• 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

cpwill said:
This. Ability to abuse does not mean authorized to abuse.

For example, as a Marine I've been taught to find and then kill people. I could abuse that by going and hunting people I happen to not like, or who I just think have it coming, or heck, who were wearing the wrong color shirt.

And then I would go to prison if I didn't get executed.


Given that - as an government employee - every friggin keystroke you make on a government computer is taggable, I'm betting just going in unauthorized and starting too look up the email traffic of the brother-in-law you don't particularly like is going to get you nabbed fairly quickly.
Click to expand...

In the information technology world it doesn't quite work this way. If you're not authorized to use a system or use a system in a certain manner you are also denied the ability. This is a fundamental tenet of security in which users are granted the minimum privileges necessary to complete their task.

Principle of least privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a properly secured environment users of this system should only be able to access authorized resources. The idea that anyone logged on can access anything without question is absolutely absurd.
 
Verax said:
In the information technology world it doesn't quite work this way. If you're not authorized to use a system or use a system in a certain manner you are also denied the ability. This is a fundamental tenet of security in which users are granted the minimum privileges necessary to complete their task
Click to expand...

This isn't about IT, it's about signals collection.
 
greyhat said:
You guys keep calling it a domestic program- how ignorant and narcissistic - everyone keeps assuming THEY are the target. Really?!?? The NSA guards this info better than Ft Knox.
Click to expand...

Yet "low-level" employees can access any resources indiscriminately? Are you saying the article is complete bs then?
 
I had a friend who worked for "the phone company" in the 80's and I learned that the random phone company employee, could simply tap into any random phone conversation, and listen ( a bit of voyeur going on here... ) but its technologically possible and maybe the powers that B have implemented safeguards so that low-level minions can not listen in on anything at this time, but I don't know that for certain. The feature of all this that I have a problem with, is the "peer pressure" level suppression of dissent, you see, if I announce to my social group that I KNOW that 9/11/2001 = FALSE FLAG ATTACK, there is bound to be a bit of apprehension on the part of my social group because of the media spewing out "news" like the perpetrators of various disasters recently had been 9/11 "truthers" and so we really must watch these crazy people lest they become a problem.
This sort of thing has been played out before and to cite just one example, the Nazi regime kept stacks of punched cards to keep track of citizens who may become a problem to the Government.

The people of AMERICA need to understand that this is NOT an anomaly or anything of the sort, its an attempt to silence dissent. WE THE PEOPLE need to be able to express ourselves, otherwise AMERICA is in deep do-do! Get the picture?
 
Verax said:
Yet "low-level" employees can access any resources indiscriminately? Are you saying the article is complete bs then?
Click to expand...

Define low level employee at NSA. Define indiscriminately.
 
cpwill said:
Depending on who and what and why. The Police, for example, have the ability to seize citizens and incarcerate them against their will, using all levels of force up to and including deadly, if necessary. They have that ability so that they will be able to use it when it is proper to do so, and if they use it when it is improper for them to do so, then they face punishment under the law - just as some low-level NSA worker would if he tried to access data banks which he has no Need To Know for, or use it to illegally collect on an American person without a warrant.

That is a distinction without a difference - the activity is the exact same whatever you call it; a rose by any other name is still a rose. Furthermore, "warrant" appeared nowhere in your original statement. If you now wish to amend your claim, I'm fine with that, but you need to make it explicit.
Click to expand...
I will stick with what I said. Take another look at your Constitution. You do not get to spy on me.
 
cpwill said:
That is correct. Representatives from the broadest possible political swathe of the electorate have all signed off on this program, as have all three branches of government. You wanted checks, balances, separation of powers? It's all there. Feel free to try to figure out a system that would do better.
Click to expand...

Do you think it matters that we have tyranny by collusion? Am I any less free because there are 535 tyrants at the top instead of just one? I do not agree with Big Brother watching. I do not care that Big Brother thinks it is the thing to do.
 
greyhat said:
Americans want security and thru their government have voted for it; all these programs, whether YOU like them or not, are legal.
Click to expand...
Are you making the argument that tyranny is okay as long as a majority of 535 people agree to it?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The people they voted into office did. That's the way this system of governance works. If you don't like this system, you can try to change it or move.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. When I voted for my representative, Mr. Mo Brooks, I did not tell him to please, please, please spy on me. I did not say that I wanted to live under 535 tyrants.

Are you not making the case that we are not fit to be free?
 
greyhat said:
Define low level employee at NSA. Define indiscriminately.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? Low level means basically everyone with access to the system.

Though some top officials have denied the NSA offers this kind of access to its workers, Greenwald said that's not true. In an interview on ABC News' "This Week," Greenwald said "low-level" employees as well as contractors like Snowden can dip into a vast system of information on peoples' communications.
Click to expand...

Indiscriminately would be...

"The NSA has trillions of telephone calls and emails in their databases that they have collected over the last several years," he said. "And what these programs are, are very simple screens like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address and it does two things -- it searches that database and let's them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you've entered."
Click to expand...

The official position is that this isn't happening.

On the same program, Republican Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss said he just visited the NSA and was assured that "there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any email."
Click to expand...
 
Misterveritis said:
Are you making the argument that tyranny is okay as long as a majority of 535 people agree to it?
Click to expand...

No, you are assuming that. I'm making the argument that the laws created by our government allow these programs to exist. The fact that you don't like the government's actions is irrelevant to their legality.
 
Verax said:
Did you read the article? Low level means basically everyone with access to the system.

Indiscriminately would be...


The official position is that this isn't happening.
Click to expand...

LOL- you obviously have an ax to grind with Uncle Sam and no amount of logic will fix how you see the world. No one is spying on you- Facebook knows more about you than the NSA LOL
 
greyhat said:
No, you are assuming that. I'm making the argument that the laws created by our government allow these programs to exist. The fact that you don't like the government's actions is irrelevant to their legality.
Click to expand...
So you are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, I take it?
 
Misterveritis said:
So you are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, I take it?
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. You remind me of religious zealots who can only interpret information in a manner that suits their point of view. Sad.
 
Misterveritis said:
Nonsense. When I voted for my representative, Mr. Mo Brooks, I did not tell him to please, please, please spy on me. I did not say that I wanted to live under 535 tyrants.
Click to expand...

What did you tell him?

Are you not making the case that we are not fit to be free?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.
 
Misterveritis said:
So you are unfamiliar with the US Constitution, I take it?
Click to expand...

Are the many federal judges that agreed and agree with this likewise unfamiliar with the US Constitution?

Or is it that your interpretation is not the only rational one out there?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I know you don't understand what SIGINT is, though.
Click to expand...
But I do. One does not to spy on American citizens just because we can.

What the US is doing is wrong. The government has never been our friend but now isn't it becoming clear that the government is separate from the people and that we are its' enemy? And it has become ours.
 
Misterveritis said:
But I do. One does not to spy on American citizens just because we can.

What the US is doing is wrong. The government has never been our friend but now isn't it becoming clear that the government is separate from the people and that we are its' enemy? And it has become ours.
Click to expand...

Do please enlighten us on the trade-craft of SIGINT..
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Are the many federal judges that agreed and agree with this likewise unfamiliar with the US Constitution?

Or is it that your interpretation is not the only rational one out there?
Click to expand...

I return to my statement about the tyranny of collusion. Do you believe it is acceptable as long as there are enough tyrants who agree that we should be tyrannized? The words are very plain. Anyone can read them and know what they mean. Tyrants can read them and twist them, as tyrants always do.
 
Misterveritis said:
But I do. One does not to spy on American citizens just because we can.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with SIGINT. SIGINT is signals intelligence gathering. We were discussing how it's different from information technology, that multitudes of companies have sections dedicated to. They're two very different things. Now you're talking about legality or something like SIGINT is particular to the US or something like that. We're not. You're discussing something else.

What the US is doing is wrong. The government has never been our friend but now isn't it becoming clear that the government is separate from the people and that we are its' enemy? And it has become ours.
Click to expand...

lol, thank you for that very black and white interpretation. I appreciate that.
 
Misterveritis said:
I return to my statement about the tyranny of collusion. Do you believe it is acceptable as long as there are enough tyrants who agree that we should be tyrannized? The words are very plain. Anyone can read them and know what they mean. Tyrants can read them and twist them, as tyrants always do.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you answer my questions before firing back with your own? Very odd. Are you capable of just answering a plain question? What did you tell your Congressman?
 
Misterveritis said:
No. I am still under my NDA. I rarely even mention my 20 years deep in it.
Click to expand...

Then you'd know SIGINT doesn't even have 'tradecraft'. Jesus ****, man, if there's one person you can't bull****, it's me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom