How the NSA collects everything you do on the internet

[TheHammer]

So, TheHammer, you have been provided with examples of abuse, both potential and actual, court opinions on the constitutionality of their policies, examples of past conduct by the US government as a whole and the NSA in particular, yet you still repeat your claims that they have electronic auditing so there's no reason to fret? And when people address that point, you just endlessly repet it over and over and over and over and over again?

This is classic stonewalling. Stop it, and address people's arguments.

What argument am I not addressing?

Was my last paragraph in my last statement not clear?

What I'm seeing from the various articles is that there have been issues but that they have also made strides to correct those issues by increasing oversight, reforming processes, and fixing technical glitches. That's what I would expect and hope to see. It is by no means perfect, (and no one is saying it is) but I also see nothing particularly aggregious in what has been leaked so far. If evidence does come out where they are consistenly failing to improve issues, then I will gladly join the growing chorus calling for removal of these tools.

You would be correct that I'm saying fretting over potential abuse is something we should not be doing. Chasing an endless number of what-ifs leads only to paranoia. As for as actual abuse, we don't have any major breaches of privacy that I'm aware of. At best we know that some incidents have occured, but in the context that they were addressed by both the courts and the NSA itself. That's evidence to me that auditing is working for its intended purpose.

The fact that the FISA court did review and forbid certain techniques is reason to have more confidence in the system, not less. It means that the NSA is being watched, and its policies are not being "rubber-stamped" as some have contended. I read a bit of the court ruling that NettiWelho posted. It's rather informative as to the thought processes behind the FISA/NSA relationship.

The leaks also illustrate that when issues were uncovered via auditing that neither FISA nor the NSA sat on their hands. They took steps to bring the programs into legal compliance through technical fixes and evolving training methods. Again, that's what I was expecting and hoping to see in a program such as this.

One suggestion to many of you: Read the actual documents leaked/released rather than just the news stories that paraphrase them. It makes them not nearly as nefarious as some of the sensationlized headlines might have you believe. I've also found that many of these news writer's interpretations (either because they lack expertise, or because it makes for a more "interesting" story) are reaches at best, if not outright incorrect.

[K. A. Pital]

You would be correct that I'm saying fretting over potential abuse is something we should not be doing. Chasing an endless number of what-ifs leads only to paranoia.

Even here you are wrong - if the potential for abuse or disaster is high, we actually fret and try to solve the issue. This is why biological weapons were banned - they are too dangerous to handle even though no pandemia related to bioweapons has occured.

The fact that the FISA court did review and forbid certain techniques is reason to have more confidence in the system, not less.

Actually, it is not comforting at all. As you have said, they are motivated not by actually caring about people but rather by self-preservation. This means that the incentive is to seek and reduce violations that threaten the system. Those which do not are of minor interest and the government is usually disincentivized from reducing violations that do not threaten it in any way.

[TheHammer]

You would be correct that I'm saying fretting over potential abuse is something we should not be doing. Chasing an endless number of what-ifs leads only to paranoia.

Even here you are wrong - if the potential for abuse or disaster is high, we actually fret and try to solve the issue. This is why biological weapons were banned - they are too dangerous to handle even though no pandemia related to bioweapons has occured.

The difference is that bioweapons can't be used in a legal or safe manner. The major fear with them is that they could get beyond human control once unleashed, hence the ban. The PRISM and Xkeyscore programs can be used in a safe and legal manner, and there is oversight in place to make sure that they do so. I don't fear these programs anymore than I would fear the fact that the government has tanks, nuclear missiles, bombers etc despite the fact that those too would have potential for abuse or causing disaster.

The fact that the FISA court did review and forbid certain techniques is reason to have more confidence in the system, not less.

Actually, it is not comforting at all. As you have said, they are motivated not by actually caring about people but rather by self-preservation. This means that the incentive is to seek and reduce violations that threaten the system. Those which do not are of minor interest and the government is usually disincentivized from reducing violations that do not threaten it in any way.

The NSA has a job to do, and I'd expect it to try and use every legal means at its disposal to do that job. At times that means flirting with the line of legality. Of course they are going to interpret the statutes pertaining to them in the most favorable way possible. And sometimes those interpretations will go too far. That's specifically why there is oversight from FISA, the Justice Dept, etc to slap their hands when they reach across that line rather than right up to it.

History is full instances where laws, police techniques, etc that were used for a time, and later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. That's how the system is supposed to work. It seems to me that one of the big fears was that the FISA court wasn't willing to do any hand slapping no matter what the NSA did. That any request sent to them was given blanket approval. However as the leaks on the FISA/NSA interactions, and later the released documents have shown this is not the case.

[Metahive]

The difference is that bioweapons can't be used in a legal or safe manner. The major fear with them is that they could get beyond human control once unleashed, hence the ban. The PRISM and Xkeyscore programs can be used in a safe and legal manner, and there is oversight in place to make sure that they do so. I don't fear these programs anymore than I would fear the fact that the government has tanks, nuclear missiles, bombers etc despite the fact that those too would have potential for abuse or causing disaster.

Yes, it's of course entirely unheard of in the history of mankind that surveillance states ever also lead to government sanctioned abuse thereof! Ever heard of the STASI, you pig-ignorant piece of sheepdung? Want the US to become like the GDR? O I guess you already brimming with anticipation for the day when you can become IM Hammel and be a government approved snitch, asshole.

[K. A. Pital]

The difference is that bioweapons can't be used in a legal or safe manner.

You are an idiot, right? Because so as long as bioweapons are not legally prohibited, they can be used in a legal manner. We made them illegal.

I don't fear these programs anymore than I would fear the fact that the government has tanks, nuclear missiles, bombers etc despite the fact that those too would have potential for abuse or causing disaster.

That is because you are an intellectually miserable person. Those who are not as miserable as you usually understand that nuclear weapons are an extreme danger which we tolerate only because there's no better way as of now.

The NSA has a job to do, and I'd expect it to try and use every legal means at its disposal to do that job. At times that means flirting with the line of legality.

You are clearly joking here, right? You understand that the very same logic was applied to create the process of clean torture, right? To circumvent the anti-torture conventions? Are you that dense that "flirting with the line of legality" (criss-crossing it = ignoring rules which have been set as safeguards) is okay with you?

History is full instances where laws, police techniques, etc that were used for a time, and later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Finally there's a sensible position, or at least grains of it. But still it is very strange. So will the information be available to the Constitutional Court, and will the Constitutional Court decide on the legality of the program? You support the disclosure of this information to the CC, so that it may exercise judgement, and not to a special court meant to help the system preserve itself?

And tell me, if a court legalizes torture, mass surveillance or development of bioweapons, does that make it a right? Or the fact that it was wrong is what made these things illegal in the first place, not that they are, per se, illegal?

[TheHammer]

The difference is that bioweapons can't be used in a legal or safe manner.

You are an idiot, right? Because so as long as bioweapons are not legally prohibited, they can be used in a legal manner. We made them illegal.

Um no shit Sherlock. How do you think things are made legal or illegal? What's your point? Oh you have none. Thanks.

I was drawing a contrast to the NSA programs which can be used legally and safely, versus your analogy to bioweapons which have been deemed unsafe, and subsequently made illegal. Sorry you missed the point.

I don't fear these programs anymore than I would fear the fact that the government has tanks, nuclear missiles, bombers etc despite the fact that those too would have potential for abuse or causing disaster.

That is because you are an intellectually miserable person. Those who are not as miserable as you usually understand that nuclear weapons are an extreme danger which we tolerate only because there's no better way as of now.

Do you think you're making some great revelation here? No shit Nuclear weapons are an extreme danger. But I don't see people freaking out because the U.S. has them like they are freaking out over the NSA PRISM program. Even if you take the nuclear weapons out of the equation, they still have all those conventional missiles, tanks, bombs, etc that could "potentially be abused".

The NSA has a job to do, and I'd expect it to try and use every legal means at its disposal to do that job. At times that means flirting with the line of legality.

You are clearly joking here, right? You understand that the very same logic was applied to create the process of clean torture, right? To circumvent the anti-torture conventions? Are you that dense that "flirting with the line of legality" (criss-crossing it = ignoring rules which have been set as safeguards) is okay with you?

No, I'm not joking, but don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying it is to be expected that law enforcement agencies are going to go right up to their legal limits in terms of accomplishing their task. I certainly don't approve of torture, but if someone can commit torture without having broken any laws, then I think the real problem is that the laws need revision.

But we're not talking about torture here... Probably a more accurate scenario would be to look at NYC's stop and risk laws. Police were allowed to use this technique, and so they did. Taking full advantage of it, right up until it was deemed to be unconstitutional. The NSA is going to do the same thing with its virtual stop-n-frisk, up to the extent that the law allows. The FISA court exists to make sure that they go no further than that - including protections in the Constitution.

History is full instances where laws, police techniques, etc that were used for a time, and later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Finally there's a sensible position, or at least grains of it. But still it is very strange. So will the information be available to the Constitutional Court, and will the Constitutional Court decide on the legality of the program? You support the disclosure of this information to the CC, so that it may exercise judgement, and not to a special court meant to help the system preserve itself?

The Supreme Court has authority to call up any case it wishes. I imagine if it became clear that the FISA court was failing to do its job that they would step in. The judges on the FISA court are legitimate Federal judges and are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court to 7-year terms. They are not employees of the NSA, nor do they have any real incentive to protect anything the NSA does. it was created as an over-sight to the necessity of secret surveillance while protecting the rights of citizens.

And tell me, if a court legalizes torture, mass surveillance or development of bioweapons, does that make it a right? Or the fact that it was wrong is what made these things illegal in the first place, not that they are, per se, illegal?

A court can't make these things legal. That would require a legislative act. Theoretically, the legislation could certainly "legalize" development of bioweapons, torture, and surveillance (at least so long as it does not violate constitutional provisions). Would I be "ok" with that? No, but again that's where we are moving down the path of paranoia about what "could happen", rather than what is likely to happen.

[K. A. Pital]

I was drawing a contrast to the NSA programs which can be used legally and safely

No. The NSA programs included law overstepping even by closed court standards. So they could not be used even without breaking the law by the Rubberstamp School of Law.

As for safety, I said: just like bioweapons, mass surveillance is an inherently unsafe dictatorial tool. Sorry.

[TheHammer]

I was drawing a contrast to the NSA programs which can be used legally and safely

No. The NSA programs included law overstepping even by closed court standards. So they could not be used even without breaking the law by the Rubberstamp School of Law.

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

As for safety, I said: just like bioweapons, mass surveillance is an inherently unsafe dictatorial tool. Sorry.

You said this where?

Regardless, I believe you have to strike a balance. The NSA is always going to have a capability of "mass surveillance". If you remove the tool entirely, you make it nigh impossible for it to do its job effectively in the modern world. But at the same time, there needs to be legal constraints as to how it uses that capability, and oversight to ensure those legal constraights are followed. Tentatively, that appears to be what is happening.However, if I saw evidence that those constraints weren't being enforced, then I'd be in favor of removing or restructuring the NSA's capabilities to ensure that they are.

[Terralthra]

The Supreme Court has authority to call up any case it wishes. I imagine if it became clear that the FISA court was failing to do its job that they would step in.

Err....no, it doesn't. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases in which ambassadors or a State is a party. In all other cases, it is an appellate court, and only has jurisdiction when appealed to by a party to a case before another court. Of course, since no one actually represents the other side at the FISC, the only appeal would be from the NSA et al. on the <1% of cases the FISC rules against them.

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

When you say "pushed the boundary of legality," do you mean "intentionally misled the FISC"? Because that's what actually happened.

[TheHammer]

The Supreme Court has authority to call up any case it wishes. I imagine if it became clear that the FISA court was failing to do its job that they would step in.

Err....no, it doesn't. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases in which ambassadors or a State is a party. In all other cases, it is an appellate court, and only has jurisdiction when appealed to by a party to a case before another court. Of course, since no one actually represents the other side at the FISC, the only appeal would be from the NSA et al. on the <1% of cases the FISC rules against them.

Well right, someone would have to make an appeal, or file suit against the government over something the NSA or the FISA court did. But the point I was making is that ultimately SCOTUS would have jurisdiction over a constitutional issue, which seemed to be Stas' concern.

I understand that there is no response from the "other side" when it comes to FISA warrants, but is that any different from a warrant issued in a domestic court? Typically, it is based solely information given by police to a judge in order to secure a warrant for a search. This information is generally given under oath, but there is no response from the "other side" until actual charges are filed, usually well after the search warrant is executed. But, don't take my word for it:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 29742.html

"The suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant is issued and therefore cannot contest the issue of probable cause at that time. However, the suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant before trial."

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

When you say "pushed the boundary of legality," do you mean "intentionally misled the FISC"? Because that's what actually happened.

Please provide evidence where they "intentionally mislead" the FISC. I'm not talking simply posting a link to a news article (and thus some writer's interpretation), but show me something from an actual leaked or released document that backs up that statement.

And to be clear, I'm not even saying you're wrong at this point, but I have yet to see an actual quote from a leaked document to support the assertion that the NSA "intentionally mislead" the FISA court. If you can find one I'd love to see it.

[Terralthra]

The Supreme Court has authority to call up any case it wishes. I imagine if it became clear that the FISA court was failing to do its job that they would step in.

Err....no, it doesn't. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in cases in which ambassadors or a State is a party. In all other cases, it is an appellate court, and only has jurisdiction when appealed to by a party to a case before another court. Of course, since no one actually represents the other side at the FISC, the only appeal would be from the NSA et al. on the <1% of cases the FISC rules against them.

Well right, someone would have to make an appeal, or file suit against the government over something the NSA or the FISA court did. But the point I was making is that ultimately SCOTUS would have jurisdiction over a constitutional issue, which seemed to be Stas' concern.

I understand that there is no response from the "other side" when it comes to FISA warrants, but is that any different from a warrant issued in a domestic court? Typically, it is based solely information given by police to a judge in order to secure a warrant for a search. This information is generally given under oath, but there is no response from the "other side" until actual charges are filed, usually well after the search warrant is executed. But, don't take my word for it:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 29742.html

"The suspect, who may be connected with the place to be searched, is not present when the warrant is issued and therefore cannot contest the issue of probable cause at that time. However, the suspect can later challenge the validity of the warrant before trial."

The problem is that under typical circumstances, evidence gathered under such a case would be presented in court, at which time the defense can move to exclude the evidence as improperly gathered, or it can be grounds for an appeal. In the NSA's case, the other intelligence services (e.g. the SOD) are instructed to take evidence passed from the NSA and use it to falsify a secondary means of having obtained the evidence, so as to prevent revealing the original source of the evidence in court. Evidence is thus illegally gathered, covered up, and used to convict, without any notice to the person being surveiled that they were ever surveiled. And since in order to appeal to the SCOTUS that surveillance was unconstitutional, one must know one was surveiled and be able to show this to the court (ie provide standing), there is little chance that the SCOTUS will ever receive such a case that is formed well enough to hear (e.g. Clapper v. Amnesty International). In short, the idea that there is effective judicial oversight on the constitutionality of the various surveillance programs is a myth.

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

When you say "pushed the boundary of legality," do you mean "intentionally misled the FISC"? Because that's what actually happened.

Please provide evidence where they "intentionally mislead" the FISC. I'm not talking simply posting a link to a news article (and thus some writer's interpretation), but show me something from an actual leaked or released document that backs up that statement.

And to be clear, I'm not even saying you're wrong at this point, but I have yet to see an actual quote from a leaked document to support the assertion that the NSA "intentionally mislead" the FISA court. If you can find one I'd love to see it.

Please see page 16, footnote 14. That is the FISC itself noting that the government has deliberately misrepresented the intelligence gathering activities...and then later revealed the misrepresentation, leaving open the possibility that there are yet more misrepresentations that the government has not yet revealed to the cursory oversight they do have. Since there's no adversary to try to dispute or rebut misrepresentation, the judicial process is inherently broken.

[TheHammer]

The problem is that under typical circumstances, evidence gathered under such a case would be presented in court, at which time the defense can move to exclude the evidence as improperly gathered, or it can be grounds for an appeal. In the NSA's case, the other intelligence services (e.g. the SOD) are instructed to take evidence passed from the NSA and use it to falsify a secondary means of having obtained the evidence, so as to prevent revealing the original source of the evidence in court. Evidence is thus illegally gathered, covered up, and used to convict, without any notice to the person being surveiled that they were ever surveiled. And since in order to appeal to the SCOTUS that surveillance was unconstitutional, one must know one was surveiled and be able to show this to the court (ie provide standing), there is little chance that the SCOTUS will ever receive such a case that is formed well enough to hear (e.g. Clapper v. Amnesty International). In short, the idea that there is effective judicial oversight on the constitutionality of the various surveillance programs is a myth.

I admit it would take a particularly agregious abuse to be something that could be adequately heard and answered for in court. The example Snowden gives of "reading a federal judge's email", might fall in that line. Other numerous minor offenses such as inappropriate access of "meta-data" might not, but then you have to ascertain whether or not there was actual "harm".

The problem is, I don't know of a better solution. The alternative to having some clandestine oversight, is to have no oversight, or to simply not bother with secret surveillance at all. In the modern world, it seems like the latter option is unworkable as it would put the U.S. at a severe disadvantage against competing nations in the world.

I understand the fear people have. I've certainly considered the position they've taken. They don't fear being prosecuted because obviously such information gained illegally would be inadmissable in court. They worry about being targeted by the government illegally. Assassinated, blackmailed, sent off to a gulag. They feel that corporations own the government and we are all puppets and pawns to be played against each other.

Could they be right? Maybe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. But it's also a rather pessimistic point of view. My nature leads me to give people the benefit of the doubt. In regards to the NSA programs I've given them the benefit of the doubt, pending proof to the contrary, that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing without going too far.

As i've said before, I still have yet to see any particularly agregious violation of privacy. As noted above, a disclosure where an NSA agent viewed a federal judge's email would fit that criteria. It seems they've made various fuckups along the way, but I believe the measure should be in how they fix those fuckups when they occur.

Please see page 16, footnote 14. That is the FISC itself noting that the government has deliberately misrepresented the intelligence gathering activities...and then later revealed the misrepresentation, leaving open the possibility that there are yet more misrepresentations that the government has not yet revealed to the cursory oversight they do have. Since there's no adversary to try to dispute or rebut misrepresentation, the judicial process is inherently broken.

That is good to know. However, the disconnect I see is this. The Judge in question says that he is disturbed about a misrepresentation, but the only way he knows about the representation is because it was disclosed by the government. Such a disclosure, if the government's intent was to misrepresent, would seem rather illogical would it not?

As to your point about the judicial process being broken, I'd have to disagree. It is not broken, it is merely imperfect. The fact that you and I are able to read that ruling, and that the ruling does rebuke government actions is evidence that it does work to an extent. Do you have some suggestions that will improve the system while still allowing the NSA to do its job?

[Gaidin]

The problem is that under typical circumstances, evidence gathered under such a case would be presented in court, at which time the defense can move to exclude the evidence as improperly gathered, or it can be grounds for an appeal. In the NSA's case, the other intelligence services (e.g. the SOD) are instructed to take evidence passed from the NSA and use it to falsify a secondary means of having obtained the evidence, so as to prevent revealing the original source of the evidence in court. Evidence is thus illegally gathered, covered up, and used to convict, without any notice to the person being surveiled that they were ever surveiled. And since in order to appeal to the SCOTUS that surveillance was unconstitutional, one must know one was surveiled and be able to show this to the court (ie provide standing), there is little chance that the SCOTUS will ever receive such a case that is formed well enough to hear (e.g. Clapper v. Amnesty International). In short, the idea that there is effective judicial oversight on the constitutionality of the various surveillance programs is a myth.

Now that my question's finally somewhat been answered, I have another. What if they're looking for intelligence, and not evidence? There is a difference between the two for an agency like the FBI or the NSA, controversial FISA warrants aside for the moment.

[Thanas]

Could they be right? Maybe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. But it's also a rather pessimistic point of view. My nature leads me to give people the benefit of the doubt. In regards to the NSA programs I've given them the benefit of the doubt, pending proof to the contrary, that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing without going too far.

You mean, the multiple times where they have been caught lying or ruining the lives of people who reveal their abuses is not enough for you, Squealer?

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality

If I shoot you, am I pushing the boundary of murder?

and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

A rubberstamp can be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything. Black/white fallacy here.

Tentatively, that appears to be what is happening.However, if I saw evidence that those constraints weren't being enforced, then I'd be in favor of removing or restructuring the NSA's capabilities to ensure that they are.

You mean, like the evidence where they mislead judges? Like the evidence where they lied to a congressional inquiry? Like the evidence that nobody has been punished for fucking up?

Oh wait, that apparently isn't enough.

As to your point about the judicial process being broken, I'd have to disagree. It is not broken, it is merely imperfect. The fact that you and I are able to read that ruling, and that the ruling does rebuke government actions is evidence that it does work to an extent. Do you have some suggestions that will improve the system while still allowing the NSA to do its job?

Let the judges view the whole evidence. These judges have handled secret information for decade(s), they should be trusted.
Also, the NSA should disclose their data collection to an independent panel to allow an independent congressional inquiry into just what they are targeting and how they handle the data, including how much data of americans is stored for how long. Such panel should be convened by congress, without NSA veto rights pertaining to membership.
Also, any data resulting from intentional or unintentional violations should be deleted, not stored for all eternity.
The NSA should also justify its enormous resource allocation needs to the congressional panel.

[Metahive]

I gotta' ask, when in the history of mankind has a state which entertained a security apparatus that liberally violated the privacy of citizens with the tacit approval of the government not lead to an eventual abridgment of basic rights? HammelSquealer said biological weapons were always unsafe but he's wrong there too, biological weapons were used in the friggin' Middle Ages* and they didn't always spin out of control. Surveillance states meanwhile did with regularity become authoritarian and oppressive.

Also, did anyone follow the recent harassment of the Guardian by British security? In the 60's german politicians attempted the same thing, it became the Spiegel Affäre** and led to chancellor Adenauer's resignation. I wonder if the British will be as defensive of their basic rights.




*In medieval siege warfare, plague-ridden carcasses were sometimes flung over castle walls and corpses used to poison water sources
**The Spiegel is a weekly news magazine, in the 60's it revealed that the german army wasn't quite ready for combat yet despite the politician's speeches to the contrary. The minister of defense, Franz-Josef Strauss, reacted by basically occupying the editorial office of the Spiegel with police

[K. A. Pital]

Also, did anyone follow the recent harassment of the Guardian by British security? In the 60's german politicians attempted the same thing, it became the Spiegel Affäre** and led to chancellor Adenauer's resignation. I wonder if the British will be as defensive of their basic rights.

*sigh* Don't count on it. From what I see, the reaction has been pretty much "That's par the course". Even though it involved guys breaking into the newspaper and destroying a laptop's hard drives, a senseless act of intimidation and nothing more.

[Metahive]

Ah, the magic of the Overton Window. Just move it in the right way and the sheeple shall meekly accept what they would have fought against 20 years ago. Also, make sure there's enough Beer'n Reality TV. It worked for the Romans after all.

This is why I'm so angry about HammelSquealer, he's consciously or unconsciously helping this process along!

[Metahive]

Also, here's some more evidence about how the government can be trusted to police itself (not):

In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj- ... ar/5346637

35 years for Manning, blanket immunity for war criminals whose crimes Manning revealed. How much more, HammelSquealer, how much more shit do you need until you concede your bullshit? How much more until you admit that the government is thoroughly uninterested in punishing it's own? How much more? Do you need the administration to kill babies and drink their blood in the streets before you back down? I don't fucking hope so!

[salm]

Funny, the British Government might be leaking itself:

Source

The Independent this morning published an article - which it repeatedly claims comes from "documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden" - disclosing that "Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies." This is the first time the Independent has published any revelations purportedly from the NSA documents, and it's the type of disclosure which journalists working directly with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have thus far avoided.

That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:

I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.

"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."

In other words: right as there is a major scandal over the UK's abusive and lawless exploitation of its Terrorism Act - with public opinion against the use of the Terrorism law to detain David Miranda - and right as the UK government is trying to tell a court that there are serious dangers to the public safety from these documents, there suddenly appears exactly the type of disclosure the UK government wants but that has never happened before. That is why Snowden is making clear: despite the Independent's attempt to make it appears that it is so, he is not their source for that disclosure. Who, then, is?

The US government itself has constantly used this tactic: aggressively targeting those who disclose embarrassing or incriminating information about the government in the name of protecting the sanctity of classified information, while simultaneously leaking classified information prolifically when doing so advances their political interests.

One other matter about the Independent article: it strongly suggests that there is some agreement in place to restrict the Guardian's ongoing reporting about the NSA documents. Speaking for myself, let me make one thing clear: I'm not aware of, nor subject to, any agreement that imposes any limitations of any kind on the reporting that I am doing on these documents. I would never agree to any such limitations. As I've made repeatedly clear, bullying tactics of the kind we saw this week will not deter my reporting or the reporting of those I'm working with in any way. I'm working hard on numerous new and significant NSA stories and intend to publish them the moment they are ready.
Related question

For those in the media and elsewhere arguing that the possession and transport of classified information is a crime: does that mean you believe that not only Daniel Ellsberg committed a felony, but also the New York Times reporters and editors did when they received, possessed, copied, transported and published the thousands of pages of top-secret documents known as the Pentagon Papers?

Do you also believe the Washington Post committed felonies when receiving and then publishing top secret information that the Bush administration was maintaining a network for CIA black sites around the world, or when the New York Times revealed in 2005 the top secret program whereby the NSA had created a warrantlesss eavesdropping program aimed at US citizens?

Or is this some newly created standard of criminality that applies only to our NSA reporting? Do media figures who are advocating that possessing or transmitting classified information is a crime really not comprehend the precedent they are setting for investigative journalism?
UPDATE

The Independent's Oliver Wright just tweeted the following:

"For the record: The Independent was not leaked or 'duped' into publishing today's front page story by the Government."

Leaving aside the fact that the Independent article quotes an anonymous "senior Whitehall source", nobody said they were "duped" into publishing anything. The question is: who provided them this document or the information in it? It clearly did not come from Snowden or any of the journalists with whom he has directly worked. The Independent provided no source information whatsoever for their rather significant disclosure of top secret information. Did they see any such documents, and if so, who, generally, provided it to them? I don't mean, obviously, that they should identify their specific source, but at least some information about their basis for these claims, given how significant they are, would be warranted. One would think that they would not have published something like this without either seeing the documents or getting confirmation from someone who has: the class of people who qualify is very small, and includes, most prominently and obviously, the UK government itself.

Source

[TheHammer]

Could they be right? Maybe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. But it's also a rather pessimistic point of view. My nature leads me to give people the benefit of the doubt. In regards to the NSA programs I've given them the benefit of the doubt, pending proof to the contrary, that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing without going too far.

You mean, the multiple times where they have been caught lying or ruining the lives of people who reveal their abuses is not enough for you, Squealer?

I still have yet to see any major privacy violations come out of these programs. There are aspects, particularly used at its inset, that don't sit well, but I feel like they've worked to improve many of those aspects. Isn't it somewhat telling that the majority of these incidents are from 2008-2011, and very little reported that has occured in the last couple of years?

Just curious, does the name calling make you feel superior? Or is it merely an attempt to poison the well?

Some of the techniques they used pushed the boundary of legality

If I shoot you, am I pushing the boundary of murder?

Yes, depending on the circumstances. There might be a case where shooting me was perfectly legal, or a grey area where it may or may not be legal.

and the court pushed them back. That's how it is supposed to work. And again, a rubberstamp wouldn't have pushed them back, it would have given a weasily legal justification to allow them to continue to push those bounds.

A rubberstamp can be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything. Black/white fallacy here.

No, a rubberstamp can't be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything it comes across. That's all a fucking rubberstamp does. The actual black/white fallcy is referring to the court as a "rubberstamp" in the first place.

I find it fucking ironic that you'd even bring up a black/white fallacy since it seems pretty clear to me that you only see every argument in other one or the other. Meanwhile, I'm firmly over here in the grey territory seeking to balance the needs of national security with the needs to maintain privacy.

Tentatively, that appears to be what is happening.However, if I saw evidence that those constraints weren't being enforced, then I'd be in favor of removing or restructuring the NSA's capabilities to ensure that they are.

You mean, like the evidence where they mislead judges? Like the evidence where they lied to a congressional inquiry? Like the evidence that nobody has been punished for fucking up?

Oh wait, that apparently isn't enough.

As I noted earlier, if the intent were to mislead the judges, then it would seem rather stupid for them to later reveal to those same judges that they had mislead them would it not? It's equally likely, it not more-so, that a mis-representation was unintentional, or that the court misunderstood what it was told previously. In any case, what this does tell you is that the relationship between the NSA and FISA isn't the cozy rubberstampy one that has been implied. At times it has been rather contentious as these programs have evolved. That's not neccessarily a bad thing...

As for punishments for fucking up, as noted previously we don't have evidence either way on that point.

As to your point about the judicial process being broken, I'd have to disagree. It is not broken, it is merely imperfect. The fact that you and I are able to read that ruling, and that the ruling does rebuke government actions is evidence that it does work to an extent. Do you have some suggestions that will improve the system while still allowing the NSA to do its job?

Let the judges view the whole evidence. These judges have handled secret information for decade(s), they should be trusted.
Also, the NSA should disclose their data collection to an independent panel to allow an independent congressional inquiry into just what they are targeting and how they handle the data, including how much data of americans is stored for how long. Such panel should be convened by congress, without NSA veto rights pertaining to membership.
Also, any data resulting from intentional or unintentional violations should be deleted, not stored for all eternity.
The NSA should also justify its enormous resource allocation needs to the congressional panel.

I would agree with all of those suggestions.

It would seem to me that the FISA court was meant to act as that independent panel, but I think having an independent panel acting as a privacy advocate to challenge NSA assertions and methods wouldn't be a bad idea.

As to the data retention, if I was reading the FISA court ruling correctly, was specifically addressed by the court. I believe they had concerns about the 5-year retention that the NSA was using at the time, so I'm curious if that has been changed. I think a full disclosure by the government as to its data retention policy is a perfectly reasonable request..

As to access that Judges have to information, it's still not exactly clear what they can and can't see. It would seem to me that they would have full access to the information, if they wished, even if it's not typically all presented to them. As I said before, I really would love to see what a FISA warrant request looks like, and what the whole process entails.

[K. A. Pital]

No, a rubberstamp can't be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything it comes across. That's all a fucking rubberstamp does.

That is wrong. Sometimes rubberstamp institutions in the USSR exercised the blocking ability to stop something, but it did not change their general nature of rubberstamps after 1928 when internal opposition was more or less crushed. It is a fallacy that "rubberstamp" is a binary condition.

[TheHammer]

No, a rubberstamp can't be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything it comes across. That's all a fucking rubberstamp does.

That is wrong. Sometimes rubberstamp institutions in the USSR exercised the blocking ability to stop something, but it did not change their general nature of rubberstamps after 1928 when internal opposition was more or less crushed. It is a fallacy that "rubberstamp" is a binary condition.

You'll need to clarify what you're saying here as it's not exactly clear... If an institution exercises its authority to block something then it is not a rubber stamp. The entire premise of a rubber-stamp, in the context of this discussion, is that they don't exercise the authority to block anything sent to them for approval. An example of a well known rubber stamp would be the British Monarchy. It is a "rubber-stamp", that tentatively approves every request sent to it by parliament without review or consideration.

The FISA court does not fit that criteria. The recently released FISA court judgement reveals that much.

[Gaidin]

No, a rubberstamp can't be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything it comes across. That's all a fucking rubberstamp does.

That is wrong. Sometimes rubberstamp institutions in the USSR exercised the blocking ability to stop something, but it did not change their general nature of rubberstamps after 1928 when internal opposition was more or less crushed. It is a fallacy that "rubberstamp" is a binary condition.

You'll need to clarify what you're saying here as it's not exactly clear... If an institution exercises its authority to block something then it is not a rubber stamp. The entire premise of a rubber-stamp, in the context of this discussion, is that they don't exercise the authority to block anything sent to them for approval. An example of a well known rubber stamp would be the British Monarchy. It is a "rubber-stamp", that tentatively approves every request sent to it by parliament without review or consideration.

The FISA court does not fit that criteria. The recently released FISA court judgement reveals that much.

Sometimes the authority doesn't want something. This isn't necassarily an example of such a case, but in such a case the rubber stamp blocks it.

[Thanas]

I still have yet to see any major privacy violations come out of these programs. There are aspects, particularly used at its inset, that don't sit well, but I feel like they've worked to improve many of those aspects. Isn't it somewhat telling that the majority of these incidents are from 2008-2011, and very little reported that has occured in the last couple of years?

Not that telling considering this is just a small subset of data from just one facility.

Just curious, does the name calling make you feel superior? Or is it merely an attempt to poison the well?

Neither, in your case it provides amusement and mirth.

Yes, depending on the circumstances. There might be a case where shooting me was perfectly legal, or a grey area where it may or may not be legal.

Those are extraordinary circumstances. The intent to shoot at you in full knowledge of "this is breaking the law" is still punishable and illegal.

No, a rubberstamp can't be a rubberstamp without rubberstamping everything it comes across. That's all a fucking rubberstamp does.

Even Nazi courts declared some undesirables to be innocent. Doesn't mean the Volksgerichtshof wasn't a rubberstamp. Your insistence on moral rigidity and 100% stances is disturbing and lacks flexibility. T

As for punishments for fucking up, as noted previously we don't have evidence either way on that point.

So there were no punishments.

It would seem to me that the FISA court was meant to act as that independent panel, but I think having an independent panel acting as a privacy advocate to challenge NSA assertions and methods wouldn't be a bad idea.

As to the data retention, if I was reading the FISA court ruling correctly, was specifically addressed by the court. I believe they had concerns about the 5-year retention that the NSA was using at the time, so I'm curious if that has been changed. I think a full disclosure by the government as to its data retention policy is a perfectly reasonable request..

As to access that Judges have to information, it's still not exactly clear what they can and can't see. It would seem to me that they would have full access to the information, if they wished, even if it's not typically all presented to them. As I said before, I really would love to see what a FISA warrant request looks like, and what the whole process entails.

We agree on that here.

[Thanas]

Oh noes. Turns out analysts deliberately broke rules. Who woulda thought this fine, upstanding organization with such effective self-policing and auditing could have let this happen?

US intelligence analysts have deliberately broken rules designed to prevent them from spying on Americans, according to an admission by the National Security Agency that undermines fresh insistences from Barack Obama on Friday that all breaches were inadvertent.

A report by the NSA's inspector general is understood to have uncovered a number of examples of analysts choosing to ignore so-called "minimisation procedures" aimed at protecting privacy, according to officials speaking to Bloomberg.

"Over the past decade, very rare instances of wilful violations of NSA's authorities have been found," the NSA confirmed in a statement to the news agency. "NSA takes very seriously allegations of misconduct, and cooperates fully with any investigations – responding as appropriate. NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency's authorities."

Though likely to be a small subset of the thousands of supposedly accidental rule breaches recently revealed by the Washington Post, these cases flatly contradict assurances given by President Obama that the NSA was only ever acting in good faith.

I await your concession, squealer.