Snowden and the NSA

[TRoaches]

That can maybe happen in your country but in america that would be concidered evidence being held back in court and can't be used against someone unless it is shared with the defence.

This is true in a legal proceeding. The concern with regard to domestic spying is how the data can be used extralegally. To say "The intelligence agencies can't do that because it is against the law" is to ignore the fact that they routinely operate well outside of the boundaries of law. It is like saying that the mafia can't do something because it is illegal. They simply do not care. The hope in bringing attention to this fact is that this trend of government agencies acting extralegally is that it could perhaps be reversed or at least slowed down.

[colourwheel]

 

The concern with regard to domestic spying is how the data can be used extralegally. To say "The intelligence agencies can't do that because it is against the law" is to ignore the fact that they routinely operate well outside of the boundaries of law. It is like saying that the mafia can't do something because it is illegal. They simply do not care. The hope in bringing attention to this fact is that this trend of government agencies acting extralegally is that it could perhaps be reversed or at least slowed down.

 

I think you are being a bit too paraniod about this. for one thing, data that is extracted extralegally to be used as evidence in a court of law would be thrown out immediately. The whole reason behind domestic surveillance was for the protection of the people of the country, not for it to be use against them. This is going back to your "potential for abuse" theory. If you think domestic surveillance is bad for the protection of a country makes me wonder how you feel about a country having nuclear weapons at the push of a button for protection.

 

You worry about black mail and hypothetical scenarios when no one even knows for a fact anything that Snowden has leaked can be practically used for anything other than tracking activity like a web admin can. We do know as of now that Snowden's 4 labtops have been drained completely by the chinese government, meaning now Snowden is no better than a Spy. He is being charged now for espionage for who knows how many NSA secrets leaked to china and other countries as well fleeing to other countries who probably don't give a damn about using domestic surveillance to use against their own people and possibly leaking even more NSA secrects to many countries that America as a whole doesn't view as being on the friendliest of terms with.

 

Whatever Snowden's original cause was to bring to light what our government was doing seems has been tarnished from being a whistleblower to basically a person accused of mass espionage...

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

for one thing, data that is extracted extralegally to be used as evidence in a court of law would be thrown out immediately.

If this is true, and the data is useless to law enforcement, then why is the data being collected?

 

 

The whole reason behind domestic surveillance was for the protection of the people of the country, not for it to be use against them.

 

If this is true then why is the system being used to surveil judges, activists, and politicians?

 

 

If you think domestic surveillance is bad for the protection of a country makes me wonder how you feel about a country having nuclear weapons at the push of a button for protection.

 

Nuclear weapons are not available at the push of a button. There is a relatively transparent chain of custody and command for the use and handling of nuclear weapons. There are secrets involved and it is not all public knowledge but there is oversight by the relevant congressional committees, cabinet members, and within the military ranks. A single rogue general or faction does not have the ability to push a button and launch a nuclear strike. There are many levels of control and authorization. Even the president himself would have to go through proper channels to launch a nuclear strike, would have to justify it with certain key people before the order would be carried out, and would ultimately be the one accountable for its authorization. This is quite different from the way that a black-budget agency like the NSA operates.

[JimboUK]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/24/edward-snowden-us-russia-ecuador

 

The plot thickens, he seems to have vanished. It also looks like the Russians are going to be as helpful as the Chinese http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-24/first-hong-kong-now-russia-refuses-intervene-snowden

[Dark0ne]

If this is true, and the data is useless to law enforcement, then why is the data being collected?

 

Data not being able to hold up in a court of law does not mean it's useless to the authorities. Lots of tidbits of information on known terrorists might not be usable in a court of law because of the way it was obtained, or just because of what the information is, but it could very well prevent whatever plans they might have from materialising. Case-in-point; I tap Tom's phone and find out Tom is linked to Ryan, who is a known terrorist. Not really worth anything in the courtroom, but from this information I can have a tail placed on Tom and see if he leads me to Ryan.

 

 

 

If this is true then why is the system being used to surveil judges, activists, and politicians?

 

To play devil's advocate; because knowing whether someone coming in to a position of great power is corrupt/working for shady organisations/under the thumb of foreign governments before they come in to power might be worth something? We're always quick to cry bloody murder and think of the worst case, corrupt scenarios, but you know there are quite valid reasons why you might want to know everything about the next person who's about to be elected president and it's not all about bribing/blackmailing. Do I think that's the actual reason why they are (potentially, remember, it's not actually been proven) spying on their own politicians? God knows.

[JimboUK]

MI5 have long spied on politicians here, after the Profumo Affair even No.10 was bugged. There can be good reason to spy on politicians, they often put their own interests ahead of the nations. This is a good example of someone who needs watching http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8834162/Suspected-Russian-spy-admits-affair-with-Lib-Dem-MP-Mike-Hancock.html

[sukeban]

The monitoring of government officials and agencies is dangerous because it sets up a situation like Hoover had back in his glory days, where he had all the dirt on everyone and was able to shape domestic policy via the threat of blackmail--exactly as Roaches states. Presidents for DECADES wanted to sack him because they rightfully viewed him as dangerous; however, they never could, as with all that information he had an entirely independent base of power within the executive branch, one that was completely immune to the will of the electorate, unlike themselves. It is not healthy nor beneficial for a democracy to have such immensely powerful unelected officials--especially in defense and national security!--as they are able to form effective "states within states" able to subvert or otherwise undermine the will of our elected leaders. Such a situation could range from merely wasteful--ensuring permanently high levels of defense spending--to outright dangerous if the intelligence community ever developed any sort of collective Caesarian ambition (right now they seem only to presume themselves the nation's Praetorian Guard...).

 

And that is what Snowden's most important point is, at least to me: that the entirety of the intelligence apparatus is held in check only by the vicissitudes of policy, that is, the contemporary caprice of the executive branch. Indeed, today's purportedly well-intentioned intelligence apparatus might be out there bagging real terrorists day in and day out, without any sort of domestic invasions of privacy, but we must all recognize that today's policies hold no bearing whatsoever on the policies of tomorrow, they are subject to change at the drop of a hat. Richelieu (might have) quipped, "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, and I will find something in them which will hang him," a statement that we might all take as a fair bit of forewarning. Now, however, consider that the government has access not only to our written word but also to our "metadata," combining the sum total of our thoughts with the sum total of our actions, all compiled and collated for convenient government query. In trustworthy hands, certainly this information might be all well and banal, but in untrustworthy hands, this could be the real stuff of despotism. In my humble estimation, this is a gamble that we ought not to take at all.

Edited June 24, 2013 by sukeban

[colourwheel]

Since this is all based on hypothetical scenarios where someone might get their hand on this "metedata" to be used for evil based on thinking policy will be changed at the drop of a hat against the general public.

 

Lets create a new hypothetical scenario...

 

Say this domestic surveillance you find out happens to save your children and family from a bomb attack that years later you learn about because the info becomes eventually declassified. Would you think different of domestic surveillance knowing that if the government wasn't doing it back then your entire family would have been killed by a bomb attack? or would it be worth your childrens lives and your whole family to be killed so privacy of metedata will be safely secure for generations to come?

Edited June 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[Beriallord]

 

This wasn't really news to me because I've suspected this has been going on for some time.

 

If you want any security on the internet to keep them from tracking you then pay for a VPN that doesn't keep any logs, and switch your IP every day.

 

And use a prepaid cell phone, no contract, or any paperwork at all that can tie that phone to you. They got models of phones that don't have GPS trackers in them.

 

 

Also the new Utah data center they are building is going to have a 5 Zettabyte capacity (over 5 billion terabytes). That is enough space to store all data in the world.

 

@Beriallord you almost forgot to tell people to stock up on bottle water and food, acquire a ham radio that runs on a turning wheel, and start to buy gold bullion instead of paper money, as well as don't forget to increase your fire arms count to atleast over 100 handguns and rifles with enough ammo to hold off anyone who comes after any of your food and/or gold. /sarcasm ;D

Most people don't need to do the above, and the ones who have ill intentions already know how to minimize being tracked. Which means the government is only trying to catch the idiots. They can't count on the top terrorists being idiots. Which makes the whole purpose for collecting all this data pointless.

[TRoaches]

Case-in-point; I tap Tom's phone and find out Tom is linked to Ryan, who is a known terrorist. Not really worth anything in the courtroom, but from this information I can have a tail placed on Tom and see if he leads me to Ryan.

The problem with this is the label of "known terrorist". The Patriot Act broadly expanded the definition of "terrorism" to the point that nearly any person can be labeled as a terrorist if law enforcement is feeling creative enough. For example, racketeering and drug crime are considered terrorism according to the law. This does not mean that every racketeer or drug dealer is prosecuted as a terrorist, but it means that they could be if a prosecutor was feeling ambitious enough to go for it.

 

The ACLU said this in 2002:

 

"Section 802 does not create a new crime of domestic terrorism. However, it does expand the type of conduct that the government can investigate when it is investigating "terrorism." The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism."

 

Since they released that statement the anti-terror powers have only expanded. To say that Ryan is a "known terrorist" could mean anything from political activist to drug dealer.

 

 

To play devil's advocate; because knowing whether someone coming in to a position of great power is corrupt/working for shady organisations/under the thumb of foreign governments before they come in to power might be worth something?......Do I think that's the actual reason why they are (potentially, remember, it's not actually been proven) spying on their own politicians? God knows.

 

A fair enough point, but the problem again is that there is a lack of oversight or procedure involved in the NSA's domestic spying. For example, if the FBI wants to conduct secret surveillance they must go through the FISA court. It happens behind closed doors and is all very secret, but there is at least some oversight that acts as a check against abuse. The FISA court has basically rubber stamped every request for surveillance, and the proceedings are secret in every way, but should something go wrong or some abuse occur the FISA court is accountable for the authorization. An FBI agent who wants to surveill someone for personal or profiteering reasons would have to justify that request to the court. If an NSA agent with a sufficient level of access wants to do the same there is no check against that abuse.

 

The spying on politicians has not exactly been proven, but Russ Tice is an accomplished and credible source of the claim. He says that he specifically was told to target President Obama for surveillance back when he was still a Senator, as well as an unnamed supreme court judge. He also claims that law firms were targeted. This means that they could have listened in on confidential conversations between the criminally accused and their attorneys, and there is no check in place that prevents this information from being passed over to the Justice department. This effectively eliminates the attorney-client privilege of confidential communications.

 

Lets create a new hypothetical scenario...Say this domestic surveillance you find out happens to save your children and family from a bomb attack that years later you learn about because the info becomes eventually declassified. Would you think different of domestic surveillance knowing that if the government wasn't doing it back then your entire family would have been killed by a bomb attack? or would it be worth your childrens lives and your whole family to be killed so privacy of metedata will be safely secure for generations to come?

This is an argumentum ad passiones logical fallacy. If my family members are saved by domestic spying it does not mean that they would not have been saved had the spying agency been required to follow an oversight procedure while collecting the data. I'm not arguing that the NSA should not collect the data, but rather that there should be some form of legal check against the power that comes with the ability to collect the data.

Edited June 24, 2013 by TRoaches