Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Kid Gloves posted:

This was originally reported by Der Spiegel based on their own research. I'm not finding anything that links this to Greenwald or Snowden's leaks. This is about as problematic as the NYT doing research to find out that Germany is tapping Obama's phone. Can you point out the part where Snowden or Greenwald engandered U.S. interests here or did you mean to make that post with regard to some other leak that isn't represented on this page?

I thought I read in either the Globe and Mail or CBC News that it was based off of Snowden leaks. If it isn't even based on that then it's Der Spiegel being poo poo again.

Tezzor posted:

Other people have civil liberties too. I see no moral reason to write off the civil and fair economic rights of people if they exist outside our borders and are of no conceivable threat to us. Security agencies are supposed to work for security, not operate as the petty functionaries of economic imperialism, and as a US citizen I fully support hurting these "interests."

I mean, look at this. You're not even claiming that this is going to put anybody in physical danger, just whining that somebody has the gall to meaningfully oppose underhanded US hegemony.

:qq: Won't someone think of Angela Merkel's civil liberties? :qq:

Torpor posted:

But what security is gained from spying on Merkel? I mean, sure, they are supposed to find out what other countries are doing, but "national security" can't exactly be used as a justification here.

I'm not sure why. None of us are privy as to why they're doing it, and assuming that it's for "economic imperialism pursuant to American hegemony" seems to be based on precisely as much information as saying "it's because there was a national security threat that required tapping the phone lines of German politicians including the Chancellor."

That being said, I don't really see why it can't be justified with national security. Are heads of state automatically off limits for being monitored? If not, which ones are okay and which one's aren't? If they aren't allowed to be monitored then that's a pretty huge hole in intelligence operations particularly involving exceptionally unstable borderline failed states. When discussing international intelligence operations you should go in assuming that everyone is spying on literally everyone they possibly can. That's how the game has been played since modern intelligence became a thing at the turn of the 20th century. I personally find people expressing indignation over the fact that the US is in fact spying on people to be naive at best and dangerous at worst.

And if all this is coming from Snowden documents, I fail to see how it meshes with the whole "We're defenders of civil liberties" drum that he and his supporters have been beating if the majority of his leaks from this point onward are obviously only leaked to sow discord amongst its allies and flip the bird at the US.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006

Fojar38 posted:

So I'm not particularly impressed with Snowden and Greenwald because they seem to be going beyond their self-appointed mandate of protecting civil liberties if they're also leaking US Intelligence operations including spying on other countries, also known as "that thing that security and intelligence agencies are supposed to do." Regardless of the veracity of the claims it strikes me as being done not because of the ideology that they and their supporters repeatedly espouse but rather out of petty spite and a desire to hurt US interests even if they're irrelevant to civil liberties.

From a purely cold blooded economic standpoint, surely investing billions of dollars into spying on the EU to steal their technology and get a leg up in our trade negotiations while our infrastructure, education, and research institutions fall apart because the government literally won't pay its bills is "loving A brilliant".

Also it's silly to pretend that these issues are purely American issues. These are global times, and the struggles against the police states of the world are also global. Foreign powers can bring a lot of pressure to bear by pointing out America's glaring hypocrisy on the issues of surveillance and espionage; even if that criticism (from China or Russia for example) is itself hypocritical and self-serving. Doing away with whatever moral high ground America has left on these issues is a crucial strategic move for anti-Panopticon advocates.

Finally, from an analytical standpoint, what the gently caress are "US Interests"? Was there a plebiscite? Who gets to define what those are?

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

From a purely cold blooded economic standpoint, surely investing billions of dollars into spying on the EU to steal their technology and get a leg up in our trade negotiations while our infrastructure, education, and research institutions fall apart because the government literally won't pay its bills is "loving A brilliant".

I'm with you all the way as far as the US' domestic situation is concerned. There is definitely poo poo there that needs to be fixed badly. That being said, I don't see why that means that the US should stop its intelligence programs, particularly when those programs are in fact necessary.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

Finally, from an analytical standpoint, what the gently caress are "US Interests"? Was there a plebiscite? Who gets to define what those are?

Uh, I would assume that the US gets to define what its interests are.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006
But nations (even governments!) aren't unitary entities, despite how much we pretend otherwise by claiming there are such things as "national interests". There are myriad internal interests, especially when it comes to economics and trade. Who gets to define which of those interests are definitive?

E. What is necessary about spying on Merkel? What do you think might happen if we didn't? It doesn't seem "necessary" at all, to me. It's not like they could nuke us, or attack us.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 24, 2013

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth

Fojar38 posted:

I'm not sure why. None of us are privy as to why they're doing it, and assuming that it's for "economic imperialism pursuant to American hegemony" seems to be based on precisely as much information as saying "it's because there was a national security threat that required tapping the phone lines of German politicians including the Chancellor."

That being said, I don't really see why it can't be justified with national security. Are heads of state automatically off limits for being monitored? If not, which ones are okay and which one's aren't? If they aren't allowed to be monitored then that's a pretty huge hole in intelligence operations particularly involving exceptionally unstable borderline failed states. When discussing international intelligence operations you should go in assuming that everyone is spying on literally everyone they possibly can. That's how the game has been played since modern intelligence became a thing at the turn of the 20th century. I personally find people expressing indignation over the fact that the US is in fact spying on people to be naive at best and dangerous at worst.

And if all this is coming from Snowden documents, I fail to see how it meshes with the whole "We're defenders of civil liberties" drum that he and his supporters have been beating if the majority of his leaks from this point onward are obviously only leaked to sow discord amongst its allies and flip the bird at the US.

You've created a false dichotomy. There is nothing necessary about spying on anyone. The cold war is over, the future of the human race isn't at stake anymore.

Give me one scenario, however outlandish you want make it, that would justify the current American intelligence industry. In short, WHY is the NSA justified spying on ANYONE?

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->
You don't need to have a nuclear arsenal or even the capability to engage in a military confrontation with the United States in order to be a potential security risk. The September 11 attacks seems to have proven that, even if that was the result of administrative incompetence rather than a simple intelligence failure. Again, I can't answer why Merkel might be listened in on. We don't even know if that's actually true or not yet. But that's because I don't have the information or perspective that the various intelligence agencies under discussion have, not because there is no possible reason whatsoever.

If I'm allowed to give outlandish, Tom Clancy-esque examples then for all we know there might be a suspicious individual or company or organization using another organization as a front that happens to contribute to Merkel's government in some way, likely without her awareness.

I understand that the world is much stabler now than during the Cold War but that doesn't mean that it'll be stable forever, nor does it mean that there are no threats to the US or their allies now, nor does it mean that it stays stable on its own without any intervention or manipulation from the very organizations being decried.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth
In your Tom Clancy scenario, you are making the mistake of assuming that the NSA ISN'T the shadowy organization. Why do you assume that the US Government has your best interests at heart? Or that any individual has put the "stability" of the US above their personal short-term gain? Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they are selfish and do what they do because they are paid to, why would the NSA be different?

ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 24, 2013

Tezzor
Jul 29, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 3 years!

Fojar38 posted:

:qq: Won't someone think of Angela Merkel's civil liberties? :qq:

It's not just Angela Merkel, although you knew that. It is hundreds of millions of peaceful, decent people, mostly in allied countries. It is businesses with no ties to terrorism. And yes, it is Angela Merkel. I have no doubt that if it was leaked that some other nation was breaking into Barack Obama's communications the general consensus would be that this was a potentially dangerous state of affairs against the spirit of diplomatic engagement and the offending nation should be criticized for it at the very least. I also have a very difficult time believing that anyone would denounce the leaker of this information as some hypocritical, conniving rabble-rouser.

Tezzor fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 24, 2013

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Powercrazy posted:

In your Tom Clancy scenario, you are making the mistake of assuming that the NSA ISN'T the shadowy organization. Why do you assume that the US Government has your best interests at heart? Or that any individual has put the "stability" of the US above their personal short-term gain? Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they are selfish and do what they do because they are paid to, why would the NSA be different?

I don't assume that, I assume that they have the best interests of the US at heart. I am well aware however that I occupy a somewhat unique position on these forums in that I believe that the interests of the United States are beneficial to more people in the world than the interests of other nations of similar power and particular organizations who wish to do people harm for no reason aside from ideology.

That being said, it should also be pointed out that the NSA isn't a monolithic hive mind organization headed by King Obama. I don't trust individuals to put stability over their own personal gain, but that's irrelevant because this isn't an individual we're talking about. It's not even a small group of individuals. It's a nation.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth
The NSA ISN'T a nation, it is an organization that is hiding it's actions from the democractic representatives of this nation, and further, that organization is made of individual's of varying accountability, and precious little oversight. We can only trust it's intentions are what it says they are. But, without transparency, there can be no trust. Keith Alexander might as well declare martial law "for our own protection" of course, and rebuke anyone who doubts him with the same nebulous claims of "national security."

As for US Hegemony being preferable or even approaching Utilitarianism I suggest you take an Ethics 101 class as well as learn some Post WW2 US History.

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Powercrazy posted:

The NSA ISN'T a nation, it is an organization that is hiding it's actions from the democractic representatives of this nation, and further, that organization is made of individual's of varying accountability, and precious little oversight. We can only trust it's intentions are what it says they are. But, without transparency, there can be no trust. Keith Alexander might as well declare martial law "for our own protection" of course, and rebuke anyone who doubts him with the same nebulous claims of "national security."

It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them.

And I find US Hegemony preferable because the alternatives are all several magnitudes worse. I don't really get all that upset about the US doing unethical things because at the very least the core ideology of the Americans and a world that is dominated by the United States is one that I can live in and be happy. I can't say the same for most other nations that have challenged the US in the past. I guess you could say that I think that even if the US does bad things for the sake of it's interests, I consider that to be for the greater good. Usually.

quote:

As for US Hegemony being preferable or even approaching Utilitarianism I suggest you take an Ethics 101 class as well as learn some Post WW2 US History.

Just because I interpret things differently from you doesn't make me ignorant. I think that this forum and many people in this thread have a serious perspective problem and don't realize just how good they have it as a result of US dominance in world affairs.

This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment.

Aurubin
Mar 17, 2011

Fojar38 posted:

It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them.

And I find US Hegemony preferable because the alternatives are all several magnitudes worse. I don't really get all that upset about the US doing unethical things because at the very least the core ideology of the Americans and a world that is dominated by the United States is one that I can live in and be happy. I can't say the same for most other nations that have challenged the US in the past. I guess you could say that I think that even if the US does bad things for the sake of it's interests, I consider that to be for the greater good. Usually.


Just because I interpret things differently from you doesn't make me ignorant. I think that this forum and many people in this thread have a serious perspective problem and don't realize just how good they have it as a result of US dominance in world affairs.

This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment.

In truth broader discussions about the nature of spying by nation states is precisely why I recreated the thread. To the argument about the beneficial nature of American hegemony, I suggest this (rather long) piece in Foreign Affairs. I think it sums up well why things like this are actually a problem.

Since I'm all aflutter that my creation was given second life, here's a couple of articles that haven't yet been discussed to kill this thread off again:

The European Parliament adopted a (conveniently) nonbinding resolution to suspend the SWIFT agreement with the United States. 10/23/2013

A paper by a Georgetown law professor on the legality and constitutionality of bulk metadata collection. I haven't read it, but stuff hosted on justsecurity is usually good.

Kid Gloves
Jul 31, 2013

by XyloJW

Fojar38 posted:

This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment.

Yo Der Spiegel is a German newspaper. They (and Greenwald and Snowden had nothing to do with this as far as we know at this point) did some independent research regarding surveillance of their country's chancellor. This should be about as shocking as the New York Times reporting on things that happen in the White House.

This Jacket Is Me
Jan 29, 2009

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

What? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legal or technical distinction between metadata and data? Do you understand what a pen register is and why it is legal?

There is an enormous functional difference between collecting the metadata of "this guy called this guy at this time" and recording the call itself. You can make qualitative arguments as to why you think placing a pen register on everyone in the US is not rational or moral. But at the end of the day it's pretty much impossible to argue that a pen register is not a less severe intrusion than actual eavesdropping, and straight up false to assert that there isn't a bright line between data and metadata.

Kind of surprised to see this thread jump back to life. Good thing, though.

You're getting hung up on the details in this. Information in just that; it is information. Whether we call it "data" or "metadata" doesn't matter a whit, inasmuch as it might be useful for something. I'm complaining about the (stupid) rhetorical use of "metadata" in this discussion. People discredit privacy concerns because the government is collecting "metadata" instead of "data" without realizing that the only arbiters of what is "metadata" is the government itself. And further, whether people are charged on the basis of "data" or "metadata" doesn't matter either! So, we have two terms, which have no meaningful difference, but one of which keeps popping up in these discussions because it obfuscates the details of the discussion by introducing jargon, and minimizes the loss of privacy by euphamism.

Consider my previous example, and this one: Let's say that I call 99 people and talk about whatever with them. Then, I call 1 person and only say that I've called these other 99 people before hanging up. What's the metadata here? The practical definition used throughout these discussions is, the list of all 100 people that I've called. If the CONTENTS of my last call are surveiled, though, the government has a reasonable expectation that it could use the CONTENTS of the call in one of these cases. At the very least, they could use it as corraborative evidence. All while ignoring the line in the sand that they drew when originally laying out the differences between "metadata" and "data". And further, this is how the government actually goes about collecting this so-called "metadata". The government, itself, doesn't pen register peoples' phones. They ask the provider, a third party, for that information. Effectively, in all cases, the government is surveiling the CONTENTS of that last call in my example.

The difference also has a problem in that it ONLY applies to certain types of communications, when in fact we can be sure that the government is surveiling a much larger pool of communications. Sure, telephone and email is the common example, but how does this regime play out in, say, handwritten communications? Will the government only collect the addresses on the outside of envelopes? If they use the side of a pencil on a notepad to determine what was written on the previous note, is that "metadata"? If they ask the Post Office to carry out their surveilence for them, is everything they gather "metadata" by mere virtue of being handed to them from a third party?

"Metadata" is a popular term that's used in programming the computer science. However, it's the data structure author that makes the distinction between what is "data" and what is "data about the data", and the it's the user that does what he can with the distinction, not the other way around. It's being misused in this discussion for, what appears to me to be, nefarious purposes. I'm perfectly open to the idea that a surveilence regime that collects who calls/emails who might be necessary or even good, but the rhetorical use to "metadata" here to get around the obvious privacy concerns makes me instinctively think that proponents are not arguing in good faith. And if that's the case, then why take anything proponents say at face value? They say that they understand the privacy concerns and that they're technically capable of pulling this off in the way they describe, and yet they fall back on jargon, euphamism, and abusing terms of art which by the nature of their work they should know not to?

Thanqol
Feb 15, 2012

because our character has the 'poet' trait, this update shall be told in the format of a rap battle.

Fojar38 posted:

It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them.

And I find US Hegemony preferable because the alternatives are all several magnitudes worse. I don't really get all that upset about the US doing unethical things because at the very least the core ideology of the Americans and a world that is dominated by the United States is one that I can live in and be happy. I can't say the same for most other nations that have challenged the US in the past. I guess you could say that I think that even if the US does bad things for the sake of it's interests, I consider that to be for the greater good. Usually.

That's fine right up until the point where the intelligence agency feels comfortable about lying to Congress. If any government agency cannot demonstrate the basic act of not lying to America's democratically elected government it starts being less an intelligence agency and more a taxpayer subsidized crime syndicate.

CheesyDog
Jul 4, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
Regardless of if you're pro- or anti-American hegemony, you can look at this from a more pragmatic position. There's a benefit from surveillance on the heads of state of our allies, but there's also a negative impact on that relationship to that surveillance ever being discovered. As these leaks show, the risk of these measures being revealed is very real, and I can't see how the benefits to our country from that surveillance can be greater than the long-term results of alienating our financial, diplomatic, and military partners.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012

This Jacket Is Me posted:

Consider my previous example, and this one: Let's say that I call 99 people and talk about whatever with them. Then, I call 1 person and only say that I've called these other 99 people before hanging up. What's the metadata here? The practical definition used throughout these discussions is, the list of all 100 people that I've called. If the CONTENTS of my last call are surveiled, though, the government has a reasonable expectation that it could use the CONTENTS of the call in one of these cases. At the very least, they could use it as corraborative evidence. All while ignoring the line in the sand that they drew when originally laying out the differences between "metadata" and "data". And further, this is how the government actually goes about collecting this so-called "metadata".
It is an enormous, John Yoo-esque stretch to say that the contents of a call discussing pen-register type data about other calls renders it metadata not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I have never heard of this creative interpretation being used by the NSA, or anyone else for that matter, and if you're going to boldly assert that this is the status quo, you should provide evidence for this extraordinary claim.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

The government, itself, doesn't pen register peoples' phones. They ask the provider, a third party, for that information. Effectively, in all cases, the government is surveiling the CONTENTS of that last call in my example.
First, the fact that government agencies now simply go to the phone company for the pen register rather than doing it themselves has absolutely no bearing on anyone's points in this discussion. A pen register is a pen register is a pen register, and getting it from a third party doesn't make it protected content. In fact, in the original SCOTUS case declaring them legal, the pen register was placed by the phone company at police request. Second, you're begging the question. "Metadata" is indeed a term that comes from "programming the computer science," it just means "data about data." The contents of a phone call are data, the pen register is the metadata. The act of stating that there is no distinction between metadata and data doesn't make it true, technically or legally.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

The difference also has a problem in that it ONLY applies to certain types of communications, when in fact we can be sure that the government is surveiling a much larger pool of communications. Sure, telephone and email is the common example, but how does this regime play out in, say, handwritten communications? Will the government only collect the addresses on the outside of envelopes?
Yep. This is referred to as a "mail cover," and is constitutional because it only collects metadata.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

If they use the side of a pencil on a notepad to determine what was written on the previous note, is that "metadata"?
No. That's the contents of the letter, and an unconstitutional search if it is performed without a warrant.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

If they ask the Post Office to carry out their surveilence for them, is everything they gather "metadata" by mere virtue of being handed to them from a third party?
What? No. See above.

Seriously though, do some more research before you proclaim a term with a long and storied legal and technical history to be a nefarious invention of the government surveillance conspiracy.

Thanqol posted:

That's fine right up until the point where the intelligence agency feels comfortable about lying to Congress. If any government agency cannot demonstrate the basic act of not lying to America's democratically elected government it starts being less an intelligence agency and more a taxpayer subsidized crime syndicate.
I wanted to write a bit on this because reading my other posts, you might get the false impression that I'm an apologist for the NSA. I'm not. I have a degree of respect for DNI Clapper, but he did some serious bullshitting when he answered Wyden's question before the Senate panel. To say that the IC does not "wittingly" collect domestic call information on Americans may technically be true if you stretch logical reasoning into a strand of near nothingness. He should have just said that it was classified, asked for a closed session, and then told the whole truth.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 24, 2013

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth
Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it?

Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012

Powercrazy posted:

Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it?

Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.
NSA spying actually has a history going back to 2002 when President Bush signed an order creating the Terrorist Surveillance Program. After Mark Klein's disclosures came out in 2006, if you were someone who paid attention, you pretty much knew this was going on.

It probably would have been a good idea to declassify the general premises of the program a decade ago, so that it could be calibrated to better represent citizen's interests. Unfortunately, American politics doesn't work that way.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth
Clandestine spying on internet communications has actually been occurring since at least 1997 (that was when the technical ability was installed), and phone communications before that. But it was extremely limited in scope, and the ability to only collect metadata with short retention made it a non-issue.

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO
May 8, 2006

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

It is an enormous, John Yoo-esque stretch to say that the contents of a call discussing pen-register type data about other calls renders it metadata not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I have never heard of this creative interpretation being used by the NSA, or anyone else for that matter, and if you're going to boldly assert that this is the status quo, you should provide evidence for this extraordinary claim.

You don't understand the argument. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is extremely dubious because, when you pick up a phone receiver, you are sending data to the phone company. A pen register actually does include content - the content is the number you dial to the phone company, with whom you are communicating. His argument is that the phone company isn't a third party and that Smith v. Maryland is bad law.

Joementum
May 23, 2004

jesus christ
Even Michael Hayden's phone is under surveillance.


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 7, 2012

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

You don't understand the argument. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is extremely dubious because, when you pick up a phone receiver, you are sending data to the phone company. A pen register actually does include content - the content is the number you dial to the phone company, with whom you are communicating. His argument is that the phone company isn't a third party and that Smith v. Maryland is bad law.
It's not that I don't understand the argument, it's that it's a bad argument. You're essentially arguing that the distinction between metadata and data is meaningless. You can argue all you want about Smith v. Maryland being bad law, and I might actually agree with you, but this whole "let's stick our fingers in our ears and pretend metadata doesn't meaningfully exist" thing is laughable.

Binton
Jun 23, 2004
I am here, eating pie, with a fork.
Didn't see this posted here yet. Turns out Merkel wasn't the only one per this new Guardian article based on more Snowden leaks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

Sancho
Jul 18, 2003

Good to see Alexander resort to doing the same thing the rest of us do when a third party has their poo poo - whine!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/nsa-chief-stop-reporters-selling-spy-documents-175896.html

quote:

The head of the embattled National Security Agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, is accusing journalists of "selling" his agency's documents and is calling for an end to the steady stream of public disclosures of secrets snatched by former contractor Edward Snowden.

"I think it’s wrong that that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000—whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these—you know it just doesn’t make sense," Alexander said in an interview with the Defense Department's "Armed With Science" blog.

"We ought to come up with a way of stopping it. I don’t know how to do that. That’s more of the courts and the policymakers but, from my perspective, it’s wrong to allow this to go on," the NSA director declared.


Alexander did not elaborate on what he meant by reporters "selling" documents or what options he might consider for halting the disclosures. An NSA spokeswoman declined to expand on the general's comments.

The NSA director's frustration with the flurry of leaks appears to be building. The interview was posted Thursday, the same day the Guardian reported that the U.S. monitored calls of 35 world leaders after obtaining their phone numbers from other U.S. government officials.

On Wednesday, the White House reacted to reports of NSA monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel by announcing that President Barack Obama had pledged to Merkel that the U.S. was not examining her communications and would not do in the future. White House spokespeople would not address reports of past monitoring of Merkel.

I agree! Maybe end the third party doctrine to start?

Pro-PRC Laowai
Sep 30, 2004

by toby

Sancho posted:

Good to see Alexander resort to doing the same thing the rest of us do when a third party has their poo poo - whine!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/nsa-chief-stop-reporters-selling-spy-documents-175896.html


I agree! Maybe end the third party doctrine to start?

So lemme see if I understand this.
They allowed a trusted party access to their private information, knowingly or not. And that trusted party ran off with their private information providing it to others. And now those other parties are passing it around both domestically and internationally and the originator of said information is powerless to stop it and they have no idea how it is or will be used?

It's so.... meta. I think that's why it's hilarious.

Tezzor
Jul 29, 2013
Probation
Can't post for 3 years!
Michael Ratner, European human rights attorney, weighs in on these leaks. This is the most important point that I think most people are missing:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10913


quote:

I want to emphasize one thing about it, which is that the U.S. has justified the spying in large part, and actually almost entirely: this is the way we have to get terrorists. We have to spy on everybody so we can get ahead of the next terrorist attack in the United States.
What has happened in the last week as we've looked at what's happened in other countries--I'll go over some of those quickly--is that this is not really--or this spying by the NSA is not really at all about terrorism, criminality, or anything like that. This is about business and politics. This is about the U.S. getting advantages and finding out ways in which it can get advantages in business and in which it can understand what the political situations are in other countries so that it can make moves in the way it wants. In other words, it's about continuation, in a way, of empire, business advantage, and politics.

Aurubin
Mar 17, 2011

Huh, if this is taken at face value, I guess Japan is one of the few countries who didn't go along with mass surveillance. No idea if this just means the US did it themselves and the Diet looked the other way, however.

quote:

NSA asked Japan to tap regionwide fiber-optic cables in 2011

The U.S. National Security Agency sought the Japanese government’s cooperation in 2011 over wiretapping fiber-optic cables carrying phone and Internet data across the Asia-Pacific region, but the request was rejected, sources said Saturday.

The agency’s overture was apparently aimed at gathering information on China given that Japan is at the heart of optical cables that connect various parts of the region. But Tokyo turned down the proposal, citing legal restrictions and a shortage of personnel, the sources said.

The NSA asked Tokyo if it could intercept personal information from communication data passing through Japan via cables connecting it, China and other regional areas, including Internet activity and phone calls, they said.

Faced with China’s growing presence in the cyberworld and the need to bolster information about international terrorists, the United States may have been looking into whether Japan, its top regional ally, could offer help similar to that provided by Britain, according to the sources.

Based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, British newspaper The Guardian reported that the agency had been sharing data intercepted by Britain’s spy agency, GCHQ, through transatlantic cables since 2011.

But Tokyo decided it could not do so because under current legislation, it cannot intercept such communications even if the aim is to prevent a terrorist act. Japan also has a substantially smaller number of intelligence personnel, compared with the NSA’s estimated 30,000 employees, the sources said.

A separate source familiar with intelligence activities of major nations said the volume of data that would need to be intercepted from fiber-optic cables would require a massive number of workers and the assistance of the private sector.

Blazing Ownager
Jun 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Powercrazy posted:

Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it?

Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.

A good friend of mine always insisted that they were developing a system exactly like this and everyone always thought he was just a bit of a conspiracy nutter over it. I owe him such an apology.

I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world.

CowOnCrack
Sep 26, 2004

by R. Guyovich
Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore.

It's not even so much about whether this or that is right or wrong or justified. You can argue up and down all day about how this situation came about and whether it's justified within this or that bullshit worldview but in the end anyone can see this situation we have RIGHT HERE is hosed and must end.

Please, now let's see this exposed NSA beast slain, burned, and buried.

And God bless Edward Snowden.

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

CowOnCrack posted:

Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore.

It's not even so much about whether this or that is right or wrong or justified. You can argue up and down all day about how this situation came about and whether it's justified within this or that bullshit worldview but in the end anyone can see this situation we have RIGHT HERE is hosed and must end.

Please, now let's see this exposed NSA beast slain, burned, and buried.

And God bless Edward Snowden.

I love how the shear volume of leaked documents is making it impossible for the US to just sweep it under the rug and even Alexander is getting meltdowns over journalists "selling" information for profi.

Konstantin
Jun 20, 2005
And the Lord said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

CowOnCrack posted:

Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore.

It's not even so much about whether this or that is right or wrong or justified. You can argue up and down all day about how this situation came about and whether it's justified within this or that bullshit worldview but in the end anyone can see this situation we have RIGHT HERE is hosed and must end.

Please, now let's see this exposed NSA beast slain, burned, and buried.

And God bless Edward Snowden.

Obama stopped being a defender of civil liberties the minute the intelligence community fed him mountains of classified data that was probably put together for that express purpose. Eight years of appointments by the Bush administration and the massive expansion of staff after 9/11, which was controlled by Bush appointees, means that the intelligence agencies are filled with people who don't respect the Constitution. It would take a stronger President than Obama, surrounding himself with experts who have rock-solid principles, in order to not be swayed when all those people are waging a massive fear campaign aimed at him. Even with such a person as President, I don't think anything short of a total purge and rebuilding from the ground up would fix the institutional culture permeating these agencies.

Kobayashi
Aug 13, 2004

by Nyc_Tattoo

Blazing Ownager posted:

I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world.

This is puzzling to me too. Reasonable people can disagree about whether such programs are necessary to "prevent terrorism," but what does Merkel have to do with that? And, more than that, the people who claim that this is just what spies do seem to imply that it's the US vs. everyone -- that "good will" as you say and inter-ally cooperation aren't important. I just don't understand that worldview.

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Blazing Ownager posted:

I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world.

I don't really see what there is to defend. A spy agency is spying on people. I don't really think that their motives are that relevant either, spying is something that everyone does and is expected to do. I personally find it hard to believe that the Europeans were so naive and foolish as to believe that they weren't being spied on. What I've taken away from all this is less "Oh those horrible Americans are abusing their allies and burning bridges!" and more "Wow, the Germans are complete and utter poo poo at intelligence operations if you take their complaints at face value."

Paul MaudDib
May 3, 2006

TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE
I actually don't believe that the Germans are wiretapping Obama's phone. Nor the Brazilians. So the "everybody does it" argument falls apart.

Everyone keeps at least minor tabs on everyone, but that's a world apart from knowing every word that's said over the phone of a head of state.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 27, 2013

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Paul MaudDib posted:

I actually don't believe that the Germans are wiretapping Obama's phone. Nor the Brazilians.

The Brazilians at the very least have spied on other members of the Five Eyes.

As for the Germans, how do you know that? Or that they at the very least haven't tried to do so? How do you know that they don't because they lack the capability to do so? How do you know that the German intelligence services don't lack oversight as well and hence the German government simply isn't aware of their operations?

Saying "X is/isn't doing Y" when talking intelligence, particularly when you don't have any actual information at all, is a very foolish thing to do.

etalian
Mar 20, 2006

Kobayashi posted:

This is puzzling to me too. Reasonable people can disagree about whether such programs are necessary to "prevent terrorism," but what does Merkel have to do with that? And, more than that, the people who claim that this is just what spies do seem to imply that it's the US vs. everyone -- that "good will" as you say and inter-ally cooperation aren't important. I just don't understand that worldview.

It's more because the terrorism provides a good cover for spying on rivals such as Eurozone countries but also convincing the rivals to let the US setup a brick/mortar presence in their countries.

The reality is even allies spy on each other since they compete in many other areas such supplying military equipment or in economic deals.

Paul MaudDib
May 3, 2006

TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE
Let me put it this way: do you have any proof at all that the Germans have maintained a long-running wiretap on the phone of the head of state of a close ally? Or are you just speculating wildly to try and excuse the US getting caught doing just that?

I mean there's two fundamental divides I see here.

One is whether there exists some spying action that is beyond the pale to perform on our closest allies. This isn't deciphering troop movements to prevent an imminent backstab, this is a long-standing system for siphoning off state secrets for reasons that appear largely economic. Does there exist there a line to cross?

The second is over whether everyone else does it, which they clearly don't. A bug in the President's phone would not be very well appreciated from a close ally. The only country I can possibly imagine getting away with it is Israel, and we have a really weird and dysfunctional relationship there.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 27, 2013

Tubgirl Cosplay
Jan 10, 2011

by Ion Helmet
Look guy you just don't get it, it's spying. Spies gonna spy, thieves gonna steal, birds gonna fly. Right there in the name, you can't very well expect them to not spy unless you hate them for being American or something. There is no point in having a problem with anything because stuff simply is, ethics is an illusion of the mind. Have you considered that you should just let go and appreciate the world around you for its own beauty?

Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 27, 2013

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fojar38
Sep 2, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Paul MaudDib posted:

Let me put it this way: do you have any proof at all that the Germans have maintained a long-running wiretap on the phone of the head of state of a close ally?

No, I don't. It doesn't matter whether they do or not is what I'm saying. You'd be an idiot to assume that they don't based exclusively on your gut, and the vibe I'm getting from the Germans here is that they just assumed that the Americans weren't spying on them. I don't think that they are seriously that stupid, especially considering their central role in the Cold War, which is one of the reasons I think that all this outrage from the German government is feigned and one of the reasons why I sincerely doubt that the German government is so innocent and trusting that it would never dream of spying on its allies (I would bet very large sums of money that Germany has been spying on allies in Europe for example.)

Also it bears mentioning that "Well I don't see them wiretapping the phones of other heads of state :smuggo:" is a superficial argument. Yeah, they might not literally be wiretapping the phones of other heads of state (and again, we don't know that they aren't) but that is only one method of spying on people.

  • Locked thread