|
You're talking as though it's the fault of the people that these institutions have grown into place. It's a bit absurd for me to say "a justice system that operates with total impunity is bad and illegitimate" and your response to be "but without modern agriculture and colleges people will starve!" God drat. People manage to overthrow corrupt institutions without returning to tilling the earth with wooden hoes. Yes, these scandals make the government entirely illegitimate. If a sheriff did half of this poo poo, what right would he have to stay in office? If he said "but I arrest child molesters" how would that mean gently caress all? Your approach to Stasi would have been "well are you going to get rid of all of it?" Yes.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're talking as though it's the fault of the people that these institutions have grown into place. It's a bit absurd for me to say "a justice system that operates with total impunity is bad and illegitimate" and your response to be "but without modern agriculture and colleges people will starve!" God drat. People manage to overthrow corrupt institutions without returning to tilling the earth with wooden hoes. We do need to have some sort of government intelligence system, but the more we learn the clearer it is that our current system is entirely unworkable and has an inherent culture of corruption. They're doing all the same poo poo now that they did under J. Edgar Hoover. Until there's systemic reform, then yes, the entire system is suspect. At minimum there needs to be prosecution and accountability for abuses; when top brass like Clapper are brazenly committing perjury before Congress and getting away with it, the internal culture in these agencies isn't going to change. The fact that the revealed abuses call so many different things into question is precisely why they're a problem. We can't trust *anything* the security services say any more. It's analogous to the Boston crime lab tech who faked evidence in hundreds of cases. They had to toss out everything she did, and punish her for the fuckup, and institute new policies to make sure those fuckups don't happen again. We aren't currently doing any of those things in response to the now well-documented fuckups of the intelligence agencies. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, but exactly how much of the system are you arguing against here? Mass surveillance? Warrantless surveillance? Any and all surveillance? Yes, yes, no. SedanChair posted:You're talking as though it's the fault of the people that these institutions have grown into place. It's a bit absurd for me to say "a justice system that operates with total impunity is bad and illegitimate" and your response to be "but without modern agriculture and colleges people will starve!" God drat. People manage to overthrow corrupt institutions without returning to tilling the earth with wooden hoes. It really is the people's fault though. Whatever the forum grievances about Ron Paul are, this wouldn't have happened under him (I didn't vote for him). So it actually is a tradeoff people are making (and I made) between tilling the earth with wooden hoes and having all their emails searched--er, "collected." It's just that when Chris Christie is under scandal for a culture of corruption even if he didn't personally close GWB, so too is the NSA. This very subforum is full of idiots yakking about "well the government should be intimately involved with everyday life, if someone doesn't like it we're empowered with the will of the people blah blah" and it leads to the exact same thing. This is the same apparatus as J. Edgar Hoover used to torch those drat commies in Hollywood and his titanic power structure didn't exist without guys like FDR. And most posters here would vote for him all over again and be horrified that somehow we still end up where we are. So yes, it is the voters' fault. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:18
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It really is the people's fault though. Whatever the forum grievances about Ron Paul are, this wouldn't have happened under him. Mate, unless you have some sort of alternate dimensional transfer system that can open us a window in the wall into a world where President Ron Paul exists, a statement like that is utterly ridiculous and if you cannot understand why there isn't really any point in discussing anything. Frankly I don't see any president having any real power to reign in or reform any part of the intelligence apparatus, considering how long it's been developing for and how the people inside the system are not bound to four-year terms of employment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
politico posted:Outgoing National Security Agency chief Keith Alexander hinted Tuesday at forthcoming legislation that will target "media leaks," though few national security reporters are aware of any such legislation. the guardian posted:“Recently, what came out with the justices in the United Kingdom … they looked at what happened on Miranda and other things, and they said it’s interesting: journalists have no standing when it comes to national security issues. They don’t know how to weigh the fact of what they’re giving out and saying, is it in the nation’s interest to divulge this,” Alexander said. Welp. I'm suuure any planned “media leaks legislation" will be completely harmless, totally legal and will in no way criminalize journalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It really is the people's fault though. Whatever the forum grievances about Ron Paul are, this wouldn't have happened under him (I didn't vote for him). Call me a failure, but I am not in favor of exchanging the surveillance state for the rule of white supremacists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Also it definitely would still happen, it would just be through Google being offered a letter of marque and police powers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Also it definitely would still happen, it would just be through Google being offered a letter of marque and police powers. i am harry posted:Mate, unless you have some sort of alternate dimensional transfer system that can open us a window in the wall into a world where President Ron Paul exists, a statement like that is utterly ridiculous and if you cannot understand why there isn't really any point in discussing anything. Anyway. My point isn't about Ron Paul specifically, I'm saying that if voters wanted politicians who hated mass collection and salted the earth with any candidate who ever wavered, we'd have them. If that's too far flung hypothetical for you, oh well. I like how you all avoided the fact that it's been 60-70 years of playing with civil rights (but only when you really really
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Anyway. Every time the general population finds out about these abuses there is an uproar. It's just that they usually don't find out. The last time there was a major set of disclosures about this kind of thing we got the Church Commission, and the Snowden situation is still boiling out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Anyway. And our point is that the people don't have any way to enact substantive changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Voting exists. If people were willing to slash and burn any politician that didn't vote to crush mass surveillance tomorrow, it wouldn't happen. If the NSA was producing child porn instead of mass surveillance, it'd be over already because everyone would've lynched or voted out every politician that didn't defund them. If it happens alongside the guy you voted for and you keep voting for them, you've made the trade-off. Whether or not you say you like it is pretty irrelevant at that point, I agree. And that's what most Americans have done and the posters in D&D aren't much different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Voting exists. If people were willing to slash and burn any politician that didn't vote to crush mass surveillance tomorrow, it wouldn't happen. If the NSA was producing child porn instead of mass surveillance, it'd be over already because everyone would've lynched or voted out every politician that didn't defund them. If it happens alongside the guy you voted for and you keep voting for them, you've made the trade-off. Whether or not you say you like it is pretty irrelevant at that point, I agree. And that's what most Americans have done and the posters in D&D aren't much different. That's, like, not true at all. There are hundreds of different institutional barriers and inertias that prevent meaningful reform. Hell, a large majority of Americans support universal health care, and look where we are on that (not to mention the decades of lag it took to even get marijuana legalization begun). Saying "voting exists, therefore if your problem isn't already solved, nobody cares about it" is just a bad and silly argument. Hell there hasn't even been a single election cycle since Snowden's disclosures yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
There's some truth to it though. Many Americans are fine with panopticon because it doesn't effect many Americans, and they trust that it's a necessary underpin of the economic prosperity that's a little more threatened and a little leaner every day. Maybe they don't realize it in those terms but that's basically what's going on. It's a powerful tool of imperialism, and on aggregate most Americans probably benefit about as much from imperialism as they are exploited by capitalism, so it's a wash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're talking as though it's the fault of the people that these institutions have grown into place. It's a bit absurd for me to say "a justice system that operates with total impunity is bad and illegitimate" and your response to be "but without modern agriculture and colleges people will starve!" God drat. People manage to overthrow corrupt institutions without returning to tilling the earth with wooden hoes. We don't overthrow corrupt institutions, we remove the corrupt people and continue those institutions under the leadership of people that aren't corrupt. A corrupt police department doesn't get dissolved; instead, the chief and a few other leadership positions get shitcanned and replaced by dedicated people willing to tackle and clean out the corruption. Although that only happens if the people put sufficient pressure on the mayor to drive him to intervene and introduce a reformer. Hieronymous Alloy posted:We do need to have some sort of government intelligence system, but the more we learn the clearer it is that our current system is entirely unworkable and has an inherent culture of corruption. They're doing all the same poo poo now that they did under J. Edgar Hoover. The internal cultures aren't going to change until Congress seriously pushes for them to change. The fact that Clapper lied to Congress certainly says something about the intelligence agencies' internal culture, but the fact that Congress let him get away with it is a far bigger deal, since nothing will change unless either Congress or the executive branch put their foot down. The fact that all three of the major branches of government don't even want to condemn this conduct, let alone end it and shitcan those responsible for it, is an issue that goes far beyond the NSA. The conclusion that ought to be drawn here isn't that our intelligence system has an inherent culture of corruption, but that the entire government has an inherent culture of corruption and is more than prepared to sacrifice our civil rights for our own benefit. Don't forget, the NSA's warrantless wiretapping was authorized by executive order, and when it became public knowledge, Congress (including Obama!) voted to retroactively legalize the conduct and immunize the private entities from any consequences of their participation in the illegal wiretapping program. And even before that, there was the Patriot Act and its associated surveillance expansions. I think there's an argument to be made that the intelligence agencies would have done this kind of stuff no matter what, but the attitude in Washington for the last thirteen years (if not longer) has been one of enthusiastically pushing for massive expansions of the security state and the sacrifice of peoples' right to privacy for the sake of improving the US government's ability to commit espionage of its own citizens. The NSA needs a good housecleaning, but it's not going to get one unless we spend the next six years giving the boot to members of Congress who support surveillance and replacing them with people willing to work to reverse the civil rights concessions that the last few Congresses have made for the sake of the War on Terror. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Every time the general population finds out about these abuses there is an uproar. It's just that they usually don't find out. The last time there was a major set of disclosures about this kind of thing we got the Church Commission, and the Snowden situation is still boiling out. The last time there was a major set of disclosures about this kind of thing was the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal in, what, 2007? 2008? No one made a big deal about it. In any case, the Church Committee had very little to do with public outrage, since it actually turned out to be pretty unpopular - lots of people thought that the Committee would just undermine national interests and destroy the country's image, Church was known to have presidential ambitions so many people thought the whole thing was just a big publicity stunt, and as a result public approval of the Committee actually polled pretty poorly. It happened because the Senate itself was mad about the surveillance (much of which had gone on without them knowing) and wanted to rein in the executive branch, and happened despite the strong resistance of Ford and his advisors (including Kissinger and Rumsfeld) who did all they could to resist the investigation. Also, Church's presidential ambitions almost certainly had a part in how badly he wanted to be the chairman of the committee, though as it turned out, his popularity just tanked instead and he lost his Senate seat in the next election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Hey, if you could watch my animation about internet surveillance and either fill out the short survey or send me a message on what you think about it, that would be great. Ideally I'd need any feedback to be within the next few hours to be of any use whatsoever. Cheers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dESmuN0AcZo Survey is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FK7QTZP (I know the animation quality is bad, it's a trade off for doing 7 minutes in a week)
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Every time the general population finds out about these abuses there is an uproar. It's just that they usually don't find out. The last time there was a major set of disclosures about this kind of thing we got the Church Commission, and the Snowden situation is still boiling out. Paineframe already responded to this stupidity, but to reiterate: voters should've been doing a 180 in the booth yeeeeaaaars before the end result popped up. Years before 9/11 too. There was no other way it was going to end up except here and anybody who kept voting for more government powers is either making a trade-off and their actions speak louder than their complaints or they're utterly ignorant of basic human nature combined with power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Paineframe already responded to this stupidity, but to reiterate: voters should've been doing a 180 in the booth yeeeeaaaars before the end result popped up. Years before 9/11 too. There was no other way it was going to end up except here and anybody who kept voting for more government powers is either making a trade-off and their actions speak louder than their complaints or they're utterly ignorant of basic human nature combined with power. Are you actually placing blame for the creation of an immense and highly secretive security state which only occasionally we truly scratch the surface of usually due to individuals risking prison or worse..purely onto voters? There are so many different variables in the creation, evolution, and growth of the national security state into what it is today, reducing the blame so simply is naïve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Paineframe already responded to this stupidity, but to reiterate: voters should've been doing a 180 in the booth yeeeeaaaars before the end result popped up. Years before 9/11 too. There was no other way it was going to end up except here and anybody who kept voting for more government powers is either making a trade-off and their actions speak louder than their complaints or they're utterly ignorant of basic human nature combined with power. So, who do you feel we should have voted for? Seems like many of the candidates who I think would have been publicly against these powers would have been loudly decried as third party conspiracy theorists, and would have been absolutely terrible on almost every social issue. Additionally, the heads of our intelligence agencies have no qualms about perjuring themselves to our elected officials to keep their programs totally out of the public eyes, and will surely work to slip loopholes into legislation which might threaten to limit their secret unaccountable programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:So, who do you feel we should have voted for? Seems like many of the candidates who I think would have been publicly against these powers would have been loudly decried as third party conspiracy theorists, and would have been absolutely terrible on almost every social issue. Additionally, the heads of our intelligence agencies have no qualms about perjuring themselves to our elected officials to keep their programs totally out of the public eyes, and will surely work to slip loopholes into legislation which might threaten to limit their secret unaccountable programs. If you value privacy rights above all else you shouldn't mind voting for the libertarian with terrible social values. Plenty of people do that every day relating to a wide variety of issues ( abortion being the classic example).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Alternately, if you are a real human being who cares about more than one thing, you should...stop that and turn into a single issue voter anyway? Is that where you're going with this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
I think the argument is something along the lines of "can't fix this issue without reforming entire system of government", therefore, "everyone just stay in bed"; alternatively "everyone's cool with it because there aren't literal riots over it right now."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Also, just because a majority of the electorate is cool with a practice doesn't make that practice actually okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Obama's platform when originally elected was about reigning in the excesses of the surveillance state (Patriot Act, torture, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) The notion that voters put him in to expand it is not really supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:Alternately, if you are a real human being who cares about more than one thing, you should...stop that and turn into a single issue voter anyway? Is that where you're going with this? The question is not do you care about more than one thing, but how much do you care about that one thing? Is reigning in the surveillance state the number one issue you have? Is it significantly more important than any other issue?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Somebody fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:So, who do you feel we should have voted for? Seems like many of the candidates who I think would have been publicly against these powers would have been loudly decried as third party conspiracy theorists, and would have been absolutely terrible on almost every social issue. Additionally, the heads of our intelligence agencies have no qualms about perjuring themselves to our elected officials to keep their programs totally out of the public eyes, and will surely work to slip loopholes into legislation which might threaten to limit their secret unaccountable programs. The heads of our intelligence agencies can't slip loopholes into legislation, because they don't write the legislation. The loopholes come about because at least two of the following three things happen: A) Members of Congress intentionally write these loopholes into the laws because they basically support the intelligence state and are just putting on a show for the voters (for example, Obama's whole commission to investigate the NSA programs) B) The executive branch decides to interpret something in the law in a different way from it was probably intended to be interpreted (the Obama administration justified the NSA's bulk metadata collection using a creative interpretation of section 215 of the thirteen-year-old PATRIOT ACT, which Wyden and Udall have been complaining about for years) C) The judicial branch, faced with either A or B, sign off on it as valid or at the very least refuse to hear and validate challenges to it (the FISA court, as well as every other judge that's seen a NSA surveillance case in the last year) Personally, I feel that the mass surveillance is wrong. But so what? Standing around and saying "hey, this is wrong" doesn't change anything - if we can't look at what it would realistically take to end the wrong practices and change the system, then we might as well be sitting on our butts doing nothing, or at best just loudly moralizing about how evil the NSA is as we tear open another jumbo bag of potato chips and reach for the TV remote. Now, in order for these to be changed, there needs to be some sort of movement from the populace. And despite what the internet and the blogosphere feel about it, I'm not even convinced the American public considers the NSA spying to be a big deal - according to Gallup, even after the Snowden leaks, people were still less concerned about the government reading their email and hacking their computers than they were in 2000. Another Gallup poll suggests that the public somewhat disapproved of the mass phone metadata collection, but the detailed breakdowns (particularly the partisan split, with Dems being most in favor of surveillance and Republicans overwhelmingly against it) suggest to me that there isn't much strongly held opinion or political will behind the disapproval. Tezzor posted:Obama's platform when originally elected was about reigning in the excesses of the surveillance state (Patriot Act, torture, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) The notion that voters put him in to expand it is not really supported. That's the blank slate syndrome Candidate Obama was so proud of, using vague promises to encourage voters to project their own views onto him. If you go back and look, what he actually promised about surveillance was to increase the executive and Congressional oversight on those surveillance tools. This didn't mean "stopping surveillance", it just meant "requiring more paperwork for surveillance, and giving more input from the administration and the Intelligence Committee on major programs". In any case, actions speak much, much louder than campaign promises, and Obama voted in favor of the warrantless wiretapping retroactive immunity bill in 2007, so anyone who really cared about surveillance issues had no business being duped, and even if you missed that, he happily signed a re-authorization of many of the PATRIOT Act's most controversial elements in 2011 so you should have had no illusions about his commitment to our privacy in 2012. You can't have cared about surveillance issues all that much if you managed to ignore his actual record and get duped by pretty words not just once but twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The heads of our intelligence agencies can't slip loopholes into legislation, because they don't write the legislation. The loopholes come about because at least two of the following three things happen: treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
And the poo poo has officially begun to roll downhill. CBP Detained a US Citizen and Quizzed her about private emailsquote:According to Dr. Von Der Haar’s complaint, armed CBP officers detained both her and Mr. Papatheodoropoulos, took them into separate rooms, and stood blocking the exit door while they interrogated Dr. Von Der Haar about, “the nature of her relationship with Mr. Papatheodoropoulos … the contents of email messages that Dr. Von Der Haar and Mr. Papatheodoropoulos had sent each other … [and] if she and Mr. Papatheodoropoulos were having sexual relations.” The only question is did the NSA proactively forward these emails to the DHS for investigation or did the DHS request them from the NSA. Maybe the DHS has their own little baby fourth amendment violation program going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Snowden testified before the EU Parliament recently; here's (pdf) a copy of his testimony. I'm just reading it now. e: First Q&A is good: Snowden posted:
Broken Machine fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Sudo Echo posted:And the poo poo has officially begun to roll downhill. CBP Detained a US Citizen and Quizzed her about private emails This would not surprise me in the slightest. Border patrol officers are already a pack of power-tripping shitheads who know they get way more slack than nearly any other agency thanks to the "oh, well, it's a border crossing, so of course people shouldn't have any right to privacy here" argument currently accepted by our legal system. (Yes, I have had a negative experience with CBP.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Sudo Echo posted:And the poo poo has officially begun to roll downhill. CBP Detained a US Citizen and Quizzed her about private emails If the DHS really obtained those emails via electronic surveillance, whether from another agency or through a surveillance program of their own, they sure as poo poo wouldn't be telling random detainees about it - remember, these programs are so utterly top-secret that the DEA had a policy of lying in court to avoid revealing their existence. It's far more likely that they took a copy of his hard drive's contents when he entered the country, or they made a legal request to his email provider through normal legal channels, or just flat-out lied about having access to their emails in order to intimidate them into confessing. After all, since the DHS had clearly been investigating him already it's not unreasonable that they'd have an idea of their relationship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
^^^ But the larger issue isn't whether or not the NSA is involved in any way, really. It's the blanket of surveillance being draped upon society by the vast multitude of intelligence agencies (whether by name or de-facto..how many do we have now that essentially fit that definition?). She went to pick up computer equipment, given how that works in this country nowadays it seems pretty likely their invasive questioning was likely derived from analyzing that, or the DHS utilizing any number of different tools in their arsenal via fusion centers or whatever else. Who the hell can tell anymore? In some ways the focus upon the NSA due to the leaks is almost detrimental; they're only one (albeit particularly large) facet of the issue. Whatever security is gained through ubiquitous surveillance and an opaque national security state is entirely negated and then some for the detrimental effect it has upon not only our society, but the world. Farmer Crack-rear end posted:This would not surprise me in the slightest. Border patrol officers are already a pack of power-tripping shitheads who know they get way more slack than nearly any other agency thanks to the "oh, well, it's a border crossing, so of course people shouldn't have any right to privacy here" argument currently accepted by our legal system. Yeah, anecdotes and what-not, but I remember my several forays back and forth from Canada. Canadian border patrol, exceedingly polite, thorough and professional, and..effective. US: Often rude, sometimes bordering on aggressive, and excessively authoritarian. Canadian guards would thoroughly and politely quiz you to see if things add up, ask to go through your car nicely. US guards would attempt to intimidate and scare you into slipping up, order you to pull over without explaining why or what they wanted and react aggressively to any questions. After three times you can't help but notice a pattern, not too mention just how ineffective it is to do that. Some of the stories that result are just awful, with very little accountability for any of it. It's a rather depressing experience being treated as a criminal/prisoner for no other reason than a short trip to Canada. Were I muslim or of middle eastern descent, I would be afraid to come back. If both I'd want to apply for asylum. hobotrashcanfires fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Phew:quote:
I thought this was hilarious when they gave the rationale for it, not that I think the letter agencies are actually not retaining information longer than 5 years, but the brazenness of DOJ's request was certainly amusing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Apparently the NSA had an advice columnist called Zelda.quote:An NSA official, writing under the pen name “Zelda,” has actually served at the agency as a Dear Abby for spies. Her “Ask Zelda!” columns, distributed on the agency’s intranet and accessible only to those with the proper security clearance, are among the documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The columns are often amusing – topics include co-workers falling asleep on the job, sodas being stolen from shared fridges, supervisors not responding to emails, and office-mates who smell bad. But one of the most intriguing involves a letter from an NSA staffer who complains that his (or her) boss is spying on employees. So nothing shocking, but an interesting look at the agency's culture and TPS type bullshit nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Snowden said he tried to raise concerns 10 different times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07/snowden-i-raised-nsa-concerns-internally-over-10-times-before-going-rogue/ NSA responds by saying that he never raised any concerns. I can't even count the number of times we heard from Obama and Senators and talking heads that Snowden should've "gone through the proper channels." I'll go ahead and believe the guy who doesn't have a pattern of gigantic lies. Snowden will be appearing -- for I think the first time since the story broke? -- at SXSW tomorrow. Not actually appearing, but doing a webcast. It'll take place at 11am Austin time (noon EST, 4pm GMT). The Texas Tribune will be live-streaming it. No link yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/nsa-chief-keith-alexander-david-miranda This is an older article but something in it deserves a lot more attention. quote:But staff at Georgetown University, which sponsored the Tuesday cybersecurity forum, took the microphone away from a Guardian reporter who attempted to ask Alexander if the NSA had missed the signs of Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine, which appeared to take Obama administration policymakers by surprise. The NSA's massive dragnet surveillance system somehow completely missed Russia's plan to move into the Ukraine. When questioned about it, Alexander quite literally ran away. What exactly are these people being paid for if they can't even notice a massive military buildup and then movement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Is anyone else having issues getting to the Guardian's website? I can hit it from an ssh tunnel through my webservers but my Clomcast connection can't establish a connection after resolving. If someone can repost the entire article above that would be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Andersnordic posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/nsa-chief-keith-alexander-david-miranda Or the NSA's surveillance system found signs and the administration ignored them because there wasn't really anything the US could do about it even with advance notice, and the question was dodged because it's basically a "gotcha" question that Alexander can't possibly answer in a way that doesn't either make him look bad or get him in serious trouble? What's he going to do, say "Yes, we were actively spying on Russia's most secret diplomatic and military communications and had full knowledge of everything they were saying" to a room full of reporters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Or the NSA's surveillance system found signs and the administration ignored them because there wasn't really anything the US could do about it even with advance notice, and the question was dodged because it's basically a "gotcha" question that Alexander can't possibly answer in a way that doesn't either make him look bad or get him in serious trouble? What's he going to do, say "Yes, we were actively spying on Russia's most secret diplomatic and military communications and had full knowledge of everything they were saying" to a room full of reporters? What exactly are these people being paid for, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
If they had advance knowledge, they could've notified Ukraine and prevent this whole thing to getting anywhere. Obviously this could've been the administration's decision in which case I can see why he wouldn't want to comment on it then and there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:16
|
|