"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
who? this guy?I'll just go with the DNI's public statement
any type of data at all?"
Last edited by The Prof; 06-11-13 at 07:09 PM.
LOL!great public speaker
he answered, as any obama nsa must, in the "least untruthful manner possible"
Fire DNI James Clapper: He lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. - Slate Magazine
the hanging judge is unaware?
then maybe that 's what he should have saida topic that never should have been addressed in open session
instead of lying
if not snowden, who?
Lawmakers rebut Obama's data defense - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com“I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed [at the administration's classified briefings],” said [Congressman Aaron] Schock. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.”
Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claims that Congress was briefed"By the way,” [Senator Jeff] Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”
U.S. is spying on Web servers - Philly.comThe only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
US government invokes special privilege to stop scrutiny of data mining | World news | guardian.co.uk
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones
according to mojo's david corn, the fisa court wrote an 86 page report finding the nsa's actions "unreasonable under the 4th amendment"
the doj, citing privilege, is stonewalling the publication of those problematic pages
nsa keith alexander lied 14 times to congressman hank johnson, also in sworn testimony
Horrible timing: National Security Agency lists 'Digital Network Exploitation Analyst' internship opening as controversy swirls over digital snooping scandal | Mail Online
Yes, and Franklin and the founding fathers already struck that balance. We are LESS in danger of terrorist attacks in 2013 than we were when the Constitution was inked, and yet the government continues to create bigger, more intrusive programs to peer into our private lives.
Americans have spent the past decade demanding more and more protections from terrorists. The Patriot Act was not passed in secret. The Patriot Act was not renewed in secret. The phone surveillance is far from new -- we've known about it for a few years now. Public outcry at the time was... muted.
We don't know a lot about PRISM yet. What we do know is that the NSA has been building a mammoth facility in a Utah desert. We also know that the Internet was not designed with security in mind, that email and HTTP are completely unsecured in transit, and that the companies who provide us all these wonderful services at no cost have long since shredded our privacy. Scott McNeally didn't intend it as a warning, but was telling us that we had no privacy on the Internet back in 1999.
To me, the shocking part is that people don't realize that the NSA has been tracking everything they can suck up into their databases. (As have Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Amazon and pretty much every major technology and social media company.)
On a side note, the US does not have any real privacy protections. It has no explicit protections in our Constitution, and our legislators don't take it very seriously. In contrast, the EU has much stricter privacy protections and regulations.
We have the option to get serious about reining in government. We shouldn't need a military contractor violating espionage laws to tell us to get serious.
The argument right now is on whether or not the Patriot Act authorizes the government to collect all the data it is currently collecting or whether it is an over reach on the part of the NSA.
Also, while people might be calling for more security that doesn't mean that they by default were asking for this. As an example, better border security can be accomplished without encroaching on a single American citizen's rights.
No, actually, it hasn't.
Lots of dictatorships and totalitarian states rise to power fairly quickly, and clamp down afterwards. E.g. Iran went from the Shah's government collapsing, to Islamic hard-liners taking control, in 6-8 months, and it was after they took power that they clamped down. The Nazis suspended a whole bunch of civil liberties in 1933, pretty much in a matter of months. When the PRC took over, they didn't wait around to set up a police state; neither did the Japanese when they invaded Manchuria.
The majority of these dictatorships rise to power through selling themselves as the solution to a perceived threat, be it religious, economic or geographic. You can't avoid this simple truth.
A coup, by definition, is not an incremental process. And plenty of authoritarian governments gained power in coups.
The actual coup is the last step in a process, it isn't self contained. The power behind the coup is built incrementally, sold to its followers on the grounds of more personal security.
It can also take long histories and traditions of authoritarianism to produce a political environment conducive to authoritarian control. Europe, for example, had centuries of monarchical and feudal rule, and relatively short periods of electoral rule before the paroxysms of totalitarianism in the 30s and 40s.
So you are saying it was ... incremental? Do tell!
We've also seen plenty of instances of electoral governments going back and forth on intrusive policies. McCarthy became increasingly authoritarian in his pursuit of anti-Communism, and after a few years of hysteria the nation pulled back from that brink. Domestic spying was curtailed (though not stopped completely) for a few decades, when COINTELPRO was shut down. The US is slowly relaxing its intense desire to suspend every civil liberty in the name of fighting terrorism.
Now imagine Senator McCarthy with access to PRISM...
Basically, it's not valid to oppose every policy on the grounds that it "might" be an incremental step towards totalitarianism.
Every surrender of civil liberty IS a step towards totalitarianism, by the very definition.
That rhetorical flourish could be -- no, is -- used to oppose such a wide variety of policies, that it detracts from formulating more precise guidelines about what should or should not be acceptable.
It's simply the truth, regardless of how dearly you want to pretend it isn't/