• 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!

Greenwald says 'low-level' NSA workers can tap into phone, Internet records

It's technically very easy, but very difficult practically. You can push a button and monitor someone, yes. Then, when it comes time to audit things, a week later, you need now justify that. Analysts don't decide who to monitor, they are told. So when an analyst that just decided to monitor someone is found to have been not given direction to do so is found out, it's very bad.

Believe me or not. It changes nothing.

If it really is this cut and dry why wouldn't the system have safeguards in place so that you can only monitor approved parties? The supervisor could do this as they "tell" their subordinate who to monitor. They could authorize access to monitor a specific individual or groups of them. If the subordinate needed to broaden the scope they could put in a request for additional parties to be authorized to be investigated with some kind of method to justify probably cause, or a link to the original party (why they should be investigated). This would prevent somebody from just tapping in any name they want and going after them. It would also slow down or stop over broad or unreasonable snooping unless it had a decent justification.

If this is all so sensitive and high level stuff it isn't rocket science to do it in a matter that upholds high standards. I don't think that is the case at all. I think they're a bunch of cowboys that don't give a **** and just do whatever they please without sufficient oversight.
 
Winner, winner! Chicken dinner!

I've been trying to get this point across to everyone I can since the NSA story first broke. The most frightening part of all of this isn't what they are doing now, it's where it is headed. There are people, right at this very moment, who are working on technologies that will make what they are using today seem like wagon wheels and sun dials. Surveillance technology that was developed, and is in a constant state of further development, will some day be fine tuned enough to use on a macro scale. There will be, literally, a "live eye in the sky" recording every movement made by every living creature on earth at some point in the not to distant future. Ever use google earth? Add a few more pixels of resolution and facial recognition to it and walla! They can track you from the day you're born and have a database of every place you've ever been.

We're practically there already but there are people that don't have a problem with data mining? Really?

What we don't know is what we don't know. They could already be there. We don't know that. What we may fear tomorrow may already be in place today. I suspect that some of the fear NSA has is that Snowden has not yet given away the big secrets, whatever they might be.
 
If it really is this cut and dry why wouldn't the system have safeguards in place so that you can only monitor approved parties? The supervisor could do this as they "tell" their subordinate who to monitor. They could authorize access to monitor a specific individual or groups of them. If the subordinate needed to broaden the scope they could put in a request for additional parties to be authorized to be investigated with some kind of method to justify probably cause, or a link to the original party (why they should be investigated). This would prevent somebody from just tapping in any name they want and going after them. It would also slow down or stop over broad or unreasonable snooping unless it had a decent justification.

If this is all so sensitive and high level stuff it isn't rocket science to do it in a matter that upholds high standards. I don't think that is the case at all. I think they're a bunch of cowboys that don't give a **** and just do whatever they please without sufficient oversight.

Did you just propose an alternate system? Okay.

Not sure what that has to do with reality, though.
 
Did you just propose an alternate system? Okay.

Not sure what that has to do with reality, though.

Well you posted this.

It's not really true. It's like saying anyone can steal something from a store. Sure, you can do it, but you're gonna get in trouble.

You seem to think abuse is possible but will immediately be stamped out so it isn't going happen. So my post addressed the logic behind what kind of system the NSA is using. Now you're claiming its unrealistic? I'm a software developer, you can do almost ANYTHING if you want it bad enough. If they're going through all the trouble of sifting through petabytes? of data and turning it into a useful format then they damn well have the capability to instill very strong security measures. If they are so sloppy that any one with any kind of access to the system can glean whatever information they want... that is a ridiculous security breach. That would mean counter intelligence agencies could harvest this information for themselves by compromising low level contractors like Snowden.

This isn't all adding up.
 
Intelligence oversight is a very real thing.
I'm not aware of how intelligence oversight existing somehow makes this still not an issue. So some other arm of government signs off? So the system is so bullet proof no one can access that information without proper oversight? So no one can hack/leak the information such that others outside that oversight bubble have free reign of the data, forever? Even with inhumanly wondrous oversight, I see it being just as big of an issue. Why are people allowed to store our private data, when in other areas clearly we have very strict laws that restrict government from collecting or at least keeping our private data? It's absurd to think it's OK just because of oversight. You need to justify it with something else to be reasonable IMO.
 
Well you posted this.



You seem to think abuse is possible but will immediately be stamped out so it isn't going happen.

No, I didn't say it would be immediately stamped out. In fact, since I compared it to stealing something from a store, the implication would be otherwise.

So my post addressed the logic behind what kind of system the NSA is using. Now you're claiming its unrealistic? I'm a software developer, you can do almost ANYTHING if you want it bad enough. If they're going through all the trouble of sifting through petabytes? of data and turning it into a useful format then they damn well have the capability to instill very strong security measures. If they are so sloppy that any one with any kind of access to the system can glean whatever information they want... that is a ridiculous security breach. That would mean counter intelligence agencies could harvest this information for themselves by compromising low level contractors like Snowden.

Counter intel? I think you mean FIS.

This isn't all adding up.

If you think this needs to add up to perfection, you're right: it doesn't. It won't ever, sadly.
 
I'm not aware of how intelligence oversight existing somehow makes this still not an issue. So some other arm of government signs off?

lol no. You can't do it without many other people knowing about it, and reporting it. If it's legal, cool. If you just tried to spy on your ex-girlfriend, you're in big trouble.
 
lol no. You can't do it without many other people knowing about it, and reporting it. If it's legal, cool. If you just tried to spy on your ex-girlfriend, you're in big trouble.

How would us knowing about all the private data leaked from their collection, somehow make that no longer an issue? That would be THE issue! Hey, your private records of internet and email were leaked and are on bittorrent. But because many other people know about it, and have reported it, it's all cool? What!?
 
No, I didn't say it would be immediately stamped out. In fact, since I compared it to stealing something from a store, the implication would be otherwise.



Counter intel? I think you mean FIS.



If you think this needs to add up to perfection, you're right: it doesn't. It won't ever, sadly.

You're not adding anything to the conversation you're just saying everyone is wrong but not giving any details to support your argument whatsoever.

How you equate non perfection with having a rudimentary oversight system is beyond me.
 
Your incredulity aside, everyone here recognizes that you shill for the N.S.A. and unconstitutional intelligence gathering.

lol? Or is that you think everything that is done is against your expert opinion?

Or that doesn't come into play at all?
 
You're not adding anything to the conversation you're just saying everyone is wrong but not giving any details to support your argument whatsoever.

What? What have you added?

How you equate non perfection with having a rudimentary oversight system is beyond me.

Apparently many things are beyond you?
 
What? What have you added?



Apparently many things are beyond you?

I've added questions and laid out some logic and hypotheses, you know, the seeds of discussion.

You're still doing it. You're prancing around poking everyone "you're wrong!".... "you're wrong!".... "you don't know anything!"..... but you're not backing it up with any argument whatsoever. If you know so much, please, bathe us in your wisdom. It shouldn't be too hard to prove your points.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your notion that oversight is some kind of burden that cannot be accomplished is? This is the NSA we're talking about. They're supposed to be the best of the best. Yet they can't flesh out a simple authorization framework in their internal systems? Give me a break. Its like saying NASA can't figure out how to get their space shuttles to work with gravity.
 
It's best to just put OldWorldOrder on ignore. He's just here to distract from the issues at hand.
 
There's too many tangents to go off on here... authorization, prioritization, accessibility, clearance credentials... blah, blah, blah... So I'll just keep it simple and see if anyone "gets it".

Here it is...

THE VERY CONCEPT OF DATA MINING IS EVIL!!
 
Thanks, Jango. That's one.;)

If there is one moment or one issue that people ought to be able to shed ideology and come together on, this is it. You can't support data mining and claim NOT to be a fascist at the same time. You just can't. Whether people realize it or not, we are at a turning point. Does the government have the right to moniter and record your every movement from the day that you are born until the day that you die?

That is what is on the table right now.
 
I've added questions

oh lol

You're still doing it. You're prancing around poking everyone "you're wrong!".... "you're wrong!".... "you don't know anything!"..... but you're not backing it up with any argument whatsoever. If you know so much, please, bathe us in your wisdom. It shouldn't be too hard to prove your points.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your notion that oversight is some kind of burden that cannot be accomplished is? This is the NSA we're talking about. They're supposed to be the best of the best. Yet they can't flesh out a simple authorization framework in their internal systems? Give me a break. Its like saying NASA can't figure out how to get their space shuttles to work with gravity.

probably, people that know better should be quite. that would probably help
 
oh lol



probably, people that know better should be quite. that would probably help

If you "know better" then sound off like you've got a pair! Otherwise, you just look like some hack who's more than willing to parrot a message that he's too ideologically programed not to.
 
If you "know better" then sound off like you've got a pair! Otherwise, you just look like some hack who's more than willing to parrot a message that he's too ideologically programed not to.

lol what? what ideology just spits **** out that they don't believe?
 
It's best to just put OldWorldOrder on ignore. He's just here to distract from the issues at hand.

LMFAOL!! Someone who actually works in SIGINT tries to give you a real f clue how shyt works and you dismiss him. Typical. Blah blah 1984, blah blah Big Brother, blah blah, am a victim, blah blah... You guys are hilarious! Get a clue.
 
LMFAOL!! Someone who actually works in SIGINT tries to give you a real f clue how shyt works and you dismiss him. Typical. Blah blah 1984, blah blah Big Brother, blah blah, am a victim, blah blah... You guys are hilarious! Get a clue.

Tell us your feelings about the Patriot Act when it was signed into law.
 
Back
Top Bottom