because leaking this stuff was illegal and pretty much everyone who's gotten caught leaking classified information over the past few years has been prosecuted. It's illegal for someone who's authorized to handle classified information the information to leak it; there is no such law for other people, as much as the US Government would like you to believe otherwise. If they had a legal leg to stand on, they'd arrest everyone involved and put them under the jail, but they don't, so they resort to other means of punishment and deterrence. Like DDOS attacks and detaining people at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
sectoidman posted:It's illegal for someone who's authorized to handle classified information the information to leak it; there is no such law for other people, as much as the US Government would like you to believe otherwise. You mean, someone like Snowden?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You mean, someone like Snowden? Yes, someone like Snowden, who not coincidentally has been charged with the very crime I spoke of. The first poster was implying that all distribution of classified material is illegal in order to justify the quasi-legal actions taken against journalists and groups distributing the material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
sectoidman posted:Yes, someone like Snowden, who not coincidentally has been charged with the very crime I spoke of. ... No, he really wasn't. Which is why he repeatedly said "leaking", not distributing. And why he said all instances of leaking have been prosecuted, which is manifestly not the case if you're just talking about distributing (and isn't even really true if you're talking about actual leaking, though that's a different issue.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
The keyboard was angry that day, my friend. Greenwald responds to a Clapper interview and the high levels of MAD jump off the page: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/inside-mind-james-clapper/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Leaking classified information is illegal by definition, though, and I'm not aware of any court decision that gives people immunity for breaking the law if you claim your actions were done in the spirit of nonviolent protest. If you think the information shouldn't have been classified, you can call it civil disobedience, but that still doesn't count as a legal excuse - you're breaking the law because you disagree with the law, but that doesn't somehow get you out of the possibility of criminal investigation or even jail time. Snowden appears to have been well aware that his leaks would likely get him prosecuted, which is why he got the gently caress out of US jurisdiction before going public about it - not because he feared he'd be singled out for ideological reasons, but because leaking this stuff was illegal and pretty much everyone who's gotten caught leaking classified information over the past few years has been prosecuted. My claim was that it was meaningful dissent. You chose to talk about the law. I recognize that the law criminalizes meaningful dissent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Every time I see "The Intercept" my mind rewrites it as "The Intersect", apparently because I've watched too much "Chuck."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I tend to link political systems with economic systems. If you have free markets/free trade, this will invariably lead to a democratic political system over time. Likewise the best system to supplant a democracy is the establishment of free markets & free trade. What is your source for this? The Economist? Milton Friedman? The boss guy from parks and rec? You can't just trot out a statement like that and expect people to take you seriously. e: I mean I can turn Sean Hannity on and listen to the same thing, except that he at least has infographics and deceptive statistics rather than none at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Obviously post-Deng economic reforms led to the current glorious democracy in China, just like how George W. Bush wiped out banking regulations while tearing down a gigantic state security apparatus after 9/11. Pinochet brought freedom to Chile. And so it goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:Just because it is illegal does not mean that it is wrong, and Snowden did America and the world a favor by exposing the NSA's machinations. There should be whistleblower protections for individuals that want to expose government corruption but since America is a corrupt country there aren't. Your mindless legalism loses the greater issue. There are whistleblower protections, but Snowden didn't follow their conditions. I don't blame him, since those government whistleblowers that did follow the conditions in recent years still got retaliated against. Additionally, the conditions are ones most of Snowden's supporters wouldn't approve of, though they're probably necessary restrictions unless you think literally all information should be completely public. I agree that being illegal is not the same as being wrong. But law enforcement's job is to punish illegal acts, not wrong acts. Neither "no one else is on the road" nor "I don't believe speed limits fit any moral purpose" is a valid defense to a speeding ticket. Regardless of your intentions, civil disobedience typically means spending time in jail. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, there's this: Sure, but that was either jury nullification or the complete collapse of the prosecution's case, depending on how you want to look at it. They were still arrested and tried, but a jury of their peers refused to convict. It's not like they just declared "we believe ourselves to be morally in the right" upon being arrested and then the cops released them and all piled back into their cars and went home; they still spent time in government custody. The system still ate them, it just spit them out rather than swallowing them because the people were so repulsed by the case. Though I do wonder how Manning would have fared in civilian court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Obviously post-Deng economic reforms led to the current glorious democracy in China, just like how George W. Bush wiped out banking regulations while tearing down a gigantic state security apparatus after 9/11. Pinochet brought freedom to Chile. And so it goes. I just realized that I am anxious for Rupert Murdoch to re-marry so that I can call his new prenup "post-Deng economic reforms."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Just in case anyone hasn't heard, there is a serious bug in Apple's SSL algorithms on iOS (fixed) and OSX (unfixed). I mention it here because the timing of the bug aligns pretty well with Apple being "added" to the Prism program. While there is no direct evidence that the NSA was involved, we're so far through the looking glass that "the NSA planted someone in Apple to sabotage their SSL implementation" is actually within the realm of possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Just in case anyone hasn't heard, there is a serious bug in Apple's SSL algorithms on iOS (fixed) and OSX (unfixed). I mention it here because the timing of the bug aligns pretty well with Apple being "added" to the Prism program. While there is no direct evidence that the NSA was involved, we're so far through the looking glass that "the NSA planted someone in Apple to sabotage their SSL implementation" is actually within the realm of possibility. For as much as they spend, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it turned out the NSA (and other intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic) had undercover agents working in various tech companies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
At the annual electronic security convention DefCon there are always a few undercover feds running around who eventually get outed. Probably more who are not discovered. It's always been assumed that they're there to keep tabs on the hackers and suppress criminal activity, but in retrospect it seems obvious that they're there being told about all the hottest new security exploits for free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
A thumbprint scanner will be part of the new Galaxy S5. I don't think I'll ever purchase a phone with this feature built in. Have mentioned this to iphone owners who already use the feature and I was told it's just conspiracy theories that it could be used for nefarious purposes. But really, with potential backdoors and personal data being stolen via apps and the like - is it really that far-fetched?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
truther posted:A thumbprint scanner will be part of the new Galaxy S5. What use does the NSA have for your fingerprint? They're much more interested in your contact list, your text messages, and your search history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What use does the NSA have for... When has this stopped them from collecting it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
truther posted:A thumbprint scanner will be part of the new Galaxy S5. Given that the only thing stored is on the phone and it's a hash of your fingerprint, not your actual fingerprint, yes, it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What use does the NSA have for your fingerprint? They're much more interested in your contact list, your text messages, and your search history. Maybe they can actually confirm a sim card to person relationship that way before they drone strike anyone else. Oh wait they don't give a poo poo. loving idiots in NS. edit: pass on that info to the CIA or however they're involved I dunno. Sancho fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Given that the only thing stored is on the phone and it's a hash of your fingerprint, not your actual fingerprint, yes, it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Given that the only thing stored is on the phone and it's a hash of your fingerprint, not your actual fingerprint, yes, it is. Eh, I'm not sure it's that clear cut. I can't really speak to what Samsung is doing, but the sensor in the iPhone is capable of some pretty high-resolution scans. Now, Apple claims that it's all isolated in hardware and completely inaccessible to apps, but it's still a proprietary stack that hasn't been audited by third parties, susceptible to human error. I tend to think of it as like the laptop camera light, which was widely thought to be hardwired to the camera even though that wasn't the case. Personally, I believe Apple's intentions are pure, but security is hard, and the NSA is a bunch of assholes. While it may be far-fetched to think this is something the NSA would try to collect in bulk, I don't think it's that crazy to imagine it as something in the TAO's wheelhouse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Given that the only thing stored is on the phone and it's a hash of your fingerprint, not your actual fingerprint, yes, it is. Given that the NSA is trying to hide ways to wirelessly access your computer inside USB cables, I wouldn't assume they aren't trying to find a way to get your thumbprint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Eh, I'm not sure it's that clear cut. I can't really speak to what Samsung is doing, but the sensor in the iPhone is capable of some pretty high-resolution scans. Now, Apple claims that it's all isolated in hardware and completely inaccessible to apps, but it's still a proprietary stack that hasn't been audited by third parties, susceptible to human error. I tend to think of it as like the laptop camera light, which was widely thought to be hardwired to the camera even though that wasn't the case. Personally, I believe Apple's intentions are pure, but security is hard, and the NSA is a bunch of assholes. While it may be far-fetched to think this is something the NSA would try to collect in bulk, I don't think it's that crazy to imagine it as something in the TAO's wheelhouse. Eh, I mean, it could be in TAO's book, but at the point you have a TAO implant set up on you, they already basically know who you are and don't so much care about your fingerprint. But yes, a tailored implant could theoretically capture your fingerprint if Apple is running the fingerprints through the software side of things instead of maintaining it in isolated hardware. It's possible Apple screwed it up, but I'd think someone probably would have seen the traffic to the central database by now if they were sending it back wholesale. If it's tailored-only, I personally don't care, as I think the NSA being good at obtaining information on specifically targeted individuals and devices is exactly what they're supposed to do, but even if you don't, it doesn't raise anywhere near the questions blanket programs and wouldn't raise that specter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:When has this stopped them from collecting it anyway? Oh, I didn't say that, I just said they can't get any particular use out of it, and probably aren't particularly interested in making the room to actually store it and index it. It's not like the NSA shares any of this data with the agencies that might actually like the idea of a big fingerprint database.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Say hello to all the NSA/FIVE EYES posters in this thread! https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ I'm not going to quote the whole thing because the pictures are really the meat of the article, but there are a few gems worth posting. quote:Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. quote:The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes quote:Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them). I can't wait to see people defending this. Manipulating online political discourse is something that a lot of paranoid conspiracy theorists believed the government was doing, but we now have hard evidence that they've been involved in it. Of course, one of the most interesting aspects of it all is that SA technically falls into the category of sites that the NSA would be interested in - there's been plenty of left wing political activism centered around SA, and this thread definitely falls under the heading of "conspiracy theory". Given the persona management software that the government uses, I doubt even an administrator would actually be able to identify an NSA employee from their IP/Email Address/Credit card. Still, I have very little doubt that if someone went and looked through older political threads(maybe even ones from deleted forums) they'd be able to spot some of the various techniques outlined in the article. The most disturbing part of it to me is the idea that they're manipulating Hofstede dimensions - look for it under "ACNO Key Skill Strands". When you look up Hofstede dimensions, the very first dimension that you find discussed is a "power dimension". quote:This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people. People in societies exhibiting a large degree of power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. In societies with low power distance, people strive to equalise the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power. Which as far as I can tell means that the NSA is interfering in online discussions in order to make people accept their position on the bottom of the societal totem pole - and prevent them from speaking out against injustice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
It's like every crazy conspiracy theory that nutjobs had about the government spying on them was right. Or at least, now that they have the technology, they're doing what people in the 80s accused them of. Is there really any doubt that if there was a chemical they thought would make the the populace more complacent, they would put it in the water for national security?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
The documents in your article describe GCHQ doing those things, not the NSA. And even then, it's not so much "doing those things" as "bragging about their ability to do those things". I'm more interested in their target list now, since I can't imagine they're targeting many people who are actually going to be meaningfully hurt by GCHQ's fearsome ability to change your Facebook photo and write mean things about you on internet forums. I wonder how much of it is inter-agency dickwaving and how much of it they've actually had occasion to use. And you're maybe three years too late with your paranoid insinuations that SA may in fact be watched by the government; that's been known ever since the Secret Service interrogated Lowtax about several LF posters who got just a little too edgy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The documents in your article describe GCHQ doing those things, not the NSA. And even then, it's not so much "doing those things" as "bragging about their ability to do those things". I'm more interested in their target list now, since I can't imagine they're targeting many people who are actually going to be meaningfully hurt by GCHQ's fearsome ability to change your Facebook photo and write mean things about you on internet forums. I wonder how much of it is inter-agency dickwaving and how much of it they've actually had occasion to use. And you're maybe three years too late with your paranoid insinuations that SA may in fact be watched by the government; that's been known ever since the Secret Service interrogated Lowtax about several LF posters who got just a little too edgy. The various FIVE EYES agencies are all very closely related - an NSA contractor leaked this internal GCHQ document, and there's a multitude of information sharing agreements that have already been leaked. I use NSA as a catchall - my local branch of the surveillance state is ASD, but if you're not an employee/contractor then the differences between the various franchises are largely cosmetic. And I'm not making paranoid insinuations that SA is being watched by the government. There's nothing paranoid about that at all - the surveillance state watches everything. The paranoid insinuation here is that government agents are posting on SA in an attempt to shape political discourse, and the only part of that conjecture not backed up by official documentation is that they're targeting this website specifically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And you're maybe three years too late with your paranoid insinuations that SA may in fact be watched by the government; that's been known ever since the Secret Service interrogated Lowtax about several LF posters who got just a little too edgy. A better instance maybe, I remember when UK security used anti terror laws to track down a debate and discussion poster who posted about how he was going to protest the London Olympics. He and his family were pressured multiple times to make him stay home. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
The diff of that bugged Apple patch makes it nearly impossible to believe it was accidental.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Andersnordic posted:Say hello to all the NSA/FIVE EYES posters in this thread! You should actually read the Sunstein article, rather than taking for granted that the summary accurately captures what it discussed. We've discussed it here before, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You should actually read the Sunstein article, rather than taking for granted that the summary accurately captures what it discussed. We've discussed it here before, for that matter. The Sunstein article was not a statement saying "This is what we are doing". This article actually is, and it goes beyond what Sunstein said. The fact that Sunstein's article wasn't a tacit admission of government propaganda agents doesn't mean jack poo poo in the face of a document proving that they actually do that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:A better instance maybe, I remember when UK security used anti terror laws to track down a debate and discussion poster who posted about how he was going to protest the London Olympics. He and his family were pressured multiple times to make him stay home. I don't have archives. Is there a summary-post you could quote?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 09:55
|
|