How the NSA collects everything you do on the internet

[Thanas]

The track record of intelligence failures in the military seems to suggest that people who screw up don't get any punishment at all and even when you gun down women and children while screaming "kill them all" you don't get anything more than a slap on the wrist.

What is the evidence that makes you so confident that THIS TIME it will be different?

Because in this instance, it would be far more cut and dry.

Hadhita was cut and dry.

Abu Gharaib was cut and dry.

Illegal NSA wiretapping was cut and dry.

The death of suspected militants in custody after being electrocuted is pretty cut and dry.

Punishment for all invovled? None or minimal. So forgive me if your argument does not hold any water to me.

[Formless]

Ah, an illiterate moron. Where did I say I know more about software than you do? Where did I say a fucking thing about software at all?

Oh, so you meant that people can actually try and record conversations happening at the Whitehouse? Did you read what I said at all? The sheer level of information this program accesses is nowhere equivalent to eavesdropping on random conversations happening on the street, a place where politicians and government workers are not known for talking about sensitive information for exactly this reason. And if you expect to record them at their actual place of work, I suggest you find a psychiatrist. Really. For your own good. Because that's so obviously illegal, I shouldn't have to explain to you why its not a valid response to my argument.

In fact, what I was challenging you about was NOT whether normal people have the technological capacity to spy on the government. Obviously the government aren't the only ones with the knowledge needed to write up a program like XKeyScore, or to hack government computers. Its been done before. And those people went to jail. In fact, there are more than a few whistleblowers who worked for the government who've found themselves in deep, unfair shit for doing the right thing. The problem isn't technological at all, its that they refuse to implement in any form of transparency, and the power disparity that lets them ruin you if you try rectify that.

Your 'point' was just you whining I shouldn't vote, participate in politics or have a clue what the problem is. If that's your 'point', you're clearly mentally handicapped on the issue of what a 'point' is.

So you still aren't getting it, and you are still too stupid to meaningfully participate in politics or this discussion. And this is after Stas Bush restated the point in different terms. Its like you can't even understand a point surrounded in mockery. I thought that was supposed to be an essential skill on this forum.

Fine, I will elaborate. This isn't really for your benefit, because you're a lost cause ("Privacy is a joke". I'm sure a nice stay in prison would make you see just how laughable it is.).

The internet facilitates communications necessary to collaborate and organize political activities by activists, political parties, protest groups, advocacy groups, and more. I know for a fact that the internet facilitates these activities because I have come in contact with such organizations. For instance, there is someone I know very closely that used to be on the Ron Paul mailing list (he was banned at some point because they perceived him as a socialist troll; no kidding, but moving on). While he was still a member he met several people who were very active in either the Libertarian Party or Ron Paul's own campaign. People pretty high on those totem poles, actually. Now, I am not a fan of Ron Paul or the Libertarians, but the point is that they used the internet extensively to coordinate and communicate with his fans and between their own officials. Now imagine if the government felt that this group of people were a serious threat to the status quo, and that the government lacked whatever restraint that it currently exercises. The mailing list would be extremely easy to infiltrate with XKeyScore and other methods, or even to plant agents into the group (remember how I said they banned my friend for being a "socialist troll"?). All that information would be crucial for disrupting and disbanding that group from the outside.

Don't think that could happen? Don't think the government could ever become as corrupt and abusive as to do that just because they don't like someone's message? Let me remind you of a time called "The McCarthy Era" and a group called "The Communist Party of America". It has happened, and the government is known to have had up to 1,500 or more FBI informants inside the CPUSA during the 50's. That is the threat all political organizations face from illegal domestic spying. Or even economic organizations like Unions or corporations. All it takes is for the government to see you as a threat, and not give a shit about the letter or spirit of the law.

[Singular Intellect]

Oh, so you meant that people can actually try and record conversations happening at the Whitehouse? Did you read what I said at all? The sheer level of information this program accesses is nowhere equivalent to eavesdropping on random conversations happening on the street, a place where politicians and government workers are not known for talking about sensitive information for exactly this reason. And if you expect to record them at their actual place of work, I suggest you find a psychiatrist. Really. For your own good. Because that's so obviously illegal, I shouldn't have to explain to you why its not a valid response to my argument.

In fact, what I was challenging you about was NOT whether normal people have the technological capacity to spy on the government. Obviously the government aren't the only ones with the knowledge needed to write up a program like XKeyScore, or to hack government computers. Its been done before. And those people went to jail. In fact, there are more than a few whistleblowers who worked for the government who've found themselves in deep, unfair shit for doing the right thing. The problem isn't technological at all, its that they refuse to implement in any form of transparency, and the power disparity that lets them ruin you if you try rectify that.

So then you're in favour of transparency. I fail to see what we're arguing about here.

So you still aren't getting it, and you are still too stupid to meaningfully participate in politics or this discussion. And this is after Stas Bush restated the point in different terms. Its like you can't even understand a point surrounded in mockery. I thought that was supposed to be an essential skill on this forum.

Fine, I will elaborate. This isn't really for your benefit, because you're a lost cause ("Privacy is a joke". I'm sure a nice stay in prison would make you see just how laughable it is.).

Yeah, because that's how arguments are won. By claiming a stay in prison will change the person's position.

The internet facilitates communications necessary to collaborate and organize political activities by activists, political parties, protest groups, advocacy groups, and more. I know for a fact that the internet facilitates these activities because I have come in contact with such organizations. For instance, there is someone I know very closely that used to be on the Ron Paul mailing list (he was banned at some point because they perceived him as a socialist troll; no kidding, but moving on). While he was still a member he met several people who were very active in either the Libertarian Party or Ron Paul's own campaign. People pretty high on those totem poles, actually. Now, I am not a fan of Ron Paul or the Libertarians, but the point is that they used the internet extensively to coordinate and communicate with his fans and between their own officials. Now imagine if the government felt that this group of people were a serious threat to the status quo, and that the government lacked whatever restraint that it currently exercises. The mailing list would be extremely easy to infiltrate with XKeyScore and other methods, or even to plant agents into the group (remember how I said they banned my friend for being a "socialist troll"?). All that information would be crucial for disrupting and disbanding that group from the outside.

Don't think that could happen? Don't think the government could ever become as corrupt and abusive as to do that just because they don't like someone's message? Let me remind you of a time called "The McCarthy Era" and a group called "The Communist Party of America". It has happened, and the government is known to have had up to 1,500 or more FBI informants inside the CPUSA during the 50's. That is the threat all political organizations face from illegal domestic spying. Or even economic organizations like Unions or corporations. All it takes is for the government to see you as a threat, and not give a shit about the letter or spirit of the law.

Good thing we don't live in the 50's then, eh? This might shock you, but things are quite a bit different than that era. Like technology, which I mentioned to you before.

[Simon_Jester]

Singular, the technology creates the problem, because it makes it so stupidly easy for someone to infiltrate and blow up a group from the inside.

The 1950s equivalent of the Ron Paul mailing list would be an entire political party. Blowing it up from the inside would be a job requiring years and dedicated teams of undercover agents, whose actions would be subject to discovery during the infiltration, and legal review afterwards.

Now, it takes some anonymous contractor sitting in an office with access to XKeyScore and related programs. Suddenly the state has an 'enemies list' consisting of everyone who ever participated in this undesirable political activity.

If you don't want to look like a complete delusional moron, please explain HOW changes since the 1950s make this problem in any way less bad. Technology has made it WORSE by making it easier for the government to spy on you by pushing a button without your knowledge, and to cross-reference everything they learn about you so that they can compile files on everyone you interact with. Social changes have not done much to help, because people still seem bizarrely paralytic about this beforehand.

Sure, we might react badly once we realize how grossly civil liberties have been violated, but people reacted badly to McCarthy too, once his political power was broken.

You CANNOT just wave your hands up and down and assert that "things are better because change." You have to detail what changed and how it helped.

[Grumman]

So then you're in favour of transparency. I fail to see what we're arguing about here.

There's a massive difference between saying the government has no right to privacy and saying that people have no right to privacy. The government, like a company, has no right to privacy because it has no right to anything: it is a non-sapient entity whose only legitimate act is to serve its stakeholders. Anything else is an abuse of the extraordinary powers given to the government so that it may better do its job. Even when it may be permitted to keep a secret from its stakeholders, this is only to allow it to be a better slave.

People, on the other hand, are more than witless thralls. They do have rights, and can legitimately claim that something they're doing is none of your business.

[Thanas]

And as expected, new information shows how the USA's domestic agencies are doing similar programs or are partnering with the NSA in clear violation of the constitution.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I actually agree with that notion. The only objection I entertain is one of safety of individuals and society, which is addressed with more transparency and information availability, not less.

What makes you think we need increased information on private citizens, instead of increased information on the way the state functions?

The concept of privacy is a joke and creates far more problems than it solves. Name one problem the elimination of privacy creates that isn't addressed by eliminating privacy for everyone.

One problem... uh, widespread censorship? All that totalitarianism and stuff?

You must have thought this out, right? This must be a well-reasoned worldview. It cannot just be "if only other people didn't matter", right?

You'll first have to provide sources for me on where the Canadian Government has been doing such a thing.

Conceded. I didn't look what your location was.

[Singular Intellect]

What makes you think we need increased information on private citizens, instead of increased information on the way the state functions?

The state is run by citizens in office. I'm in favour of increased information on everyone and everything, not just select groups or certain things.

The concept of privacy is a joke and creates far more problems than it solves. Name one problem the elimination of privacy creates that isn't addressed by eliminating privacy for everyone.

One problem... uh, widespread censorship? All that totalitarianism and stuff?

You must have thought this out, right? This must be a well-reasoned worldview. It cannot just be "if only other people didn't matter", right?

I actually don't see or understand your point here.

Here's an example of my thinking: Homosexual orientation used to be a very private thing. It had to be, in order to protect the individuals from a corrupt society that treated homosexuals as less than human beings. Now sexual orientation has drastically moved in the direction of being out in the open and not a 'private' issue. And look how much further giving simple basic rights to gay human beings has advanced in the face of that (although we admittedly still have a ways to go).

The concept of privacy is a band aid, serving only to cover up more fundamental problems. You give me an example of where you think 'privacy' is a solution to a problem, and I'll point out how it is simply covering up a more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.

I'm not arguing that privacy is useless, anymore than I would argue wearing a bullet proof vest do to common gang shootouts in your neighborhood is. I am arguing that anyone claiming more bullet proof vets is a solution does not understand what the core problem is.

[Grumman]

Here's an example of my thinking: Homosexual orientation used to be a very private thing. It had to be, in order to protect the individuals from a corrupt society that treated homosexuals as less than human beings. Now sexual orientation has drastically moved in the direction of being out in the open and not a 'private' issue.

It still should be a very private thing, until they choose otherwise. They have no obligation to tell you who they're sleeping with just because you're an obnoxious busybody. It's none of your goddamn business.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

The state is run by citizens in office. I'm in favour of increased information on everyone and everything, not just select groups or certain things.

So it's just to satisfy some jerkoff's morbid curiosity. And also the persons inhabiting a public office are separate from the actual title. I believe in transparency when it comes to knowing how these abstracted offices work, not to some bureaucrat's private life. This is getting pervy.

Here's an example of my thinking: Homosexual orientation used to be a very private thing. It had to be, in order to protect the individuals from a corrupt society that treated homosexuals as less than human beings. Now sexual orientation has drastically moved in the direction of being out in the open and not a 'private' issue. And look how much further giving simple basic rights to gay human beings has advanced in the face of that (although we admittedly still have a ways to go).

Wait dude: we "still have a ways to go", or we've advanced to the point where it's perfectly safe to be public about such things? And it doesn't even get to the fact that people might not want to tell everything about themselves to the world.

The concept of privacy is a band aid, serving only to cover up more fundamental problems. You give me an example of where you think 'privacy' is a solution to a problem, and I'll point out how it is simply covering up a more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.

So... if every last problem with the world is dealt with, then privacy is pointless? Yeah. Good one. I think I'll wait until the world is actually perfect.

I'm not arguing that privacy is useless, anymore than I would argue wearing a bullet proof vest do to common gang shootouts in your neighborhood is. I am arguing that anyone claiming more bullet proof vets is a solution does not understand what the core problem is.

Arguably, the core problem is that replying to your little pie-in-the-sky utopia wastes my time.

[Singular Intellect]

Here's an example of my thinking: Homosexual orientation used to be a very private thing. It had to be, in order to protect the individuals from a corrupt society that treated homosexuals as less than human beings. Now sexual orientation has drastically moved in the direction of being out in the open and not a 'private' issue.

It still should be a very private thing, until they choose otherwise. They have no obligation to tell you who they're sleeping with just because you're an obnoxious busybody. It's none of your goddamn business.

The theoretical non existence of privacy only means information cannot be hidden. It doesn't mean you're obligated to cough it up on demand. Even today there is little hindering a determined person from finding out such things. It's actively feeling the need to hide such things that indicates a serious problem.

So it's just to satisfy some jerkoff's morbid curiosity. And also the persons inhabiting a public office are separate from the actual title. I believe in transparency when it comes to knowing how these abstracted offices work, not to some bureaucrat's private life. This is getting pervy.

Not seeing an argument here, so moving on.

Wait dude: we "still have a ways to go", or we've advanced to the point where it's perfectly safe to be public about such things?

False dilemma fallacy. I merely pointed out that publicizing the gay issue has pushed society in a positive direction regarding it.

And it doesn't even get to the fact that people might not want to tell everything about themselves to the world.

They don't have to. Privacy isn't about telling the world about yourself, it's about hiding from it. And if you're hiding from it, there is clearly a problem that needs to be fixed.

So... if every last problem with the world is dealt with, then privacy is pointless? Yeah. Good one. I think I'll wait until the world is actually perfect.

I never claimed privacy is pointless; refer back to my bullet proof vest analogy. I merely assert that where privacy is invoked, a more fundamental problem exists.

Arguably, the core problem is that replying to your little pie-in-the-sky utopia wastes my time.

Because that's how humanity advances and pushes into the future. By hand waving away goals as 'pie in the sky utopia' that is 'a waste of time'. You're pitiful, and an excellent example of what is wrong with so many people.

Do we live in a perfect world? No. Will the world be perfect tomorrow? No. But sitting there and crying how you think any push towards such a pie in the sky utopia is a waste of time accomplishes nothing. So why don't you just step aside, go cry in a corner and let the rest of us push towards a better tomorrow.

[aerius]

The bet you're making is that our society & government will remain and/or continue to become more progressive & enlightened for the rest of your life or however long you care. That is something which I certainly hope is true, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it. There probably isn't another Hitler or Stalin around the corner but we do have people such as Sarah Palin & Dick Cheney for example. They might not send you to the death camps but they're certainly capable of making your life suck if you belong to the "wrong group".

[Singular Intellect]

The bet you're making is that our society & government will remain and/or continue to become more progressive & enlightened for the rest of your life or however long you care. That is something which I certainly hope is true, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it. There probably isn't another Hitler or Stalin around the corner but we do have people such as Sarah Palin & Dick Cheney for example. They might not send you to the death camps but they're certainly capable of making your life suck if you belong to the "wrong group".

Where have I made any such bet? I simply hold the position that is what we should strive and work for.

As for you two examples, those are two prime example people whom we want to know everything about as much as we can, because they are/were in positions of power over others.

[K. A. Pital]

Here's an example of my thinking: Homosexual orientation used to be a very private thing. It had to be, in order to protect the individuals from a corrupt society that treated homosexuals as less than human beings. Now sexual orientation has drastically moved in the direction of being out in the open and not a 'private' issue. And look how much further giving simple basic rights to gay human beings has advanced in the face of that (although we admittedly still have a ways to go).

Homosexuals needed privacy because the state could oppress them. They no longer needed privacy when the state could no longer oppress them. You are putting the cart before the horse. Create a society without fear, violence and war, make your utopia alive - and then and only then should people ever consider giving up whatever privacy they consider necessary for themselves.

I'm not arguing that privacy is useless, anymore than I would argue wearing a bullet proof vest do to common gang shootouts in your neighborhood is. I am arguing that anyone claiming more bullet proof vets is a solution does not understand what the core problem is.

You are, however, arguing in favor of essentially the analogue of a gang boss being able to read your mail. That's a piss poor way of explaining your point.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Not seeing an argument here, so moving on.

I didn't see an argument in favor of your weird ideas about privacy, either.

False dilemma fallacy. I merely pointed out that publicizing the gay issue has pushed society in a positive direction regarding it.

That's not a false dilemma, idiot, that is you contradicting yourself. I still don't get how this ties to your problem with privacy, or what privacy has to do with homophobia.

They don't have to. Privacy isn't about telling the world about yourself, it's about hiding from it. And if you're hiding from it, there is clearly a problem that needs to be fixed.

Privacy is about hiding from the world? What ridiculous strawman is this? Where's your proof that privacy "clearly" hides a problem?

I never claimed privacy is pointless; refer back to my bullet proof vest analogy. I merely assert that where privacy is invoked, a more fundamental problem exists.

Once again, prove to me that fundamental problems are masked by privacy.

Because that's how humanity advances and pushes into the future. By hand waving away goals as 'pie in the sky utopia' that is 'a waste of time'. You're pitiful, and an excellent example of what is wrong with so many people.

No, I'm an example of someone who would ask for proof that your way works. Thank you, put that ad hominem back in your pocket, and fuck off.

Do we live in a perfect world? No. Will the world be perfect tomorrow? No. But sitting there and crying how you think any push towards such a pie in the sky utopia is a waste of time accomplishes nothing. So why don't you just step aside, go cry in a corner and let the rest of us push towards a better tomorrow.

Wah, wah, wah.

[aerius]

The bet you're making is that our society & government will remain and/or continue to become more progressive & enlightened for the rest of your life or however long you care. That is something which I certainly hope is true, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it. There probably isn't another Hitler or Stalin around the corner but we do have people such as Sarah Palin & Dick Cheney for example. They might not send you to the death camps but they're certainly capable of making your life suck if you belong to the "wrong group".

Where have I made any such bet? I simply hold the position that is what we should strive and work for.

It's implicit in your desire for a society where there's no need for privacy. You are betting that in a society where there's no need to hide anything, and where any information is free to be compiled & collated by anyone or any party, that there will not be significant mis-use or malicious use of that information by others for as long as you live or as long as you care for. Also keep in mind that all that information about you is archived, forever, and anything in there can come back to bite you at a future date. Might be 5 years, might be 50 years, or it might be after you're dead and they're going after your children.

As for you two examples, those are two prime example people whom we want to know everything about as much as we can, because they are/were in positions of power over others.

Ok, so you know everything there is to know about them. What are you going to do with that info? They're still gonna get elected anyway (gotta love that 2 party system!) so it's not like you're going to change anything.

[TheHammer]

The track record of intelligence failures in the military seems to suggest that people who screw up don't get any punishment at all and even when you gun down women and children while screaming "kill them all" you don't get anything more than a slap on the wrist.

What is the evidence that makes you so confident that THIS TIME it will be different?

Because in this instance, it would be far more cut and dry.

Hadhita was cut and dry.

No, it wasn't cut and dry. It's the sort of obscure battlefield fog of war incident, reliant on interpretation of evidence and witness testimony. I don't agree with the outcome of that incident, but that is beside the point.

Abu Gharaib was cut and dry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse

And there were significant punishments handed down because of it. In this case there was actual photographic evidence of misconduct, so it was more cut and dry than your first example, however it still would pale in comparison of "cut and dryness" to an audit of records access.

Illegal NSA wiretapping was cut and dry.

Please cite a specific example of "illegal NSA wiretapping".

The death of suspected militants in custody after being electrocuted is pretty cut and dry.

Please cite the specific example you are referring to.

Punishment for all invovled? None or minimal. So forgive me if your argument does not hold any water to me.

One minimal punishment, one where we apparently disagree on "significant punishment", and the jury still out on two. As you are well aware there are counter examples where there were severe punishments, this for example: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html.

In any event, the examples you cited, with the possible exception of the as yet to be named "illegal NSA wiretapping" all would rely greatly on personal testimony from witnesses. This would leave it vulnerable to a persons own prejudices, memory, etc. On audit of access to electronic records would not be subject to such flaws. It is a cold, hard, unfeeling record of what someone did, when they did it, and who they did it to.

[Thanas]

Hadhita was cut and dry.

No, it wasn't cut and dry. It's the sort of obscure battlefield fog of war incident, reliant on interpretation of evidence and witness testimony. I don't agree with the outcome of that incident, but that is beside the point.

The coverup was cut and dry. The original incident was cut and dry to anybody besides a US propagandist.

And there were significant punishments handed down because of it. In this case there was actual photographic evidence of misconduct, so it was more cut and dry than your first example, however it still would pale in comparison of "cut and dryness" to an audit of records access.

Significant punishments? What significant punishments? People were tortured to death and only one guy was sentenced to more than a few years. Nobody from the higher ups who sanctioned this got even indicted. That is not siginificant punishment.

Please cite a specific example of "illegal NSA wiretapping".

Prism.

The death of suspected militants in custody after being electrocuted is pretty cut and dry.

Please cite the specific example you are referring to.

http://www.salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/
Pick one of the over 100.

[TheHammer]

Hadhita was cut and dry.

No, it wasn't cut and dry. It's the sort of obscure battlefield fog of war incident, reliant on interpretation of evidence and witness testimony. I don't agree with the outcome of that incident, but that is beside the point.

The coverup was cut and dry. The original incident was cut and dry to anybody besides a US propagandist.

That topic may require a debate thread of its own, but no it was not "cut and dry". Not in the same sense that an audit of records access would be. And that is the point I'm making.

And there were significant punishments handed down because of it. In this case there was actual photographic evidence of misconduct, so it was more cut and dry than your first example, however it still would pale in comparison of "cut and dryness" to an audit of records access.

Significant punishments? What significant punishments? People were tortured to death and only one guy was sentenced to more than a few years. Nobody from the higher ups who sanctioned this got even indicted. That is not siginificant punishment.

The punishments were outlined in the article I cited. See the section labeled Court-martials, non-judicial punishment, and administrative reprimands: Multiple sentences handed out, multiple careers ended. They may not have been as severe as you would have preferred, but they were none-the-less significant.

Please cite a specific example of "illegal NSA wiretapping".

Prism.

PRISM merely describes a technical capability, much like the original subject of this posting. As of yet, I know of no "illegal" use of this capability cited anywhere.

Please cite the specific example you are referring to.

http://www.salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/
Pick one of the over 100.

I agree, that looks pretty shitty, but again, those are not cut and dry situations. Who did what, to whom, and when? It suffers the same issues that your other examples suffer from - it relies greatly on interpretation of evidence and testimony.

As stated in my last post, audits of record access would not suffer from those flaws. Persons accessing data illegally would be easy to identify, and would have little to defend themselves. The Who, what, when, and where ARE cut and dry.

[Thanas]

That topic may require a debate thread of its own, but no it was not "cut and dry". Not in the same sense that an audit of records access would be. And that is the point I'm making.

Yes it was and nobody besides a propagandist or a shithead would debate that a war crime happened and was covered up. Which one are you?

The punishments were outlined in the article I cited. See the section labeled Court-martials, non-judicial punishment, and administrative reprimands: Multiple sentences handed out, multiple careers ended. They may not have been as severe as you would have preferred, but they were none-the-less significant.

List the prison sentences and then explain how they are in any way sufficient punishment for crime and murder. I am also getting real tired of you evading the issue that not a single higher up who ok'd the treatment even got indicted.

PRISM merely describes a technical capability, much like the original subject of this posting. As of yet, I know of no "illegal" use of this capability cited anywhere.

The mere existence of the program is a violation already. The fact that the NSA is reading and saving email data is a violation of privacy.

I agree, that looks pretty shitty, but again, those are not cut and dry situations. Who did what, to whom, and when? It suffers the same issues that your other examples suffer from - it relies greatly on interpretation of evidence and testimony.

Oh please, as if the guys electrocuted, or strangled themselves to death. Only a shithead or a propagandist would even try to argue that there is anything ambiguous about "hundred detainees died and not a single person was convicted or even put on trial".

BTW, as you are harping on about "AUDIT IS BETTER LOLOL", you are missing the point. The argument is that the USA is routinely covering up crimes and completely uninterested into any investigations into abuse, murder or torture. Therefore the same security apparatus is entirely untrustworthy. "OH BUT THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT". Only a battered wife, a propagandist or a shithead would claim that. Which one are you?

[TheHammer]

That topic may require a debate thread of its own, but no it was not "cut and dry". Not in the same sense that an audit of records access would be. And that is the point I'm making.

Yes it was and nobody besides a propagandist or a shithead would debate that a war crime happened and was covered up. Which one are you?

If it is so cut and dry, please tell me exactly what happened then. Who did what, when, and to whom. And be specific.

I'm not excusing that there was a "cover-up", or that those involved weren't guilty. I'm saying its not "cut and dry" because determining who exactly did what isn't clear.

The punishments were outlined in the article I cited. See the section labeled Court-martials, non-judicial punishment, and administrative reprimands: Multiple sentences handed out, multiple careers ended. They may not have been as severe as you would have preferred, but they were none-the-less significant.

List the prison sentences and then explain how they are in any way sufficient punishment for crime and murder. I am also getting real tired of you evading the issue that not a single higher up who ok'd the treatment even got indicted.

Sentences ranged from 6-months to 10-years in addition to careers being ended. Again, I'm not debating whether you feel satisfied about the punishment fitting the crime, rather that there were significant consequences.

I don't think I'm off-base by saying that the average person would consider six months in prison, and the loss of their career to be significant consequences.

As for the "higher-ups" who did or didn't get indicted, Do you have audio recordings, certified letters, or emails etc. where these individuals said "YES, ITS OK TO ABUSE PRISONERS"? If not, then as stated previously, the evidence suffers from the human elements of interpretation and testimony and the flaws associated with it. The reason I haven't addressed it because it is irrelevant to my earlier point about the case - which still stands.

PRISM merely describes a technical capability, much like the original subject of this posting. As of yet, I know of no "illegal" use of this capability cited anywhere.

The mere existence of the program is a violation already. The fact that the NSA is reading and saving email data is a violation of privacy.

The mere existence of the program is not a violation of any law itself, it merely describes a technical capability, one that can be used legally. The program is governed under the FISA court and is consistent with US law as it exists now. I've seen no examples where they are reading email data outside of the scope of law. Congress is moving towards tighter controls on the program, and I've got no problems with that.

I agree, that looks pretty shitty, but again, those are not cut and dry situations. Who did what, to whom, and when? It suffers the same issues that your other examples suffer from - it relies greatly on interpretation of evidence and testimony.

Oh please, as if the guys electrocuted, or strangled themselves to death. Only a shithead or a propagandist would even try to argue that there is anything ambiguous about "hundred detainees died and not a single person was convicted or even put on trial".

BTW, as you are harping on about "AUDIT IS BETTER LOLOL", you are missing the point. The argument is that the USA is routinely covering up crimes and completely uninterested into any investigations into abuse, murder or torture. Therefore the same security apparatus is entirely untrustworthy. "OH BUT THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT". Only a battered wife, a propagandist or a shithead would claim that. Which one are you?

No, You seem to be missing the point: namely that abuse of an audited electronic records system is very easy to notice and document. The Government, and its employees don't have the same plausible deniability of "It was a war, and YOU WERENT THERE" that they've had with your examples. The only way to cover it up would require the government to go in and erase audit records, or to turn auditing off. Both actions themselves that are auditable and indefensible. Yes, AUDIT IS BETTER LOL. The NSA also must operate under the realization that if they are caught abusing this power, the public outcry would almost certainly result in it being taken away.

So no, I'm none of the three strawmen you described. I simply realize that this is a different situation than the events you described, and that government policy and officials change over time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ruling out that possibility that this time WON'T be any different, but I'm not going to presume abuse of a specific capability, nor call for its removal, before evidence is presented showing that abuse.

[Edi]

TheHammer, you're so full of shit it's oozing out of your ears. You simply repeat the same old lie about how there were "significant consequences" for the Abu Ghraib scandal when only enlisted men ever served jail time and just a few of those. No officer went to jail despite the orders coming right down from the fucking top down the entire chain of command and the later investigation by Antonio Taguba actually confirmed it all. Which in itself was a shocker, that he actually had the balls to come out and sacrifice his own career to unambiguously point the finger at the Bush administration. I'd consider that the only serious consequence of that scandal.

The Haditha incident was clear enough in that US troops claim to have taken fire from a building, then went on a rampage that resulted in two dozen non-combatant civilians being killed at close range and later accounts not matching evidence (what little was left after active efforts to destroy anything incriminating). It was not the only one of its kind, as exemplified by the incident where civilians, including children were tied up, then shot at close range and an airstrike called to bpmb the house to rubble to cover the war crime up. It has been clear for years that the US systematically covers up war crimes and protects its soldiers from consequences as much as possible even in cases where they are obviously guilty. Yet shitlicking pigfuckers like you will staunchly leap to the defense of these practices no matter what.

Then again, it's been clear since at least 1998 that no US serviceman need fear any consequences for killing or maiming non-Americans. Two US fighter pilots based in Aviano in Italy knowingly and willfully neglected established safely procedures, which directly led to the deaths of some 20 Italians when their planes cut a lift wire. These same assholes were then caught red-handed destroying and falsifying evidence during the ensuing investigation. Verdict from the court martial: Dishonorable discharge, no jail time. That does not even qualify as a slap on the wrist, despite US morons screeching about what it does to future job prospects.

Given that precedent, what fucking chance do brown people have of getting justice? You can pretend all you want that the US has done everything properly, but every time you do, you are actively being a dishonest sack of shit. Of course, if you hadn't spent all of your posting history already establishing that, some of us might be shocked instead of expecting it as a matter of course.

[TheHammer]

TheHammer, you're so full of shit it's oozing out of your ears. You simply repeat the same old lie about how there were "significant consequences" for the Abu Ghraib scandal when only enlisted men ever served jail time and just a few of those. No officer went to jail despite the orders coming right down from the fucking top down the entire chain of command and the later investigation by Antonio Taguba actually confirmed it all. Which in itself was a shocker, that he actually had the balls to come out and sacrifice his own career to unambiguously point the finger at the Bush administration.

There were significant punishments handed out despite your assertion otherwise. I don't care to debate the particulars of "who got away with" what vis-a-vis Abu Ghraib. My focus is on why things would be different under a program such as PRISM and Xkeyscore vs events such as this.

I'd consider that the only serious consequence of that scandal.

That's your opinion.

The Haditha incident was clear enough in that US troops claim to have taken fire from a building, then went on a rampage that resulted in two dozen non-combatant civilians being killed at close range and later accounts not matching evidence (what little was left after active efforts to destroy anything incriminating). It was not the only one of its kind, as exemplified by the incident where civilians, including children were tied up, then shot at close range and an airstrike called to bpmb the house to rubble to cover the war crime up. It has been clear for years that the US systematically covers up war crimes and protects its soldiers from consequences as much as possible even in cases where they are obviously guilty. Yet shitlicking pigfuckers like you will staunchly leap to the defense of these practices no matter what.

Please cite where I "leapt to the defense of" anything of the sort. I don't think you've been reading what I've actually been posting. Again, I'm merely contrasting the difference in the evidence gathered from a battlefied event vs evidence gathered from an audited system for access.

Then again, it's been clear since at least 1998 that no US serviceman need fear any consequences for killing or maiming non-Americans. Two US fighter pilots based in Aviano in Italy knowingly and willfully neglected established safely procedures, which directly led to the deaths of some 20 Italians when their planes cut a lift wire. These same assholes were then caught red-handed destroying and falsifying evidence during the ensuing investigation. Verdict from the court martial: Dishonorable discharge, no jail time. That does not even qualify as a slap on the wrist, despite US morons screeching about what it does to future job prospects.

That's patently not true. Again, as with Thanas you may not feel the punishment adequate, but that is a far cry from not needing to fear any consequences.

Given that precedent, what fucking chance do brown people have of getting justice? You can pretend all you want that the US has done everything properly, but every time you do, you are actively being a dishonest sack of shit. Of course, if you hadn't spent all of your posting history already establishing that, some of us might be shocked instead of expecting it as a matter of course.

How the fuck does "justice for brown people" have anything to do with the issue at hand? In fact, most of your post is entirely irrelevent to this discussion.

I've been dishonest in what way exactly? Where have I "pretended that the US has done everything properly"? Where have I posted anything along those lines?

[Metahive]

I hope you get paid well for your government shilling, Hammerman, because I'd hate knowing that someone could demean himself that much by sticking his tongue up the government's anus for free.

There were significant punishments handed out despite your assertion otherwise.

Bush isn't in jail and neither are Cheney or Rumsfeld. Or Obama, the Orwellian mass-murderer.

Look up fucking Command Responsibility. Just like a subordinate can't evade responsibility and excuse himself by claiming he was just following orders, a commander can't claim he wasn't knowing what his underlings were up to.

Murder, torture and lying to the american people resulting in thousands of deaths equals slaps on the wrist or nothing at all. Embarassing the government meanwhile gets you the full wrath of the country. Welcome to the Red, White and Blue Soviet Union Mk II, now with more rich fat cats at the helm and more apathetic citizens below.

[TheHammer]

I hope you get paid well for your government shilling, Hammerman, because I'd hate knowing that someone could demean himself that much by sticking his tongue up the government's anus for free.

There were significant punishments handed out despite your assertion otherwise.

Bush isn't in jail and neither are Cheney or Rumsfeld. Or Obama, the Orwellian mass-murderer.

Look up fucking Command Responsibility. Just like a subordinate can't evade responsibility and excuse himself by claiming he was just following orders, a commander can't claim he wasn't knowing what his underlings were up to.

Murder, torture and lying to the american people resulting in thousands of deaths equals slaps on the wrist or nothing at all. Embarassing the government meanwhile gets you the full wrath of the country. Welcome to the Red, White and Blue Soviet Union Mk II, now with more rich fat cats at the helm and more apathetic citizens below.

I thought about actually writing up something to respond to this, but as this is essentially a poorly written rehash of what Edi and Thanas have already said, I'll refer you to my previous two postings as to why your statements are 1) Wholly irrelevent to this discussion and 2) suffer significantly from hyperbole.