• 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

Police don't engage in searches of everyone they see on the street.

On the contrary, that is part of their job - they are collecting wherever they go. State observation of our behavior is a reality.
 
:shrug: I'll make something perfectly damn clear in return. You seem to have no ****ing idea what you are talking about, and appear to be mostly reacting from emotion rather than rational analysis. I would look with a question at the claim that it is spying to have a point-to-point record, as no content is collected. Having a record of all numbers called by Verizon customers so that you can scan them in order to see if anyone is calling suicide-bomber-facilitators in Pakistan strikes me as a reasonable program, especially if it is overseen by both Congress and the Judiciary.

That kind of presumes that all that was happening was determining links. So far what the data was actually used for wasn't disclosed. What we have here is notification that there is an iceberg in the water. We don't yet know how big an iceberg it is or what danger it presents.
 
And just what did you expect them to say ? What, another bunch of Miami rastafarians who thought they could topple the Sears Tower in Chicago have been thwarted ?

Is it your contention that Republicans are lying to us in order to cover for the Obama administration? That members of the Legislature are lying in order to cover for the Executive? Do you have any evidence of this?

After the hypocritical crap from no less than Obama, first in criticizing Bush over the harvesting of meta-data from overseas calls, and then committing that he would never do it, its quite a betrayal of trust from the transparent liar in chief. This was never a secret from the bad guys. Just from the average Joe.

Oh yeah, Obama definitely misled his supporters on this issue.


Kanstantine said:
Yes, terrorists are now forced to no longer use cellphones to communicate their terrorist plans.

They will have to rely on carrier pigeons and skywriting to get their plans across.

Actually pigeons have been used before to escape US SIGINT targeting efforts - Pablo Escobar, for example. But I find it cute how you are attempting to use sarcasm to cover for the lack of an effective response.
 
This is way overboard and you know it...It's one thing for the police to pull you over for a traffic violation or respond to a call....It's a completely different beast when they monitor all of your private activities without any reason whatsoever.

1. No one, including this program is "monitoring all your private activites". This program didn't even - as near as we can tell - monitor your electronic records, but rather stored the point-to-point data, making the actual content available for retrieval if one of those points turned out to be something associated with a legitimate intelligence target. If you are emailing Zawahiri on a regular basis, then you should be monitored, and I have no problem whatsoever with that. You are mistaking the program itself with a potential abuse of it. That is like saying that we mustn't have a military, because they could kill us all. Well, yes. The military could abuse it's power. That is not a good argument against a military.

2. There is not much difference between using HUMINT observers to collect the same level of data as SIGINT platforms. If the cop observes you going into the Krispy Kreme, and an antenna picks up the cellphone in your pocket going into the Krispy Kreme, two different platforms have just logged the same (rough) information.



As I said, I'm reserving final judgement. But the OMAGERDOMAGERDOMAGERD reaction isn't going to help us accurately assess the program in the responsible manner expected of those communities who claim the ability to competently self-govern.
 
Touché :)

As a progressive I do believe in using the government to improve the lives of the citizenry. Such as using progressive taxation to ensure everyone has access to health care and a college education or heavily regulating industry to ensure the well being of the people and the planet isn’t compromised in the name of the profit motive.

The government can be a very useful tool, but it depends on how we wield it. The government as it currently stands, heavily in the pockets of corporations and stacked with career politicians only interested in accumulating more influence and power, is NOT a tool of the people.

This is perhaps a question better suited for another thread....

but if the government at current is a tool of corporations stacked with career politicians rather than a tool of the people (and whose actions are often inimical to the peoples' best interest).... then why in the world do you want it put in charge of running healthcare, industry, and education? Aren't you openly stating here that you are assigning a fox to guard the henhouses - and not just any henhouses, but how we earn our livings, take care of our children, and our own personal bodies?

In the meantime, there are definitely things I think the government should NOT be doing. Collecting taxes to make services available to all Americans is a great thing, in my opinion. Monitoring the communications of citizens without probable cause is not. So this program saves lives. I am still against it. DUI checkpoints save lives. I am against those. Stop and frisk probably saved lives. Yep, I’m against it. As my conservative friends often point out in the gun control threads, freedom is inherently dangerous.

In the liberty vs security equation, the increase in security has to be MUCH greater than the liberty that is given up to satisfy me. And since the risk of an American being the victim of a terrorist attack is miniscule, all these programs in the name of the War on Terror are crap.

:shrug: I'll don't really see what freedom (what liberty) is being especially infringed upon here, although I certainly recognize the incredible possibility for abuse. But yeah :) this is an unusual switching of positions.
 
1. No one, including this program is "monitoring all your private activites". This program didn't even - as near as we can tell - monitor your electronic records, but rather stored the point-to-point data, making the actual content available for retrieval if one of those points turned out to be something associated with a legitimate intelligence target. If you are emailing Zawahiri on a regular basis, then you should be monitored, and I have no problem whatsoever with that. You are mistaking the program itself with a potential abuse of it. That is like saying that we mustn't have a military, because they could kill us all. Well, yes. The military could abuse it's power. That is not a good argument against a military.

2. There is not much difference between using HUMINT observers to collect the same level of data as SIGINT platforms. If the cop observes you going into the Krispy Kreme, and an antenna picks up the cellphone in your pocket going into the Krispy Kreme, two different platforms have just logged the same (rough) information.



As I said, I'm reserving final judgement. But the OMAGERDOMAGERDOMAGERD reaction isn't going to help us accurately assess the program in the responsible manner expected of those communities who claim the ability to competently self-govern.

I think you are massively understating the problem....

US government to read private emails and monitor online activity

http://mashable.com/2012/03/02/social-networking-monitoring/

IRS to monitor Facebook, Twitter for tax cheats ? RT USA

CIA Admits Full Monitoring of Facebook and Other Social Networks | The Liberty Beacon
 
1. No one, including this program is "monitoring all your private activites". This program didn't even - as near as we can tell - monitor your electronic records, but rather stored the point-to-point data, making the actual content available for retrieval if one of those points turned out to be something associated with a legitimate intelgence target.

Did you guys ever think that perhaps that is stepping over the line and they don't need to actually know everything to be stepping over it? Perhaps the government has no business spying on us in the first place. No, the problem couldn't be that they are spying to begin with. :roll:
 
That kind of presumes that all that was happening was determining links. So far what the data was actually used for wasn't disclosed

:shrug: what we have learned is that that is, in fact, what the program was used for - to determine links in order to cue follow on collection which would involve searching content. So, for example, if you do email a bomb - facilitator in Pakistan, that email may be pulled out of data banks and read so that the analyst can see if you are using any recognized code words or referencing anything of value or note.

What we have here is notification that there is an iceberg in the water. We don't yet know how big an iceberg it is or what danger it presents.

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.
 
We're not at war with all residents of the United States.

Right?

If you have to ask that question, you don't understand the nature of the enemy we're facing. Snowden stole and disseminated classified information. That's a heavy crime with heavy ramifications, and he needs to be brought back to the US to stand trial for his actions. He already jeopardized the careers and livelihood of everyone he knows, and is close to as he hides out in Hong Kong. He isn't a hero, he's a coward, and if what he said was true, he'd bring himself to the States to face the consequences of his actions.
 

:shrug: Basic data scans that allow for follow on actual collection if you trip given triggers. So, for example, (and this has happened) if you start a facebook page to plan a bombing, hey, we may read that page so that we can stop you. If you hop on gmail to chat with Zawahiri, hey, that connection is going to set off some little alarm bells.

Again, I'm not saying that the program doesn't have immense possibility of abuse. I'm not even saying it hasn't been abused. I'm just saying that the program as designed is not the scenario being outlined, and that rational discussion of it needs to work from what it is and what it does and what it can do (good and bad), not what we can hype.
 
Wag your finger elsewhere. If you haven't noticed, we're at war. Releasing classified information is a capitol offense, but lordy lord we're facing dark days when laws are still enforced, trials are still given, due process is doled out, and something that used to mean death by hanging will likely result in nothing but some time in prison, even though some, like Manning, should most definitely receive the fullest punishment afforded by law.

I know we're at War. But that does not mean every man, woman and child in the U.S. is a target suitable for intelligence gathering. The War on Terrorism has to have some boundaries, especially and particularly when it involves us, don't you agree?
 
I know we're at War. But that does not mean every man, woman and child in the U.S. is a target suitable for intelligence gathering. The War on Terrorism has to have some boundaries, especially and particularly when it involves us, don't you agree?

Exactly. My interactions on the Internet are not of their concern. If they can't understand this, then yes, we do indeed have a problem. I really don't understand how anyone can't consider this guy a hero. It just makes no sense to me.
 
Agreed.

There are many things the government could do that would save many lives, such as confiscating all firearms, injecting all citizens with a RFID-GPS chip, requiring presentation of photo ID at all public transit stations, limiting newspapers to only pro-government op-eds, instituting the death penalty for all felonies.

That doesn't mean we should allow our government to engage in such things.

I'm glad you added the last sentence because the first one screams communism.
 
I particularly enjoyed Snowdens comment that he flead to China because of their commitment to free speech and open political dissent. I'll bet this was a fun topic for obummer and the Chinese dictator this week.
 
I particularly enjoyed Snowdens comment that he flead to China because of their commitment to free speech and open political dissent. I'll bet this was a fun topic for obummer and the Chinese dictator this week.

Hong Kong =/= PRC.

But yeah. If it got brought up outside of the Senkakus, economic policy, etc., I wonder what was said :lol: Would be fun to be a fly on the wall.
 
:shrug: Basic data scans that allow for follow on actual collection if you trip given triggers. So, for example, (and this has happened) if you start a facebook page to plan a bombing, hey, we may read that page so that we can stop you. If you hop on gmail to chat with Zawahiri, hey, that connection is going to set off some little alarm bells.

It's probably worth noting at this point.

There are about 5 billion instant messages a day. Email generations about 400,000 terabytes of new information annually. There are more than 100 million websites. The idea that any collection of individuals have the ability to sift through all this on a real-time basis? Isn't plausible.
 
That's the great thing about The United States; the government will bend to the will of the people.

Show me when that has happened..

Like when classified info was leaked to a movie outfit to hail Dear Leader over the UBL raid? Oh, wait...that's different.

Awww still mad that your hero Bush never managed to get OBL?
 
If you watched any of the Sunday AM shows, he has friends in Congress. Rand Paul is certainly sympathetic to him.

You mean people who knew that this was going on and are now so so shocked? Yea great credibility there....

I have no doubt that the GOP members will try to exploit this in an attack on Obama but like it or not they have a hard time explaining why they put the program in place in the first place and kept it going for so long....
 
I didn't know that because it isn't true.

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.
 
You mean people who knew that this was going on and are now so so shocked? Yea great credibility there....

I have no doubt that the GOP members will try to exploit this in an attack on Obama but like it or not they have a hard time explaining why they put the program in place in the first place and kept it going for so long....
Where's your dog in this fight, regarding Obama? All you do is rail on and on about protecting Obama, he's not even your President. If he turned this program into spying domestically, then he is to blame.
 
It's probably worth noting at this point.

There are about 5 billion instant messages a day. Email generations about 400,000 terabytes of new information annually. There are more than 100 million websites. The idea that any collection of individuals have the ability to sift through all this on a real-time basis? Isn't plausible.

Red flag words and sifting programs that filter it down and look for word patterns. Human beings couldnt do it but computers with the right search patterns certainly could bring it into the realm of possibility.
 
It's probably worth noting at this point.

There are about 5 billion instant messages a day. Email generations about 400,000 terabytes of new information annually. There are more than 100 million websites. The idea that any collection of individuals have the ability to sift through all this on a real-time basis? Isn't plausible.

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

2009: Exclusive: U.S. Spies Buy Stake in Firm That Monitors Blogs, Tweets | Danger Room | Wired.com

2010: Exclusive: Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring | Danger Room | Wired.com
Google, CIA Invest in 'Future' of Web Monitoring - ABC News
How the C.I.A. Perfects its Social Media Monitoring Technologies - Forbes

2011: CIA's 'Vengeful Librarians' Monitor Twitter, Facebook | Fox News
CIA's 'vengeful librarians' track Twitter, Facebook | The Digital Home - CNET News
CIA tracks global pulse on Twitter, Facebook - CBS News
CIA's 'vengeful librarians' stalk Twitter and Facebook - Telegraph
CIA's 'vengeful librarian' team monitor Facebook, Twitter and report to Obama | Mail Online
CIA tracking Twitter, Facebook
Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA. Seriously - CBS News

2012: https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...eeches-testimony/in-q-tel-summit-remarks.html

2013: CIA venture arm invests in Chicago-based maker of artificial intelligence technology - Chicago Tribune

That covers, obviously, just the CIA. At any rate, it should obliterate any lingering doubt you, or anyone else has on the matter.
 
Red flag words and sifting programs that filter it down and look for word patterns. Human beings couldnt do it but computers with the right search patterns certainly could bring it into the realm of possibility.

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.
 
Illegal is the key word. We can't let people hide behind the term whistle-blower when they are revealing top secret information. So who decides if it's illegal? Some grunt sitting at a keyboard who's been sworn to secrecy? He'd better damned well be right or he goes to jail.

I agree with you on this Maggie. This activity was not clearly illegal. Actually, it is considered legal by the courts of this land. Revealing top secret info because you find an activity abhorrent is not protected under the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom