• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Precisely. Even then the data management is problematic - but the idea that somewhere someone is reading your email just because remains implausible unless you happen to have good reason to have someone reading your email.

My problem is that they are even attempting this. I realize that most emails are not worth their effort, but to put this much money into this KIND of effort is bothersome, to say the least. All the while, the Chinese are breaking into corporations and stealing away trade secrets and technology. Excuse me, but why aren't they using these acres of supercomputing to blow China's hacking out of the water?
 
To who? You? Do you not read and pay attention to what our agencies and top Internet companies say?

Are you unaware that the CIA collects all open-source intelligence available to it? Open Source Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:doh the Open Source Center does not even begin to process all available open-source information. It does a decent job of covering the major media outlets in most major countries and provides some pretty good analysis of cultural and government viewpoints. I would know that, well, because I've been through their course. I deal with the OSC daily as part of my job. Which is why I also know that the connection you are attempting to draw between the OSC and a TS level COMINT program is... laughable. People's private emails are not Open Source material. People's letters to the editor of a foreign newspaper are Open Source material. The Haaretz is Open Source Material. Each of the radio stations in Peru are Open Source Material.


Yup. I was actually sitting in an OSC course when a jet went down in Dam Neck, Virginia. We shifted over to the Twitter Feeds and the instructor showed us how to use real-time on the ground reporting by diffuse individuals to build situational awareness. Hey, guess what? When you put something on Twitter, you've put it out to the entire world. Everyone including your annoying cousins, that weird guy who lives in a cabin by himself in the woods and walks around wearing lipstick, and the Russian GRU can see it.


Look, I hate to say it, but all this is.... well.... duh?

A) in no way does this invalidate the human impossibility of processing all that data
B) however, it does validate the model of using programming to scan for indicators such as communications with known terrorists to cue actual analyst collection and processing of specific data.
 
My problem is that they are even attempting this. I realize that most emails are not worth their effort, but to put this much money into this KIND of effort is bothersome, to say the least. All the while, the Chinese are breaking into corporations and stealing away trade secrets and technology. Excuse me, but why aren't they using these acres of supercomputing to blow China's hacking out of the water?
It could be because the government views some of us as more of a threat than the Chinese. I'm not claiming that's true, but one could reach such a conclusion without straining credulity.
 
Coupled with this sudden push for gun control and the IRS and AP scandal, raises lots of questions. Anyway, this guy was a support contractor, but if he were a govt employee, he would have had to take an oath to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Loyalty and honor are one thing, but blind loyalty of going along to get along is quite another. He absolutely did break the rules of security, it appears. I doubt it was an easy decision, and he probably did it because he thought the government was going too far in surveilling Americans. I'm sure more details will be revealed.
 
It could be because the government views some of us as more of a threat than the Chinese. I'm not claiming that's true, but one could reach such a conclusion without straining credulity.

....or it could be because CYBERCOM and entirely other elements of the IC already have those kinds of missions? :roll:
 
That's not why. So what do you think they're doing with ACRES of supercomputers? You know more than this whistleblower, so enlighten me please.

Here's what I responded to as not being true:

Did you know that your government was recording every single email, telephone call and text in the world? Did you, I sure as hell didn't know it had gone that far. It sure doesn't make me feel safer, it makes me feel that they've gone ****ing nuts.

Please cite your source.
 
Here's what I responded to as not being true:



Please cite your source.


Well to be fair, it isn't just American that has that part wrong, the person responsible for the OP got that wrong on page 1.
 
....or it could be because CYBERCOM and entirely other elements of the IC already have those kinds of missions? :roll:

I hope we didn't buy two sets of computer acreage. :shock:
 
They are acting under warrants issued by the FISA court in compliance with Congressional approval. I do not agree with current activities, but one is not enough to stop the activity...

You are confusing 2 different things.

What Snowden revealed has nothing to do with FISA courts. Rather, it is the PRIZM program.

The FISA court issue was regarding the Verizon megadata mining, not prizm, however it is properly spelled.
 
Read more @: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk

And he is out. The man who revealed this **** storm. A hero and a great man that was not afraid to tell the truth and reveal something he thought was wrong. Whistle blowing is not a crime! [/FONT][/COLOR]

I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat and that Congress should investigate the new revelations about the scale of surveillance reported based on the recent leaks. Having said that, I do not believe leaks of sensitive material are an adequate substitute for Congressional oversight. Congress should have actively been involved in oversight of the programs in question, especially as surveillance abuses had led to enactment of FISA and one could not discount the possibility of additional abuses in the realm of post-9/11 surveillance. I reserve judgment as to whether abuses occurred this time around, as one can't be sure unless the programs are reviewed. I do favor a transparent Congressional review (transparent meaning that the process is made public and the findings are made public, not that sensitive information is made public; sensitive information should be redacted from public disclosures).

If the leaker had moral qualms over the policies/surveillance gathering, a better recourse would have been to provide his concerns to Congress, particularly the members who serve on the relevant committees. In short, I don't find the leaker's actions "heroic."

On another point, while I believe contractors provide a lot of benefit to government departments and agencies, I do not believe contractors should be involved in actual intelligence-related functions. Support activities short of intelligence-related work for the security agencies would be appropriate. Perhaps this issue will afford an opportunity to examine whether intelligence functions should be contracted out.
 
I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat and that Congress should investigate the new revelations about the scale of surveillance reported based on the recent leaks. Having said that, I do not believe leaks of sensitive material are an adequate substitute for Congressional oversight. Congress should have actively been involved in oversight of the programs in question, especially as surveillance abuses had led to enactment of FISA and one could not discount the possibility of additional abuses in the realm of post-9/11 surveillance. I reserve judgment as to whether abuses occurred this time around, as one can't be sure unless the programs are reviewed. I do favor a transparent Congressional review (transparent meaning that the process is made public and the findings are made public, not that sensitive information is made public; sensitive information should be redacted from public disclosures).

If the leaker had moral qualms over the policies/surveillance gathering, a better recourse would have been to provide his concerns to Congress, particularly the members who serve on the relevant committees. In short, I don't find the leaker's actions "heroic."

On another point, while I believe contractors provide a lot of benefit to government departments and agencies, I do not believe contractors should be involved in actual intelligence-related functions. Support activities short of intelligence-related work for the security agencies would be appropriate. Perhaps this issue will afford an opportunity to examine whether intelligence functions should be contracted out.


NSA "Boundless Informant" Heat Map Shows Surveillance Areas Around The Globe - HotHardware

The link will show that a Congressional Committee tried to review this program and was denied that review by perjury by Clapper, head of NSA. I know your diplomatic "circle the wagons" rhetoric and suspect you always try to defend these law breaking functionaries by citing "security," "need to know," and other diplomatic nonsense. This is clearly an attempt to derail an investigation. Clapper committed perjury. Go directly to jail.
 
NOTICE; To All you naive dreamers out there that believe the capitol is "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington": Wake up! Your government is like all governments- the sole purpose is to keep you in line. Not only will monitoring citizens not go away it will instead, become more and more intense. Today with government stability so crucial now for their economies China for example cannot survive an upheaval in American governemt and vica versa.Governments now OWE IT TO EACH OTHER to keep the status quo. You are not living in the 1940's people and your babies will probably have chips inserted in to them in the name of safely knowing where your children are when in fact it is your government that MUST KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat and that Congress should investigate the new revelations about the scale of surveillance reported based on the recent leaks. Having said that, I do not believe leaks of sensitive material are an adequate substitute for Congressional oversight. Congress should have actively been involved in oversight of the programs in question, especially as surveillance abuses had led to enactment of FISA and one could not discount the possibility of additional abuses in the realm of post-9/11 surveillance. I reserve judgment as to whether abuses occurred this time around, as one can't be sure unless the programs are reviewed. I do favor a transparent Congressional review (transparent meaning that the process is made public and the findings are made public, not that sensitive information is made public; sensitive information should be redacted from public disclosures).

If the leaker had moral qualms over the policies/surveillance gathering, a better recourse would have been to provide his concerns to Congress, particularly the members who serve on the relevant committees. In short, I don't find the leaker's actions "heroic."

On another point, while I believe contractors provide a lot of benefit to government departments and agencies, I do not believe contractors should be involved in actual intelligence-related functions. Support activities short of intelligence-related work for the security agencies would be appropriate. Perhaps this issue will afford an opportunity to examine whether intelligence functions should be contracted out.


NSA "Boundless Informant" Heat Map Shows Surveillance Areas Around The Globe - HotHardware

The link will show that a Congressional Committee tried to review this program and was denied that review by perjury by Clapper, head of NSA. I know your diplomatic "circle the wagons" rhetoric and suspect you always try to defend these law breaking functionaries by citing "security," "need to know," and other diplomatic nonsense. This is clearly an attempt to derail an investigation. Clapper committed perjury. Go directly to jail.
 
NSA "Boundless Informant" Heat Map Shows Surveillance Areas Around The Globe - HotHardware

The link will show that a Congressional Committee tried to review this program and was denied that review by perjury by Clapper, head of NSA. I know your diplomatic "circle the wagons" rhetoric and suspect you always try to defend these law breaking functionaries by citing "security," "need to know," and other diplomatic nonsense. This is clearly an attempt to derail an investigation. Clapper committed perjury. Go directly to jail.

I have not, in any way, suggested that the scale of surveillance should not be investigated. Indeed, previously I wrote:

My opinion has been and remains that FISA is sufficiently robust and flexible to deal with the contemporary terrorist threat in a timely fashion, while safeguarding the basic constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, post-9/11 laws have made possible today's dramatic escalation of domestic surveillance, even if such laws were adopted with the best of intentions. Congress should launch a bipartisan and transparent investigation into the recent reports of far-reaching domestic surveillance, as it may raise profound constitutional issues in the absence of clear and firm restraints.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-u-s-internet-companies-2.html#post1061896656

In terms of James Clapper's recent testimony, it is fair game for Congress to look into its veracity wherever material discrepancies might exist between what Congress now knows and what Congress was told.

In short, my point is a narrow one, not the broad interpretation you give it. A leak to the media was not the best means for addressing the matter. The information should have been provided to Congress. Moreover, Congress should pursue a transparent and robust investigation into the domestic surveillance issue.
 
I find little if any reason to "trust Congress" at this time. Snowden acted as a Patriot.
 
I have not, in any way, suggested that the scale of surveillance should not be investigated. Indeed, previously I wrote:

My opinion has been and remains that FISA is sufficiently robust and flexible to deal with the contemporary terrorist threat in a timely fashion, while safeguarding the basic constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, post-9/11 laws have made possible today's dramatic escalation of domestic surveillance, even if such laws were adopted with the best of intentions. Congress should launch a bipartisan and transparent investigation into the recent reports of far-reaching domestic surveillance, as it may raise profound constitutional issues in the absence of clear and firm restraints.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-u-s-internet-companies-2.html#post1061896656

In terms of James Clapper's recent testimony, it is fair game for Congress to look into its veracity wherever material discrepancies might exist between what Congress now knows and what Congress was told.

In short, my point is a narrow one, not the broad interpretation you give it. A leak to the media was not the best means for addressing the matter. The information should have been provided to Congress. Moreover, Congress should pursue a transparent and robust investigation into the domestic surveillance issue.

For the most part I agree, but didn't you also say this:

"I have stated my thoughts that FISA is appropriate to handle the contemporary terrorist threat..."

FISA is a secret court, with one side presented, and compromised in the essence that the government as we see under this administration will 'judge shop' until they get the answer they want. FISA is corrupted at this point.
 
I find little if any reason to "trust Congress" at this time. Snowden acted as a Patriot.

I don't find much trust in Congress either, but Snowden acted with little difference between him, and Bradley Manning in my mind at the moment.
 
That is a good point - the full extent of this program has not been released or discussed; only the sensational elements that are most newsworthy have thus far entered into the public discourse.
And when, exactly, was this going to happen?

Intelligence leadership had flat-out denied that this was even happening.

The approval authority for these types of administrative warrants has received over 1700+ requests since its inception, and do you know how many they rejected? ZERO! (According to ABC news) So, the farce of accountability is really nothing more than a rubber-stamp. How convenient.

Please explain when the government, on it's own and doing the right thing in the interest of honesty with its citizens, was going to come out and discuss this with us?
 
Back
Top Bottom