NSA Director Defends Surveillance To Unsympathetic Black Hat Crowd

Trailrunner7 writes "NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander's keynote today at Black Hat USA 2013 was a tense confessional, an hour-long emotional and sometimes angry ride that shed some new insight into the spy agency's two notorious data collection programs, inspired moments of loud applause in support of the NSA, and likewise, profane heckling that called into question the legality and morality of the agency's practices. Loud voices from the overflowing crowd called out Alexander on his claims that the NSA stands for freedom while at the same time collecting, storing and analyzing telephone business records, metadata and Internet records on Americans. He also denied lying to Congress about the NSA's capabilities and activities in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism in response to such a claim from a member of the audience."

Comments

Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in polls

[bonch]

The NSA scandal has been so earth-shattering with regards to raising awareness of government surveillance that concerns over civil liberties now outweigh concerns over protecting the country. The shift is across party lines as well. It's no wonder politicians of either party have been decrying a rising trend of libertarianism. Whether or not it's accurate to classify today's anti-government fears as such, the fact that the U.S. has become the kind of country to seek asylum from is staggeringly insane. The "trust us" defense isn't good enough.

Not much of a defense

[MrEricSir]

Alexander's defense seems to amount to "See? We stopped terrorist plots using these programs!"

That's not really much of a defense, since it doesn't claim that these programs are the ONLY way to stop the terrorist plots in question. At least FTA, it seems he did not make any attempt to argue that a less invasive program would have been unsuccessful.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Microlith]

They do? I've heard them claim several numbers of stopped plots, and yet the most visible was missed completely.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

Alexander's defense seems to amount to "See? We stopped terrorist plots using these programs!"

That's not really much of a defense, since it doesn't claim that these programs are the ONLY way to stop the terrorist plots in question.

It also completely glosses over the ethical/moral questions that a lot of people have about these programs. I haven't heard a single complaint that the programs should be stopped because they aren't working, the complaints are about the ethical and moral problems associated with total government surveillance of its people, and the question of whether or not our rights are being violated. They like to skip those questions and instead answer the question they wish you asked, which is "are these programs effective".

Re:Not much of a defense

[GodfatherofSoul]

It's not a defense for people who care about privacy rights. But, about 1/2 this country *doesn't* care and the other half doesn't care enough for things to change.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

If not even the subhuman halfwits in Congress believe the claim of 54 plots being discovered, then I fail to see the bright people at Black Hat should be convinced.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. All that surveillance of millions of innocent Americans (and presumably that many innocent people throughout the rest of the world) sure did prevent the Boston Marathon attack.

When your surveillance program is not only immoral, but ineffective, then there's not a lot you can do to defend it.

Re:Not much of a defense

[tnk1]

Not sure what you mean. Are you claiming that they have to be 100% effective to be effective at all? I don't think that's reasonable. Pulling out one case of failure does not make a program useless.

That said, I agree that just saying, "we stopped dozens of events that I can't tell you about" can't just be said without corroboration.

Nevertheless, it's also fair to point out that stopped plots never look serious because there is always they assumption that they must have been less threatening or competent than the terrorists who succeed. The reality is that terrorists may have uneven quality, but it is as much luck and opportunity based as anything else.

One way or another, the GP is right, you have to develop intelligence to stop plots. Yes, the rights and privacy of citizens have to be considered, but people demand security, but also want to have privacy.

What I want someone to tell me is how they think that the NSA can develop good intelligence without doing what they are doing. I honestly don't know if they can or not, but what if this is the best way to do it? Do we simply accept that we will have more successful terrorist attacks without this system in place? Or will we bitch about the government not being effective when those attacks happen again?

I'd like someone to explain how we can have our cake and eat it too, and I am not just saying that, I'd really like to know what we think we could do differently. What if Alexander is *right* and it turns out that there is a more stark choice between safety and privacy?

Re:Not much of a defense

[ShanghaiBill]

They find out about them with the intelligence they collect.

If they suspect that someone is a terrorist, then they can get a warrant to monitor his phone records. It is also reasonable to cross check the few dozen people that the terrorists talked to. Maybe it is even reasonable to go another level and look for patterns of calls in the "contacts of contacts" which would be thousands of people. But to go beyond that to contacts-of-contacts-of-contacts-of-contacts, which encompass millions of people seems unreasonable, and I have seen no evidence or even claims that these 3rd or 4th degree searches led to any arrests. Of course there needs to be a surveillance program, but they should be looking at far fewer people, and they should stop lying about it to the elected representatives of the American people.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

I don't think anyone but the crazy wingnuts think that governments should be deprived of intelligence. The issue here isn't really that the NSA has these vast powers. After all, we've known this was likely long before 9-11, and historians have even pointed out that the Lincoln Administration had moved to gather information from all telegraph transmissions, so this has been around for a helluva lot longer than the Internet.

The issue is accountability. If you're going to do this level of data gathering, then the citizens have the right to know. Not only do they have the right to know it's going on, but they have the right to expect a reasonable level of accountability.

What has happened here is a vast program that was largely secret, where even Congress was fed marginal information, and which is overseen by a judicial entity (FISA court) that almost never says "No". There has been no accountability. The Executive has simply taken an insanely liberal reading of the Patriot Act and FISA and ran with it, and Congress hasn't even cared enough to bother asking any real questions until Edward Snowden had the balls to hand a British newspaper some internal documents detailing the level and capacity of surveillance.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Zaelath]

The trouble is "we stop plots all the time" is elephant repellant.

The Boston Bombing is the proof that the elephant repellant isn't effective if someone actually imports an elephant.

They're in a no-win situation, but the cure is still worse than the disease. Terrorism isn't a credible threat to your life and liberty, compared to driving a car it's about as likely to kill you as shark attack. The NSA solution for that is what, drain the oceans?

Re:Not much of a defense

[dinfinity]

The idiotic thing of course is that they 'disrupted' only 42 out of the 54 'terrorist-related activities', which means that 12 of those activities were not disrupted.

One could ask: so, what happened?
Were they unable to do anything about more than 20% of the stuff they found out about? Or unwilling?
Or were those activities just so insignificant and almost completely harmless that they could just let them take place?

By the way, audio of the speech:
https://soundcloud.com/larrymagid/nsa-director-general-keith

Re:Not much of a defense

[cheekyjohnson]

Do we simply accept that we will have more successful terrorist attacks without this system in place?

If that's true, yes.

Or will we bitch about the government not being effective when those attacks happen again?

I didn't do that in the past and won't start now.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Another irrelevant post from cold fjord. Damn quisling.

Re:Not much of a defense

[gmuslera]

They should buy Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rocks. There is some point where you should just concede that can't be all idiocy and should be some malice in that fallacy generating machine that are politics.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

If you read the article it states that General Alexander addressed the legal basis.

I did read the article, thanks.

Some people don't want intelligence surveillance to be legal at all, so they ignore the legal basis for doing it and chant about violations of the 4th amendment.

Maybe that's true, for some people. For me, I don't ignore the legal basis. I question it. I question the rubber-stamp court which claims that these are legal, and I question the decisions that court makes and the fact that their decisions, the legal basis for these programs, are classified. I hear the claims that there is a legal basis for these programs that somehow does not violate the 4th amendment, and I read the 4th amendment, and I reject the claim that these programs are legal. I welcome a public discourse with the classified courts on the legal basis for these programs. In fact, I would like this case to go to the Supreme Court, in public, with the full arguments on both sides out in the open for everyone to see and judge for themselves. I want to see the legal basis that they claim exists, and I want the public to judge the merits of it. I also want the public to judge the character and qualifications of the people who authorized these programs in the first place, starting with the Patriot Act.

For upon Secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, & for want of it, they are generally defeated, however, well planned....

Obviously secrecy is necessary in intelligence-gathering operations. Secrecy has no place, however, in the legal basis and authorization for those operations. I will counter your quote from George Washington with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, which you can find in my signature line. If you want to talk about ignoring wisdom at one's peril, let's start with the idea of trading liberty for security.

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike.

Allow me to reveal the mind-numbingly stupid reason: people don't feel that their government has the right to blanket surveillance of everything they do with their communications when there is no indication that the person is a criminal. If the government is authorizing blanket surveillance of its entire population, warrantless or otherwise, and they say this somehow does not violate the fourth amendment, then it sounds like the government assumes that its entire population is composed of criminals.

Re:Not much of a defense

[cheekyjohnson]

Of course with a system like this, you have the possibility of encroaching accidentally on non-terrorist privacy.

But the fact that they're even collecting all this data is the problem to me. I wouldn't mind completely demolishing the NSA.

I think it is fair to ask, "are they actually using it in the way that we fear", as opposed to simply assuming the worst.

Maybe when you're dealing with someone who is on equal ground with you. When you're dealing with someone who could easily (and probably even legally) ruin your life on a moment's notice, distrusting them by default seems to be the most rational decision to me.

but what if he's actually just another civil servant trying to do his job?

As far as I'm concerned, he's just another freedom-violating piece of trash working for the government.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

Still, I keep seeing people writing comments as if there is a lengthy file on them, or there could be at a moment's notice. I call bullshit on that for most people. Yes, they could look at Facebook and get information on you. So can I.

Can you get my Facebook chat logs, private messages, all of my HTTP traffic, web searches, files I upload or email, VPN traffic, VOIP traffic, Google Earth traffic, my usernames, buddy lists, etc? Because the NSA can, and does. Their training materials show how to query that data. Can you find an encrypted VPN, decrypt the traffic, and determine who is using the VPN? The NSA can. Can you get a list of all IP addresses that visit a website? The NSA can.

I think it is fair to ask, "are they actually using it in the way that we fear", as opposed to simply assuming the worst.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter how they are using it, it matters what they are collecting. It is a violation of my rights, plain and simple, for the government to intercept and store all of my electronic communications when I am not even suspected of committing a crime. That is a violation, how they use that data is not relevant to the question of whether or not it is a violation. You might be willing to hand over your rights whenever the government scares you, but I'm not. You can probably use a little wisdom from Benjamin Franklin also, see my signature line.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Rockoon]

It seems pretty likely to me that you'll do nothing to defend effective or even vital intelligence.

First, you have to defend the intelligence gathering as 'effective' and 'vital' -- saying that its true is not a defense. The onus is on you.

Re:Not much of a defense

[xevioso]

Well stated, but the problem is that this very secrecy can be used for nefarious purposes, and if there is no one to answer to, the damage to our democracy can be worse.

The screenshots in the XKeyscore presentation revealed today show a page where a person can use a drop-down menu to indicate a legal reasoning behind why the NSA analyst might want to start tracking or get more information on an email. Apparently, once done, the person can start tracking and READING emails from/to an email. Any email, not just ones abroad. Say, Senator Feinstein/Rep. Paul/ Pres. Obama. Supposedly there are no additional steps to begin reading this information; there is only a POSSIBLE audit.

Now imagine said NSA analyst decided to get this information and pass it on to political opponents in a campaign, even a presidential one. This is a very real possibility, because these sorts of shenanigans are almost GUARANTEED to happen. The damage to our very democracy would be catastrophic, because the most powerful surveillance history in the history of the world would have been brought to bear against political opponents in a campaign. If you want to see the NSA get defunded real quick, this is the best way to do it.

And in fact, there are rumors that the next thing that Snowden will "leak" will be information of this sort...not just how the NSA can spy on people, but WHICH people were spied on.

You ain't seen nothin yet.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Pseudonym Authority]

Have you?

Re:Not much of a defense

[ShanghaiBill]

Have you been to any of the classified sessions in Congress? I would assume the more juicy, more direct information is provided there.

Have you watched any of the NON-classified sessions in Congress? Such as the one where James Clapper looked Senator Ron Wyden directly in the eye, and lied through his teeth, claiming that this program doesn't even exist? Why do you think congress is getting "juicy information", when it is already clear that the spooks don't trust them and are willing to lie to them?

Re:Not much of a defense

[b4dc0d3r]

I have the solution to all crime. If an authorized person would shoot every American in the head, including me, there would be no crime. Does that make it a good plan? Or a legal plan?

Reductio ad absurdum is usually a very terrible idea. But we aren't dealing with the best and the brightest here, and sometimes beating people over the head to prove a point is the only way.

Re:Not much of a defense

[gmuslera]

Like this 82 year-old nun? Anyway, after such long campaing to create terrorist in all the world better that exist some.

Re:Not much of a defense

[cjc25]

This is seems like a permutation of the Butterfield fallacy

Whichever attack you've decided was the "most visible" was so because it was missed.

Fortunately this doesn't affect arguments regarding the proper scope of surveillance, but unfortunately it underscores that people are often oblivious to their assumptions. In your case, it's that you would have heard of stopped terrorist plots. I'll agree that it's plausible because of the temptation to brag about success, but far from certain.

Re:Not much of a defense

[dyingtolive]

They were guilty of the worst crime imaginable: Publicly embarrassing the state.

I recall a sig from some slashdot user I will now badly paraphrase. "The dictator fears the laugh more than the assassin's bullet."

Re:Not much of a defense

[MacDork]

I don't think anyone but the crazy wingnuts think that governments should be deprived of intelligence. The issue here isn't really that the NSA has these vast powers. After all, we've known this was likely long before 9-11, and historians have even pointed out that the Lincoln Administration had moved to gather information from all telegraph transmissions, so this has been around for a helluva lot longer than the Internet.

The issue is accountability. ...

The issue is very much one of the NSA having these vast powers. It goes way beyond what they are allowed by the US Constitution, however much they would like to interpret it otherwise.

Re:Not much of a defense

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yes, the rights and privacy of citizens have to be considered, but people demand security, but also want to have privacy.

You know what accomplishes that pretty well? A history of foreign policy that doesn't rape other countries. Look at the number of successful terorrist attacks on argentinian people since the 1920s. And I can assure you Argentina isn't a tenth as vigilant or prepared as the US.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Jason Levine]

Can you get my Facebook chat logs, private messages, all of my HTTP traffic, web searches, files I upload or email, VPN traffic, VOIP traffic, Google Earth traffic, my usernames, buddy lists, etc? Because the NSA can, and does. Their training materials show how to query that data. Can you find an encrypted VPN, decrypt the traffic, and determine who is using the VPN? The NSA can. Can you get a list of all IP addresses that visit a website? The NSA can.

Is it bad that I began reading that to the tune of "The Candy Man Can"?

*sings*
Who can find your Facebook chats? Private messages too? All of your e-mail and every search that you do? The NSA. The NSA can. The NSA can 'cause they look at everything to make the US stay safe!
*stops singing*

Ok, someone with more time on their hands.... rewrite the whole song.

Re:Not much of a defense

[lennier]

Even Snowden did not demonstrate how this was used against anyone except who it was meant to be used against except perhaps accidentally.

Exactly! Of course this capability will only ever be used against them - you know, those people, the ones not like us, the other ones, the ones it's meant to be used against. never use it against us - not unless one of us meant to use it against us. But even if we did use it against us, we'd be perfectly in the right, because at least we wouldn't be using it against us accidentally. We'd be using it against us on purpose and that would make it okay. It's meant to be kept a secret from us. If it wasn't for traitors like Snowden (who we thought was one of us but is obviously one of them) we'd never know if we did use it against us, and we shouldn't know that, either. Because then we might stop trusting us.

Look, it's really simple. It's us and them, and you're either for us or against us!

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

No details of any of these alleged activities was provided. Considering the source has been caught lying to Congress, why would you give it any credibility at all. Besides the phrase "terrorist-related activities" is so vague and broad it could extend from someone trying to plant dirty bombs in Akron, Ohio to some slimy little Islamist sending a few bucks to the Muslim Brotherhood. With actual details, even if the number is correct, it is completely meaningless.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

That might be the case if the data was hard to come by, but in this case, they even have a simple-to-use search engine. It's so pathetically easy to spy now that I don't think anyone is really feeling all that nervous about it.

Re:Not much of a defense

[MightyMartian]

All I'm saying is that if you, as a government, feel there is some compelling necessity to gather this kind of data, then you should be perfectly capable, BEFORE a whistle blower outs you, to lay out what you think you need to do and why you need to do it.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Patoski]

If you read the article it states that General Alexander addressed the legal basis.

And just how is anyone supposed to evaluate the soundness of the legal opinions rendered by the FISA courts since their legal opinions are sealed?

The FISA courts have produced significant rulings and new interpretations to the 4th Amendment that no one but a select few are privy to. Are we to have a furtive judicial system where only a select few actually even know what our laws say and mean?

In a letter to one of his officers written in 1777, Washington wrote that secrecy was key to the success of intelligence activities:

Secrecy, of course -- this is always required in war and intelligence activities. But seeing as how he fought against general warrants issued by the crown, I have no doubt that he would be horrified at the scope and breadth of the NSA's broad collection policies.

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike. That isn't likely to end well.

For a robust demonstration regarding the need for (public) whistle blowers just look at nefarious characters like J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon who used the government's intelligence apparatus as a sword against their personal and political enemies. What place is there in this logic for whistle blowers who should expose those who are acting outside the legal confines of our great nation (e.g. Hoover, Nixon, etc.)?

Re:Not much of a defense

[Arker]

First off there isnt even an act of Congress authorizing this, as Senator Wyden has been telling anyone that would listen for many months now, they have invented a contorted and artificial interpretation of a law that doesnt actually say what they want it to say. And beyond that, you and the General both need to repeat American Government 101, because even if Congress really had explicitly authorized this it would still be just as illegal. Congress has no authority to alter the Constitution, and any law that Congress passes that violates the Constitution is null and void.

The blowback from these policies is as inevitable as it was predictable. Whatever minor national security benefits this circus might have produced will never come anywhere near making up for the longterm damage it's done. And the longer we keep pulling this bs the more lead we inject into our own feet.

Re:Not much of a defense

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You seem to confuse claiming a legal basis with there actually being a legal basis. The executive and military's lawyers can claim anything they want to; anything at all, as a legal basis. You can SAY anything, but that's not how legality is determined.

It's determined by Congress and SCOTUS. SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.

People claim it's illegal. They may be correct. Clearly snooping on everyone all the time so you can bring up anything about anyone any time can lead to a dysfunctional democracy. The potential for blackmail at every level of government is astronomically high. We have historical precedent- it's what Hoover did. OF course we don't even need that precedent since we *know what human nature is* and what people will do for power generally.

Huge powers like atiimic bombs are actually safer in this respect since you can't set a bomb off on one person and you can't do it without everyopne knowing. But blackmail is another matter.

Then there's things more subtle than blackmail. There's knowing a lot about someone and influencing the course of their lives based upon that knowledge. You're a person who fits this profile and statistically speaking people with your profile can't be relied on to lie if their superior tells them to.

Therefore, I'll call up my peers in industry and tell them not to hire you, that you can't be trusted to lie about all the things industry needs you to lie about. In fact, overall, for mysterious reasons you're going to find post-college employment prospects strangely limited.

In fact, some people who fit some profiles - people who are likely to go on and be especially effective - tend to die at an early age in tragic auto accidents and such like. We call it the "kill em early" program.

Then there's targeted, selected enforcement of laws against people who fit THIS profile and have said THESE kinds of things.

Knowing a lot about people is a form of power. Knowing everything about people is a form of unlimited power. No one gets unlimited power. No one.

Re:Not much of a defense

[russotto]

For some mind numbingly stupid reason people keep wanting to reveal US intelligence operations to all, citizen or noncitizen alike.

No, I want them shut down. Not all of them, but programs where it's "Hi, Verizon, AT&T, we'd like all your data on everyone, kthxbai" -- that's the sort of general warrant the 4th amendment was supposed to forbid. The programs where they tap all the internet traffic in the US or out of it and store as much as they can for as long as they can... same thing.

Re:Not much of a defense

[mhajicek]

Indeed. From what I've read, the sheer volume of information collected has become so overwhelming that finding anything useful therein has become extremely difficult.

Re:Not much of a defense

[thoth]

If you're talking about 9-11, the gov't presented Bush with a report "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S."

Bush ignored it.

That's not really the fault of these agencies and isn't really them missing it completely.

Re:Not much of a defense

[0111 1110]

I believe his point was that every time someone uses the word "marijuana" or "weed" or "silk road" in a telephone conversation, email, IM, or god forbid on facebook they could have DEA agents at their door with a search warrant and drug sniffing dogs ready to throw them in a concrete cell for a few days without food, water, or a toilet. All the NSA would really have to do is routinely send 'digests', the results of certain keyword searches, to all branches of law enforcement who might find that information interesting. This will provide more than enough prisoners to fill prisons as fast as they can build them.

In the past it was difficult to use that information in court because it would raise questions as to how law enforcement could possibly have known the exact wording of say a cell phone conversation without having engaged in surveillance witthout a warrant. Now that the veil on their activities has been lifted they have no reason to be cautious about using the results of their surveillance dragnet for anything they wish. Although it would be interesting to see whether evidence gathered by the NSA without a warrant would be admissible in court. Even if the NSA evidence isn't admissible it might be enough evidence for a judge to grant a warrant for room audio and telephone surveillance.

Re:Not much of a defense

[vux984]

In your case, it's that you would have heard of stopped terrorist plots. I'll agree that it's plausible because of the temptation to brag about success, but far from certain.

It doesn't really matter how successful the antiterrorism effort is, because its not really a problem in the first place.

We don't need a multibillion dollar apparatus to protect us from a threat that barely exists. Terrorism fatalities are generally less of a problem than lightning strike related fatalities, and its not because the NSA is protecting us, its because there isn't that much of a problem in the first place.

Terrorists would have to commit a 9/11 scale mass murder every second day just to catch up to what we credit to smoking. Smoking is a problem. Terrorism? Not so much.

Where are our priorities?

Re:Not much of a defense

[spire3661]

Yes believing that the word 'papers' includes all comms is 'chanting for the 4th'. NO amount of legal wrangling makes this sort of thing legal, no matter how dismissive you are of the 4th. You dont save the nation by ignoring its tenets.

Re:Not much of a defense

[fnj]

SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.

Hell no. The supreme court can just rule any law they don't like unconstitutional and there is no recourse. The law is instantly voided. Furthermore the supreme court can just make up things that aren't even in the constitution and pretend that they are. See Griswold v. Connecticut.

Justice Douglas opined with a straight face, and I quote:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.

No one knows if he was drunk or high. Granted, what he made up out of thin air in that case favored the rights of the people, but it could just as easily have been the other way round.

Now, I said that there is no recourse against the supreme court making stuff up. Actually there is one but it is never used because the whole rotten federal government is in the bag. Nevertheless, if it wishes, the house can impeach a rogue justice, the senate can hold a trial, and on being found guilty, the justice is removed from his lofty lifelong tenure at once and HE has no recourse against THAT decision.

Re:Not much of a defense

[ArsonSmith]

Along with over 700 other reports with the same dire situations, none of which happened.

Re:Not much of a defense

[fnj]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Thank you, Martin Niemöller. It works just as well if you fill in the categories with today's boogeymen instead of yesterday's.

Re:Not much of a defense

[ArsonSmith]

reminds me of something else that has so much data it's hard to find anything useful.

Re:Not much of a defense

[floodo1]

You shouldn't be doing this, regardless of who knows.

Re:Not much of a defense

[KingMotley]

Not to pick a point, but since the NSA says they can't track communications between two Americans, and well, the Boston Marathon bombing was done by an American, it that your issue is that they don't also include those.

Re:Not much of a defense

[floodo1]

#2 is a crucial point that most people don't realize. One form is Jury Nullification.

Re:Not much of a defense

[ArsonSmith]

What would that be? http://www.google.com/

Re:Not much of a defense

[gl4ss]

if they actually prevent a terrorist plot then the terrorists will know their tools for preventing terrorist plots! can't have that!

Re:Not much of a defense

[tyrione]

Well stated, but expect every ignoramous proclaiming a Ph.D in the US Constitution to proclaim Washington a traitor if it means the government is spying on their militia plans because we all know those who have the biggest bomb shelters during the Cold War era were typically the last person you'd want near you.

Re:Not much of a defense

[TheRaven64]

Well, clearly if this much surveillance didn't let them stop the attack, the solution is more surveillance!

Re:Not much of a defense

[MrNaz]

See that's the thing. We always hear "well, people clamour for politicians to do something". However, I don't actually think that people do. The media makes a big deal out of disruptive events, however actual people on the streets? When was the last time you saw people staging a rally about cancer? More people are affected by cancer than are by terrorism. How about heart disease, which is the biggest killer in the US? How about car accidents?

I posit that it is government machinations that CLAIM that actions like implementing national security reforms are in response to populist demand for action, when in reality these policies are just the hammer falls of classic Hegelian dialectic methods.

Re:Not much of a defense

[cheekyjohnson]

If the 4th was enough, we wouldn't have needed wiretapping laws. This isn't new, you're just uninformed.

This presumes that the government cares about whether or not it violates the constitution, and that simply does not seem to be so. After all, we have free speech zones, protest permits, the TSA, and a host of other nonsense that occurs quite openly. So, I'd say we "needed" wiretapping laws because the government simply decided to use newspeak to bypass the fourth amendment.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Hatta]

The issue here isn't really that the NSA has these vast powers

Yes it is. These vast powers are strictly forbidden by the highest law of the land.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Deflagro]

I think you have to look at the root cause. This reactive bs isn't working. Terrorists don't hate us for our freedoms or whatever. They hate the US administration mostly because of their support for Israel. Americans don't usually see that whole side of things due to media control but it is bad and it makes the USA look like an oppressive regime. To most of the Palestinian world, the US is as complicit as Israel when they decide to commit atrocities in that region.

I can almost guarantee that if we quit screwing with middle-eastern politics, we would have our "safety". Sure it would likely cause chaos but that region hasn't changed in thousands of years and honestly never will.

Re:Not much of a defense

[GodfatherofSoul]

Oh, I DEFINITELY care about privacy. I'd be for amending Constitution if need be.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Agent0013]

They have been lying every time they open their mouths. Why would you believe they can't track communications between two Americans. Plus don't forget, they assume you are not American unless there is some thing that says otherwise, so you are already in the database at that point.

Re:Not much of a defense

[Agent0013]

Don't forget the Occupy Wall Street Protests. Those are considered terrorist activities.

Re:Not much of a defense

[amicusNYCL]

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act."

For some reason I'm having a hard time finding the text of section 101 of FISA. Even so, don't you think it's a little bit suspicious for the government to cite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to support the collection of records of Americans not suspected of a crime? A foreign national doesn't enjoy fourth amendment protections, but I'm pretty sure Americans do. Or should, anyway. I don't think you can find anything in FISA which authorizes the NSA to collect and store electronic communications of any American for no reason other than that they are communicating.

Re:Not much of a defense

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Realizing the extreme behavior of making up anything it wants would pretty certainly lead to the unlikely event of Congress impeaching one or all justices. There is a balance. It's as good as humans can do- there are no non-human alternatives. That balance is not a static thing, it moves this back and forth . At any given instant in time, it's may be moving away from correctness. People who live during that time become distressed and agitate for change. Then it moves back, Laughably enough the FISA court was set up and functioned as a part of that moving back to correctness. Now, it seems to be moving away from correctness. Sucks to be us . Time to advocate for change.

That's just the way it is. Times change and the court takes a while to catch up and see the light. Most of the bad decisions for civil liberties are 5-4 majorities with Alito et al in the wrong. So it's close.

Re:Not much of a defense

[tnk1]

I admit the "terrorists hate us for our freedoms" is a little trite, but I do think something like that is at the heart of it.

Sure the Palestinians and Arabs don't like that we support Israel, but do they really believe that blowing up innocent Americans is going to make us *less* interested in protecting Israel? Israel has a history of gray morality on some things, and I think the Palestinians are better served by pointing that out, rather than becoming the "black" to the Israeli gray. There's plenty of criticisms that Americans can levy against the Israelis. The problem is, while the Arabs and Palestinians are blowing up American targets, we're not really going to be able to see their side very easily.

And I think most Palestinians know that, but terrorists don't represent Palestinians, they represent their own interests that they buoy by superficially being on the "side" of the Palestinians and thus garnering the support and sympathies of the population. The ultimate goal for Al-Queda is not to get the US out of the Middle East, their goal is the overthrow of the monarchies and the replacement of those states with theocracies. They want the return of the Caliphate and resurgent Islam. The US and Israel are threats to that because they are an outside force that props up those monarchies, but also because they are successful states based on something other than Islam.

It's not so much that they are jealous of our "freedoms" as much as the West is an example of an alternative to their system that works. We are the argument against them taking power and making everyone revert to medieval Islamic practice. Most Muslims don't want to live in the Middle Ages either, but if these groups can make a case that the West is corrupt, they'll have more support for rebuilding an Islamic state to recapture past glories.

While I would like to see the US eventually get out of the Middle East, it cannot be on these terms because the withdrawal will not have the effect you hoped for. Bear in mind, the only time the US occupied Russian soil was a brief period during the Russian Civil War. Our departure had no effect whatsoever on our ability to improve our reputation with the Soviets. Why? Because the Soviet leadership was uninterested in truly being friends with capitalist countries aside from alliances of convenience. We represented states that needed to be overthrown to stop being an opponent, but we also represented states that showed that Communism as they implemented was not necessary, nor even desirable for success. So, their people were educated to continue to expect that we wanted to invade them, while at the same time, their government extended their own influence over large areas of their own.

Long story short, a US withdrawal is an act that will not be able to bring the desired effects unilaterally. To be of value in the way you hope it will be, it needs to be done bilaterally with a truly representative government of the people of those areas. We can certainly cause the oppressive monarchies to fall by withdrawing support, but that doesn't guarantee that what comes after is not even worse. And in some cases, that "worse" problem could be global conflagration.

Dude's got brass ones

[Robert Goatse]

Agree or disagree with what the NSA is doing, Alexander has some set of cojones to speak in front of an unfriendly mob. Hell hath no fury like a room of sweaty nerds!

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[PRMan]

But he's apparently REALLY good at it.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[Type44Q]

Alexander has some set of cojones to speak in front of an unfriendly mob.

Riiiiight. 'Cause a bunch of passive-aggressive hackers who've likely never been laid represent quite the physical threat level! :p

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all of that has to do with the ability to buy and use a gun...

Keith Alexander is a terrorist and deserves the fate of a terrorist.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[ifiwereasculptor]

Because all of that has to do with the ability to buy and use a gun...

Keith Alexander is a terrorist and deserves the fate of a terrorist.

72 virgins?

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[X.25]

Agree or disagree with what the NSA is doing, Alexander has some set of cojones to speak in front of an unfriendly mob. Hell hath no fury like a room of sweaty nerds!
Reply to This Share

Huh? Are you silly or what?

Politicians do it every bloody day, speaking in front of unfriendly crowd is of no importance to them.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[CarbonShell]

No, because he is basically only using the age old tactic of forcing the listener onto his side.
When he says he is only using it for good, that means if you oppose it, you are a bad person. He says it is legal, if you oppose, you claim he is a criminal.
While I did not read the text (I'd prefer to keep my meal inside of me), I bet he went through all of the ploys, his service, against the bad people the kill children, we are honest and decent people serving, blah blah blah. Again, nothing but ploys to get you on HIS side.
The goal is to make everyone who opposes him, basically, bad people.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[Kazoo the Clown]

I suppose the thinking is, if you don't trust the government with all your secrets, why do you trust them with nuclear weapons? But the difference is, nuclear weapons aren't much good if you don't know who the jews (substitute favorite target group here) are. And if you do know who the jews are, you don't need nuclear weapons.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[UpnAtom]

I've never seen the Govt do anything this effective before. Have you?

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[IndustrialComplex]

72 virgins? /quote.

He was at a hacker convention. I'm sure there were quite a few more than 72.

Re:Dude's got brass ones

[Agent0013]

Why stop there. We shot one million Americans in the head. But it's ok because some of them were terrorists or criminals of same sort. We must be prepared to sacrifice everything to keep us safe.

In case you're wondering what he got applauded for

[wonkey_monkey]

“There are allegations [the NSA] listen to all our emails; that’s wrong. We don’t,” Alexander said, adding that of 54 different terrorist-related activities identified through PRISM, 42 [...] were disrupted

“We’re talking about future terror attacks and the success we’ve had the last 10 years. What will we have in the next 10? What if the 42 of 54 [terrorist attacks] were executed, what would that have meant to our civil liberties and privacy?” Alexander said; a response that was met with loud applause.

Just reminds me of this.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

And yet they still want to hang Snowden from the highest tree they can find.

What's really happened is that Congress, which has spent the last decade after the Patriot Act was passed jacking off and doing piss all to keep the Executive in check, is now suddenly been embarrassed by the revelations, and wants to look all huffy-and-puffy. But make no mistake, they want Snowden disemboweled just as much as the Administration, if for no other reason than having the audacity to interrupt that partisan circle jerk with some meaningful and critical to the national interest.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[flaming error]

> The "trust us" defense isn't good enough
It's not, because we are unsatisfied.

But it is enough, because what do they even need a defense for? What threat must they defend themselves from?

Congress? If Congress does anything, it will expand NSA powers, not reduce them.

SCOTUS? Somebody has to sue the gov first and prove harm. But it's all secret, so nobody can do that. If anyone managed to get proof, they'd end up in a jail cell with Bradley Manning.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[oodaloop]

I guess it's true they don't listen to our emails. They read them.

Re:Don't believe the lies

[MightyMartian]

Sure they lied to Congress. But Congress had the ability to call these bastards in at any time over the last decade. If the Bush and Obama Administrations are guilty of being lying power-abusing peeping toms, then Congress has to accept the blame for being utterly fucking useless. What the fuck is the point of oversight committees that provide no fucking oversight whatsoever?

Everyone from the Founding Fathers onward expected the Executive to play fast and loose and to take as much power as it could at any given moment and push the margins with incredibly liberal, if not outright ludicrous interpretations of law. That has been the nature of the executive branch since the dawn of time. The whole point of Congress is to create a check on that power, to have lawmakers who not only can hold the Executive to account, but can even pass laws to constrain the Executive when it crosses the line.

So what the fuck has the Executive done about this? Even now, a slim majority are to craven and stupid to even moderately hold the Executive to check. Yes, they'll huff and puff and make rude noises, but if they're not outright complicit in what the NSA has been up to since 9-11, then they are as much to blame for not doing the job that the Constitution set out for them.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

Or hanging out in a Moscow airport waiting for the President to offer the appropriate bribe to Vladimir Putin to have your ass sent back to the United States for the crime of causing the Surveillance State a little trouble.

NSA == HIV

[sshir]

Do those who defend these programs understand that they're crippling the country's immune system? The tools they deploy are extremely efficient at subverting, nipping in the bud 'undesirable' popular movements (indispensable tool for keeping US democratic). Given well documented (COINTELPRO) things FBI tried to pull against civil rights and untiwar movements, argument that they are not doing it now does not wash - they did it before and they WILL do it again.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[MightyMartian]

With a nice friendly search engine!

Re:No matter the spin, its still illegal

[MightyMartian]

The point is that the People elect representatives to Congress to, gosh, represent their interests, because, well, the People can't sit around all day every day parked out on Pennsylvania Avenue keeping an eye on the White House. Yes, Americans should be more proactive, but at the same time they should be able to put some faith in all those Representatives and Senators that they're not just there to play pointless political games.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. If this country we more libertarian in nature the spying would just be done in backroom deals.

Libertarianism is a disease of immature minds desperate to cling to the certainty of selfish and conformation-biased concepts. It's like you can't or don't want to admit that the world doesn't work in stark theoretical extremes. That you wont admit that something like a government can be both oppressive and beneficial at the same time.

It's not regulation vs free market, tyranny vs freedom. Effective society is the product of moderation and wisdom. The problems we face are multifaceted, and so are the solutions. You need every bit of theory from communism to libertarianism to truly make something work. And even then, it will be imperfect.

Grow up, bonch. How many years have you been spewing this kind of immature shit like you just read Atlas Shrugged. Enough already. Your iPhone trolling was bad enough.

Re:Aren't NSA blackhats too?

[bradorsomething]

The CIA are the Black Hats. The NSA collects and analyzes by charter. There are no White Hats in the government, really... maybe, maybe DHS if they ever got off their butts.

All the White Hats seem to work for Universities.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

The "trust us" defense isn't good enough.

It never was, and shame on you for every thinking it was!

Unfortunately, most voting Americans have political memories compared to that of goldfish, and a social perspective that only reaches their city limits.

Listen folks, WE did this to ourselves. By all means, WE didn't ask for it, but we sure as hell deserve some of the blame for letting politicians thinking an appropriate response to 9/11 was the Patriot ACT, FISA expansion, and widespread NSA surveillance.

Come on!!! It was right there in front of us all. Right there in the cards. Some of you HAD to know that this was where it was all going. It was that small voice in the back of your head that kept nagging you every time the US response to terrorism came up on TV, radio, friendly discussion... It was there telling you it would get worse. You didn't listen to it though. There was no way things would get this bad you said. That was impossible. This is America after all. We stand for Truth, Liberty, and Justice, right? RIGHT?

I'm certain I don't know which way all of this is going, but I sure as hell know my distrust of Government started long before I was allowed to vote. Why everyone else thinks the next crop of electees will be any better is beyond me. I'll state for the record, the next lot will probably be worse, as whatever attempts are made to 'redirect' the country, or 'fix things', will go horribly in the wrong direction. And in all likelihood, innocent American lives will be lost on US soil. AGAIN! And it won't be who we all think it would have been. It will be someone we least expected doing the damage. Not some foreign agent, body, or intercept. It will be a homegrown American.

And then after that? Well, I don't want to think that far ahead. Down that road lies a darkness that only fictional authors dare.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[gmuslera]

Knowing their average IQ, i bet that most blame Snowden for having no privacity now. Shooting the messenger should be the next american sport.

This is it, go with him...

[Grog6]

That's the way I see this ending, pretty much.

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

It Does amaze me that America is now a place to seek asylum From. :facepalm:

Re:This is it, go with him...

[dyingtolive]

I'm guessing that if they did anything too overt, they'd just risk making a martyr of him. Better to find some way to bury him in the public eye (dodgy rape case) or, more likely, wait a few years for him to fade into obscurity, and then he gets hit by a drunk driver.

One way or another, I don't see him seeing his 35th birthday.

Re:This is it, go with him...

[russotto]

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

Of course the Russian government cares; as long as he's around he's a thumb in the eye of the US, and that's sufficient reason to care.

Re:This is it, go with him...

[mjwx]

That's the way I see this ending, pretty much.

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

It Does amaze me that America is now a place to seek asylum From. :facepalm:

It doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure the Russians are making sure Mr Snowden is happy and healthy.

Why, because he embarrasses the United States and this makes for good propaganda. I hope for Snowden's sake the Russians remain easily amused

Re:This is it, go with him...

[AmiMoJo]

I doubt they will kill him now because everything he has is already in the hands of various journalists. There is nothing to gain from his death. It makes more sense to discredit him and making him out to be kind of of deviant/pervert/sex offender.

Re:This is it, go with him...

[sociocapitalist]

That's the way I see this ending, pretty much.

It's amazed me that he hasn't been "accidentally" killed in a plane crash, or other public disaster; it's not like the Russian Govt cares.

It Does amaze me that America is now a place to seek asylum From. :facepalm:

Putin probably gets a lot of kudos domestically for not doing what the USA wants.

Re:This is it, go with him...

[Deflagro]

Even more than that, it's a power play to the rest of the world to show that mighty Russia does not bow to the whims of the west. All of Europe flipped out when they thought he was on a plane, it makes them look subservient to US powers. This was like a gift for Russia.

American is granted asylum in Russia from the evil oppression of the USA. You just can't make this sht up...

Re:This is it, go with him...

[Dunbal]

I doubt it. Snowden is a trophy for Putin. He's going to stick him on the mantlepiece and show him off every chance he gets. He has immense political value.

In the US The People are The Nation

[Tiger Smile]

The United States is not it's boarders. It's we, the people. Protecting our rights is something every government employee took an oath to do, above all else. It's their Oath of Office. Nation Security IS protecting our rights.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[HermMunster]

The man lied to Congress and is participating in illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance and seizure of every American's private data, all for the very limited success of saving less lives than that lost by slipping in the tub during a bath/shower. He's a criminal. He's abused the people's trust and has flat out lied to every American as well as those American's that sit in Congress. He needs to be in jail for a very long time along with all his compatriots.

You can't debate the goodness of violating the Constitution. We can't have our government (and the associated military) making decisions of what part, and when, to uphold the Constitution. No, the Executive Branch is not responsible for determining what should or should not be upheld nor are they even responsible for defending the American people. The President's primary duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Private Companies

[ubeatha]

What I'm amazed about is the fact that private corporations have access to this data and no one seems to care. Snowden wasn't even a member of the NSA he was just a contractor. I highly doubt that private security companies are above reproach in using tools only for the intended purposes. I can't even imagine what Blackwater would have gotten up to with access to such tools.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Desler]

And since a case like this doesn't fall under SCOTUS original jurisdiction Congress can simply pass a law disallowing them to hear any cases.

Protecting us from the terrorists?

[dgharmon]

If the cost of protecting us from the terrorists is to live in a police state, then I would prefer to take my chances with the terrorists. The odds of me being a target are minimal while the risks of a corrupt government using this total awareness system to oppress my freedom are that much greater. Fact is, you are more in danger from your own state security apparatus that any foreign terrorist. Iraq never attacked the US. Saddam Hussein was a puppet president installed by the CIA and an ally of the US, at least until he invaded Kuwait and threatened to stop trading his Oil in petrodollars. Al-Qaeda was formed from the remnants of a guerilla army armed and financed by the CIA to oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As such, US state security would have been aware of their capability, ideology and intentions. As such the state security apparatus didn't need the NSA to know this as they - state security - helped create it. What this lawful intercept program is really about is silencing political dissent, such as the Occupy Wall St movement.

27:25 "We comply with the court orders and do this exactly right", Gen. Keith Alexander

There are NO court orders !

NSA Director General Keith Alexander at Blackhat 2013

Re:Protecting us from the terrorists?

[BlueStrat]

If the cost of protecting us from the terrorists is to live in a police state, then I would prefer to take my chances with the terrorists.

But to the people in power making the decisions, people having rights and freedoms does not make them any richer or hand them more power over ever more people.

Ginning up fears over terrorist attacks in order to bring Orwell's police/surveillance-state nightmare to reality, does.

Strat

Re:Protecting us from the terrorists?

[CarbonShell]

> There are NO court orders !
How do you know your secret courts has not rubber stamped such orders?

Re:Welcome to the 21st century.

[Luckyo]

I like how you choose to completely disregard human history in favor of super-optimistic drivel.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Shadow of Eternity]

They weren't jacking off, they were raking in billions of dollars in "campaign contributions" from the corporations that have been getting all of the contracts these agencies need.

Why Shouldn't I Work for the NSA?

[dgharmon]

Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, cus' I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding... Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, Send in the marines to secure the area" cus' they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot.

Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cus' they were off pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cus' he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices.

A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' cus' every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President. Good Will Hunting (1997)

Re:Why Shouldn't I Work for the NSA?

[mcolgin]

Great write-up man! Made me giggle.

Auditability

[thereitis]

There is 100 percent auditability on what we do.

How does that jibe with the recent story NSA Can't Search Its Own Email

Re:Auditability

[Anonymous Coward]

There is 100 percent auditability on what we do.

How does that jibe with the recent story NSA Can't Search Its Own Email

Since you asked.

Two completely different domains. Public communication is done on unclassified networks. All the work that's the reason for their existence resides on classified networks.

NSA doesn't even *run* its unclassified systems. They have two small domains, all of which mostly cover *the occasional* employee at headquarters. (Not everyone has an email address. Heck, many don't even have an unclassified computer.) Most military and contractors use their service/company mail. Most everyone else uses email systems from other providers, such as commercial outsourcing and DISA.

This shouldn't be much of a surprise. Even in the corporate world, resources are spent towards the money-makers, not the internal niceties.

I track my money, but I can't tell you how much change I have in my car's ashtray. It's just not important enough.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Tough Love]

the fact that the U.S. has become the kind of country to seek asylum from is staggeringly insane

Not as insane as the fact that the U.S. executive is determined to prevent sovereign nations from providing asylum.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[slick7]

Like the Honey Badger, the NSA Director don't give a damn.

Just wait till they cook the data for psych scores

[Marrow]

Sir, we have all this data that we are storing forever, and we had a little extra time. So we wrote a program that collated the data (ie , shows they watched on netflix, sites they browsed, stuff they've said) we now have this list that we can call "interesting people". Great work son! I needed something to justify another datacenter and this just could be it!

Video?

[antdude]

Did anyone record and upload a video of this?

Re:Video?

[blueg3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXH4yB2pzeA

Re:Video?

[antdude]

I meant the whole thing, but thanks. :)

Re:Video?

[blueg3]

My mistake! You'd prefer this link.

Re:Video?

[antdude]

Thank you! :)

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Seumas]

Of course, that *should* be irrelevant. Last I read, there was no "unless people piss their panties, then fuck all the shit on this piece of lamb skin" clause.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[dyingtolive]

AC, I'd like to buy your rock.

One thing the story left out

[DougDot]

The story left out the part about when General Alexander said that all of this NSA civilian surveillance was to protect American freedom, and somebody in the audience shouted, "BULLSHIT!"

It got a bit lively after that...

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Is it really that hard to understand? Seems pretty clear to me. You fuckers are not allowed to search through or gather any info about me without probable cause and a warrant. The warrant has to name the person and place to be searched after probable cause is established. Threat of terrorism is not probable cause. Writing into your federal laws and saying that it is ok does not make it ok. The Constitution is the preeminent law of the US and writing laws that violate it is illegal and is grounds for treason. Especially when you take an oath to protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic.

That oughta get me on the list...

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Sean]

As far as the US government is concerned nothing is sovereign but themselves.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The man lied to Congress and is participating in illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance and seizure of every American's private data

It seems clear that they're doing it to us non-Americans even more. While that might be no immediate problem to US representatives who only have their own electorates to worry about, the damage to the US reputation abroad has already started. I imagine it will only get worse as people start to realise how much control and monitoring of the Internet and the wider technology industry one country has been allowed to have for so long. The catalyst for this might have been Snowden, and the fall guy might be the NSA, but no organisation could have achieved all of this alone.

The persistent trivialisation of the US spying abroad, even in public statements by very senior officials, is not going to do any favours for allied governments who are found to have been complicit in the whole deal or whose own questionable monitoring practices come to light, either. Angela Merkel could be in a lot of trouble, with Germany for obvious reasons being culturally more sensitive about this sort of thing than most. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a more overt backlash against it here in the UK, particularly given the key role of The Guardian in recent disclosures, but I wonder how much of this is just the chilling effect at work and/or the media here taking a bit longer to realise that the tides of public opinion are shifting and playing their collective cards close to their chests after some rough arguments with government in recent years.

Ultimately the US government can defend that mass surveillance of foreign citizens as if it's somehow defending its people. Maybe in a few cases that is even true; after all, there obviously are some actually bad people in the world, and security services were formed for a reason, so it's important to keep a level head and not to lose context and perspective when debating these issues. However, I think we can all imagine what the same US officials would be calling it if the tables were turned, though I suppose they might flip between "cyber-terrorism" and "act of war" depending on the strength of the other party.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Curunir_wolf]

The President's primary duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution.

Wait, wut? That can't be true. He keeps saying "My first job is to keep the American people safe"!

wait until the people find out what capabilities..

[strstr]

the government really has.

what if the government was using this technology to spy on us to gain the upper hand, for a mass conspiracy of manipulation?

what if.. right now, there were also other systems in place, besides just Internet and phone monitoring systems. what if I told you, the NSA has deployed all over, global satellite and electromagnetic monitoring systems that don't just monitor radio and WiFi and cellular and satellite communications, but also monitor the human mind and neurons directly? I know people find this hard to believe, but your neurons are no different than radio transmitters. the energy they release can be remotely monitored, complete signals can be decoded by the government. they can see the exact signals going on inside your brain, what you see, images, what you hear, sounds, .. video.. emotions, motor coordination and control, subliminal and conscious thought, motivation, memory, long-term, short-term, visual, auditory, passwords, conversations, everything as it's happening and as it's stored. your mind is the greatest electromagnetic recording device out there, and they have secret back door access right now. not just the NSA either, the CIA, FBI, US DOJ, DoD, local state and federal officials. And their ease of access is insane, because no one is doing anything to regulate or monitor this - they are doing it all automatically with complete secrecy, their system records and tracks human movement and behavior, and thought all automatically for them. It also does remote nerve and atomic manipulation, for remote human sabotage and control. They call all this Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, and I've seen the police using it all over Oregon. CIA, FBI Agents, local police and sheriff agencies. It facilitated the Lane County DA in my recent court case in secretly spying on and abusing me in court, including the monitoring of everyone in court, watching us in jail, ignoring attorney/client confidentiality, watching what everyone was thinking and saying about things in private. In court, the sheriffs and DA are secretly linked up, a computer automatically tracks the thought of jurors, the judge, attorney's, and inmate. They are fed information that helps them introduce illegally acquired information, and helps them conceal their method of spying. They learn how to manipulate the jury, judge, and attorney's involved, and basically can be used to set up and frame a person. It is a pretty sophisticated system. The DAs/police use it for mind to mind communication, and can have information beamed directly into their mind. Images, sound, feeling, thought of others, or the thought of the computer. All this can be used an a weapon against individuals, including simulation of psychosis, doing things to them to discredit or set them up, etc. They can push/pull/flood tissue with photons, heat, chill, and move tissue through the walls, as well as manipulate your environment and nervous system in secret. This is remote human sabotage capability, and no one is the United States is safe from it's use.

When is someone going to investigate this more? 2006 NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice says they using these systems without oversight all over (see the videos and audio interviews on my website), they don't do it just for criminal investigations. They spying on us as easy as just typing in our name, email address, phone number, looking us up, they got access to our thoughts, profiles, recordings of passwords, data, Internet, and phone records. And they do it just to control society, they don't really care about national security or criminal things. They can order taps and targeted bullying with this technology, and monitoring of our homes or personal lives with this system. There is no court oversight, and no one is safe from it's use. There are tons of public officials, police, and judges involved, and they are keeping this hidden from the public. They would rather have a person set up, or secretly executed rather than

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

Yes, it's a real damned shame that everyone now knows that Skype is a porous platform that allows the United States government (and likely any other government that asks) to spy on you.

Re:wait until the people find out what capabilitie

[strstr]

btw, the NSA security director is a lying piece of shit. he's one of the guys in direct control of this system. he has control over my health, and secret rape and mutilation. I am sure he's covering up the same incidents on hundreds to thousands or hundreds of thousands of other individuals. he hasn't even come clean about the real capability of the NSA, they are never going to admit to having energy weapons systems, or the ability to remotely peer into peoples minds, houses, or other private locations. remote electromagnetic imaging and weapons systems are the true backbones of their intelligence and spy networks. and that hasn't even been talked about. Secret NSA program ECHELON also exposes more of their global capabilities, some of which probably include the undisclosed and secretive Remote Neural Monitoring system. ECHELON encompasses years of development and deployment of secret spying on all electromagnetic signals, Internet, and communication systems monitoring, and satellite spy programs. It is being used to monitor every square inch of earth, every signal, every communication, in every possible way. ECHELON may be one part of their network, it is quite vast.

Re:End Game

[strstr]

fucking hell. that is exactly what needs to happen man. it is the only thing that will bring America and the world justice.

speaking for the literal rape and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of US individuals, who were targeted by the NSA/CIA/FBI for secret torture and experimentation with electromagnetic weapons, Remote Neural Monitoring, and Electronic Brain Link.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/.

Re:Don't know why the NSA is so angry at Snowden..

[strstr]

because they too good to have their poo exposed. the US is full of a bunch of corrupt bitches, with literal skeletons buried in their backyards.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[YukariHirai]

It seems clear that they're doing it to us non-Americans even more. While that might be no immediate problem to US representatives who only have their own electorates to worry about, the damage to the US reputation abroad has already started.

Already started? The US's reputation in the rest of the world has been taking considerable damage for years now. This recent stuff has certainly been doing a lot more damage, but their reputation being damaged isn't exactly a new development.

Re:Bullshit.

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. If you're going to the trouble of recording HTTP and SMTP protocol commands, then it's absolutely fucking trivial to grab the entire message or the contents of the web pages in question. I cannot imagine an organization that will happily lie to Congress about what it's doing giving a flying fuck about some restriction on recording just metadata. You can be damned sure they're pulling off copies of all unencrypted TCP and UDP traffic. Maybe they won't retain content for as long as they retain metadata, but I can well imagine them being able to easily store several months or longer worth of unencrypted data. Obviously encrypted data poses a larger problem, but you can be damned sure that if they've sent their boys to Microsoft, Google and any other major handler of data with super-secret orders to give them a network connection, they've got the full co-operation of commercial CAs.

You will notice they only reveal as much as the Guardian and Washington Post has already provided from Snowden's leaks. First, they claimed the program didn't exist, and then they admitted they were doing some things, but it was all very targeted, and now they're admitted that millions of people are being caught in the net due to second and third hand associations to people they're eavesdropping on. I'm sure the next revelations will demonstrate that they are capturing various unencrypted data streams, and indeed even supposedly encrypted ones like Skype. They will admit that, which will ultimately lead us all to realize that the US and its allies are pretty much spying on every human being with any kind of Internet connection.

The age of information freedom is gone. We're just going to have to accept that the governments of democratic states, however good their intentions, have become as much surveillance junkies as the dictatorships the West so believes it is superior to. We will also have to admit that our lawmakers are pathetic weak-kneed capitulators that have knowingly sold us up the river, no matter how much handwringing they'll take part in right now.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[stoploss]

So in short you see no harm whatsoever in warning terrorists to avoid means of communication that leave them vulnerable and help to protect the rest of us?

Precisely. Who watches the watchers? Life is inherently risky, and freedom requires risk.

The insane part is that we have built this surveillance state in response to the deaths of 0.001% of our population. I would far rather run the risk of me and my family being killed by terrorist action than to have our country destroyed by our own twisted government (as they seem hell-bent upon accomplishing in the shortest possible time).

Let PRISM proceed to log this for future reference / character assassination purposes.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[VortexCortex]

Ultimately the US government can defend that mass surveillance of foreign citizens as if it's somehow defending its people.

And the American people would go right along with that. Which just illustrates how fucking inept these assholes are, they got caught red handed spying on the American people and lied about it -- If they had any actual competency they could have avoided all of the flack. All it would have taken is not biting the hand that feeds them.

That they couldn't even do that is reason enough to oust them all. I'm a realist. I realize corrupt crap goes down. However, it would be insane to let folks this brain damaged continue operating with such power. Godwin be damned, Hitler was just such an overreaching moron too.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[0111 1110]

Stop being such a frightened coward. Be a man and accept that there are risks in life. You simply cannot stop suicide bombers. Most of them don't have a Facebook page for your friends to monitor. They may not have an internet connection at all and certainly don't have a smartphone.

Some of us value liberty, value not being watched by law enforcement agents every second of our lives to see if we might be breaking some law or might secretly be planning to blow up the white house. Do you have no understanding of the sort of freedom this country was founded on?

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[Curunir_wolf]

“There are allegations [the NSA] listen to all our emails; that’s wrong. We don’t,” Alexander said.

Words matter.

What he said is almost certainly true - these spokes holes are trained how to deceive without lying. Sometimes they use performatives in deceitful ways, but this one is easy: They don't listen to your emails - he didn't say they don't read them.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[ridgecritter]

Quite right. Wish I had mod points for you. This is another instance of "follow the money".

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MightyMartian]

Life is full of risks. I suspect more lives could be saved by increasing highway patrols or passing laws requiring rubber tread on bathtubs or increasing funding for CPR training than will be saved by spying on who I talk to on Skype.

Let me turn your question on its head. Is there are any level of surveillance you would be unable to tolerate in the quest for safety?

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[ridgecritter]

It isn't that he sees "no harm whatsoever", it's that he sees a worthwhile benefit for the price paid.

For example, our American predecessors decided that the benefit of requiring the state to prove guilt outweighed the detriment of actual criminals' escaping punishment. Doubtless if we reversed the burden of proof and put it on the defendant to prove innocence, we'd jail more criminals. I'm willing to pay the price of doing as we do. Our nation is better for it. Ditto regarding teh terr'ists and panopticon surveillance.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TheGratefulNet]

And the American^Hworld's people would go right along with that.

FTFY

this is not american. this is every single country that has the ability to wiretap and spy.

its a human power trip thing. nothing about one country, really; its more about how people will abuse their power at every chance, if not kept in check.

The issue is accountability.

[ridgecritter]

This.

The NSA's activities are not reviewed by publicly accountable parties who do not share the NSA's incentives. There's no review the public can trust.

To pick another important accountability issue, would you deposit your savings in a bank that wasn't independently audited? Would you take that bank's management's word that everything was ok with your money?

Can't see any persuasive argument for trusting the NSA's unaudited self-report.

Re:Keith Alexander....

[number11]

...has got some massive balls to show up at a black hat hacking conference.

If he shows up for DEFCON, maybe I'll agree with you.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[spire3661]

known troll is troll.

Re:No matter the spin, its still illegal

[0111 1110]

The point is that the People elect representatives to Congress to, gosh, represent their interests, because, well, the People can't sit around all day every day parked out on Pennsylvania Avenue keeping an eye on the White House.

Could it be any more clear that this system does not work? I think we need to dump our pseudo-democratic system and implement actual democracy. Direct voting on laws and other issues. The public should have a direct veto of any law just like the president. The public should also be able to repeal a law by direct vote. Wouldn't it be great if the Patriot Act were put to a popular vote now? Once that law was repealed what the NSA was doing would be blatantly illegal.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Ash-Fox]

As an outsider, I don't read it that way at all. I don't see monitoring of traffic on corporate, government networks to be a violation. From the way it's even worded, it looks like it's intended to prevent inconvenient searches and seizure and since monitoring online traffic doesn't effect you at all like a physical search would. You wouldn't even notice it, the search it self is not even done on your systems or premises, therefore it's not unreasonable. I feel that Americans have been twisting the meaning and interpretation of the 4th Amendment for decades and are hypocritical when it comes to demanding government follow the constitution.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TheGratefulNet]

at least in the bay area, the majority who live here are not born here.

I had a few lunchtime conversations with people in my group (I'm the only guy who was born/raised in the US in my extended group) and it was difficult to convince my co-workers about the motivations and principles that our founding fathers had in mind when they created this country.

this is a real issue. people who grew up in the US have at least some feeling for 'right to privacy', even if some criminal goes free; its better to preserve the assumption of innocence and have to prove guilt, than to work things the other way around.

my co-workers are fine with having cameras on every street corner. they are fine with TSA goons invading our privacy. they are happy that 'we are being kept safe'. the countries they came from have much less freedom than the US and so they don't quite 'get' my frustration at the way things are going, here.

parts of the US are losing their soul and it disturbs me to see such mass acceptance of our surveillance 'culture'. I can understand why our liberty is fading, but I don't have to like it. and I speak up about it when the topic comes up at lunchtime. I'm not sure if I'm getting thru to them, but at least I'm trying to educate them about what america used to be and what it stood for. once upon a time.

Re:No matter the spin, its still illegal

[fnj]

What makes you so sure that the same fucking stupid voters who favor liars, scum and low lifes magically do not favor what those dickheads create? It would be nice to believe that the voters' only failing is that they cannot get a grasp on the quality and values of their representatives, but somehow I very much doubt that is the only failing the voters have.

A true direct democracy where the preferences of retards, idiots, zealots, uneducated and crazy people carry just as much weight as those of wise people would be hell on earth. What do you think would happen if there was direct democracy in Afghanistan?

I already think in principle there should be an IQ test as a prerequisite to voting in our representative democracy, but I hasten to qualify with "in principle", because in reality the test would just be subverted to further take the people's rights away.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[davester666]

Shooting the messenger is the current sport. Taking down whistleblowers and troublemakers like Swartz gets you promoted big-time in the Justice Dept.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't that the point? If I can't notice it, so how would I know that I am being searched? To do a physical search, You actually need to show a warrant, or it is illegal, and any evidence collected without a warrant is inadmissible. Now show me the warrants, signed by a judge in a transparent (i.e. not secret) judicial process, for that monitoring. Show me something my lawyer can check for me, show me that whatever the search was for, it was actually deemed necessary, and what kind of a case I'm being involved with.
As it stands now, it is rather ther other way around: it's like throwing a net into an ocean, to catch one particular kind of fish, dragging every other type with it, sorting the unwanted kinds but still keeping them because they might someday be useful. Or sellable in the harbor.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[jcr]

He's a criminal.

Yes he is, and he was surrounded by hundreds of people who know he's a criminal, and somehow nobody stood up and arrested him.

-jcr

USA cloud providers

[dutchwhizzman]

USA cloud providers are going to feel the hurt of this for a long time in the future. Even if they promise to keep your data outside of the USA, they'll still not be trusted, since there is no way to be certain data isn't handed over anyway.

Re:USA cloud providers

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a non-security related subsidiary for an asian defense conglomerate and we were in negotiations with a US cloud provider for a ~$10 million solution to link in to our hybrid cloud solution for certain regions of the world. We were already wary about the security concerns but after Snowden, the parent company issues a renewed call to subsidiaries to review their security arrangements regarding US companies, which spooked our management, so the deal failed and we went elsewhere.

Re:USA cloud providers

[TWiTfan]

No company in their right mind outside the U.S. is ever going to trust Google, MS, Apple, or pretty much any other U.S. company with their sensitive data ever again. No assurances will ever put that humpty dumpty together again. This has been a long time coming too, Snowden just confirmed what had been long suspected.

Re:Keith Alexander....

[blueg3]

He did, last year.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[hazeii]

Exactly; the issue is the "kept in check" part isn't working these days.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[jools33]

It certainly makes US based cloud services a lot less appealing to all non US based businesses - and surely that will then put pressure on service providers who in turn should start lobbying so maybe there will be a response to this in time.

The title is rather misleading...

[bingbong]

I attended both this morning's keynote with the general and he also spoke at the blackhat executive summit.

This morning there were a few thousand people in the ballroom for his presentation. There were at most 2 vocal 'hecklers' - though really I think it was just one person. The heckling was met with very limited support, maybe a dozen or two people clapped. However, when the general countered the heckler(s), his comments were met with applause from most of the crowd.

For the record, I'm not commenting on either side of this debate. I am just arguing against the artistic license taken by the author of the story. As I said, I was there for both talks and the alleged tension and heckling was dramatically overstated.

Re:The title is rather misleading...

[MrNaz]

Comment number???

Re:The title is rather misleading...

[MrNaz]

Comment number?????

Re:The title is rather misleading...

[alex67500]

i was looking for that too :-D

do you know who got it?

Re:The title is rather misleading...

[MrNaz]

No, I don't, but I missed it by 1 haha.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4038271&cid=44444445
Oh well.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[FriendlyLurker]

+1 interesting video, thanks. Note he also says "our emails" - considering that there is a good chance most at black hat are working or informing for some three letter agency or another, this could also be the truth. They claim they cannot read their own (NSA/FBI) internal emails... can't be watching the watchers.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TheRaven64]

Really? How many people have you ever met who have refused to use a Google service (e.g. gmail) because of the international reputation of the US? I realise anecdotes are not data, but I hadn't met any until a couple of weeks ago, and now I've met several...

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Rockoon]

As an outsider, I don't read it that way at all.

As an outsider, you should learn the history of the constitution before using modern meanings of words (you know, that whole 'twisting the meaning') to judge it.

The 4th amendment dealt with the problem of general Writs of Assistance which the royalty on the other side of the pond used as weapons against the colonists.

Writes of Assistance: Legacy

In response to the much-hated general writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they established independent governments in 1776; the phrase "particularity requirement" is the legal term of art used in contemporary cases to refer to an express requirement that the target of a search warrant must be "particularly" described in detail. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that outlawed the use of writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) by the federal government. Later, the Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and writs of assistance were generally proscribed.

The problem isnt the monitoring of traffic on corporate networks. The problem is that corporations must allow them to do it involuntarily and indiscriminately. Its the Generat Writ all over again. Now get your fucking ass schooled up before making fucking ignorant "I'm just an outsider" comments.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[erikkemperman]

Yeah well it's one thing to say that "everybody does it", though I haven't seen nearly as many reports on other countries as I have about the US. Maybe they are just less incompetent, rather than less morally corrupt.

But even so, given that the US spends about as much on defense (sic) as the rest of the world combined, the picture isn't really very symmetric, now is it? To the extent that figures are even known, that is -- under Rumsfeld the DOD became officially unaccountable, if I remember correctly. So even if it's true that everybody does it, it is nowhere near the same scale.

Besides, if everybody takes the lowest common denominator for their moral compass, we'll just have a race to the bottom -- which of course nobody wins.

Don't forget SWIFT banking transactions

[bradley13]

Just as a reminder: It has long been known that the US monitors international banking transactions (as a minimum, all transactions over the SWIFT system, probably others as well). This is long known, and hence "accepted", even though there is no possible justification for it.

So: they have your telecommunications, your internet records and your financial records. For countries that actually have privacy laws (the US doesn't, but many other countries do), this is clearly illegal. I would love to see some criminal cases filed against prominent figures in the US government...

Re:Don't forget SWIFT banking transactions

[cayenne8]

For countries that actually have privacy laws (the US doesn't, but many other countries do), this is clearly illegal. I would love to see some criminal cases filed against prominent figures in the US government...

Why would you think another country's privacy laws could be used against members of another country's government. They don't apply outside the original country's borders....

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Godwin O'Hitler]

The man lied to Congress and is participating in illegal unconstitutional mass surveillance and seizure of every American's private data, all for the very limited success of saving less lives than that lost by slipping in the tub during a bath/shower.

Just out of interest, how much would it cost to give a free non-slip bath tub to every home in the country compared with the cost of spying on every home in the country?

Intelligence services?

[bradley13]

You accept the situation too easily. Yes, governments have always run intelligence services. What these services have done has often been illegal, and for that reason their actions have always been hidden from view.

The difference today is that the US is claiming that these vast programs are legal. That they have the right to gather personal information on hundreds of millions of innocent people: communications, internet records, financial records and who knows what else. All of this despite the clear restrictions enumerated in the US Constitution. No need to skulk in the shadows, the US government is proud to have realized George Orwell's nightmare.

That is the difference.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Alastor187]

Or hanging out in a Moscow airport waiting for the President to offer the appropriate bribe to Vladimir Putin to have your ass sent back to the United States for the crime of causing the Surveillance State a little trouble.

A few year ago I would have been inclined to agree, but in this case it is Russia that is worried about returning a 'political asylum seeker' to their country of origin which would likely result in their torture and death. Authentic or not in this case Russia may actually be the morally higher ground. Another sad day for the US.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[pjt33]

He needs to be in jail for a very long time along with all his compatriots.

The USA already has an overly high incarceration rate. Raising it to 100% doesn't seem like a sensible approach.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

We need only one law, everywhere: a total ban on state secrets.

States don't exist for themselves anymore, their sole purpose is as a service to their people. States should not be allowed to hide anything from their citizens.

Denied lying to protect Americans from terrorism

[Culture20]

He also denied lying to Congress about the NSA's capabilities and activities in the name of protecting Americans from terrorism

He lied in the name of protecting his job from congress. That's a very different thing.

Hey Nobel Committee

[ThatsNotPudding]

Time to revoke Obama's fake prize and give to a real hero: Eric Snowden.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Ash-Fox]

If I can't notice it, so how would I know that I am being searched?

I don't really get why you need to know your name is being searched to check if you're on the sex offenders list. Nor do I see you needing to know if the police decide to call in your plates to do a quick ownership, insurance, stolen vehicle checks before deciding to pull you over if they find something.

To do a physical search

Which is an inconvenience when performed and can deny a person's mobility, work, whatever etc. Looking at data in a database? Not really.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Ash-Fox]

As an outsider, you should learn the history of the constitution before using modern meanings of words (you know, that whole 'twisting the meaning') to judge it.

I keep getting told that the only thing that matters is the constitution and that the government isn't interpreting correctly or abiding by it. If that's the case, then one must look at the constitution alone and not what legalese, government, common law and various influential parties try to change meanings of.

The problem is that corporations must allow them to do it involuntarily and indiscriminately. Its the Generat Writ all over again.

Then go argue this point on your own thread instead of trying to hijack this one.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[arth1]

If we're worse off because we did something and it was exposed, perhaps the idea would be to not do something?

But the real damage was to people's faces, and that, my friends, is something that Americans cannot abide. Culturally, people here have no concept of shame, and if exposed, their feelings will turn into anger.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Phrogman]

Its starting to seem like the *only* reason politicians get involved in politics is so they can rake off the cash from political contributions and "favors" done by lobby groups, then when they retire, get a massively profitable position on a board of directors for some company that bought and for them while they were in politics.

Maybe the first thing that should happen when you get elected to any office is that your bank records and financial statements become a matter of public record, updated on a daily basis...

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MitchDev]

The bathtub is cheap, installing it on the other hand....

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MitchDev]

When I have mod points, the posts like this are few and far between.

The liberty we've traded for "security" in this country is a f'ing joke, and a sad one.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[MitchDev]

Since he has nothing to hide, I'm sure he won;t mind a camera and microphone mounted in his body for 24/7 monitoring....

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TWiTfan]

Green tech won't fix this. Countries will just start fighting over the rare earth minerals and other commodities needed for green tech. The fighting will shift slightly, but it won't stop.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century.

[MitchDev]

Dude, that's some strong weed your smoking.

Your utopia isn't worth the cost.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people have you ever met who have refused to use a Google service (e.g. gmail) because of the international reputation of the US?

I work for a company that won't let its employees even access gmail, Google+, etc. from inside the network. And we don't even deal with particularly sensitive data.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[intermodal]

It's important to note that there is a certain encouraging trend in the fact that for once, libertarianism is enough of a threat to the establishment that they are actually addressing it.

The truly stunning thing is that despite our nation's alleged enshrining of liberty and the principles thereof, our government and elected officials seem to feel like they can get away with demonizing a philosophy that supports those very principles. And unfortunately, with a complicit media, they very well could get away with it.

Sorry, but you are wrong

[tekrat]

You think you can change the system from the inside. Forget it. That's not possible anymore. It's too corrupt. There's too much money involved. Try to change the system, and they'll find your body floating in the Potomac. Or they'll just corrupt you, or you'll suddenly be accused of "rape", and they'll even provide a woman to testify against you.

That system cannot be changed by one guy at a time. In order for it to work, there'd have to be a massive overturn of people in congress, all at once, and that's not likely to happen, since the people with the money and connections always stay in office.

Remember that in D.C., there are no republicans or democrats, just millionaires. Republicans are Red, Democrats are Blue, and neither of them give a shit about you.

Edward Snowden, idiot!

[tekrat]

Who *precisely* is Eric Snowden???

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Whorhay]

I have to nitpick a little here. The Executive can always in practice pick and choose which laws it will enforce. Despite the size and funding of the Executive branch the resources are still limited and as such they end up with a lot of leeway in selective enforcement. Just as a police officer can choose to give a reckless driver a simple verbal warning or arrest and cite them for every singe minor infraction they can find. Even for things like Drunk Driving in practice an officer can just give a warning, and I've seen it happen. That Officer might have to face repercussions from his own superiors and the community if the incident became public enough, but they are frequently given a lot of room to manuever when making those kinds of decisions.

Much like Jury Nullification this can be both a good and bad thing. I'm pretty sure the majority of people in states where weed has been legalized would appreciate it if the feds would lay off the prohibition laws within their state. The important thing when it comes to the Executive branch picking and choosing the laws they will enforce is that we hold them responsible as an electorate, and that we do so swiftly.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[X0563511]

The "trust us" defense isn't good enough
It's not, because we are unsatisfied.

But it is enough, because what do they even need a defense for? What threat must they defend themselves from?

The one written into the Second Amendment.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Aaden42]

He was also no doubt surrounded by a dozen people with large guns who wouldn't hesitate to shoot anyone who tried to arrest him as a criminal.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[Dishwasha]

This quote reminds me of the old adage, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?. Just because nobody is reading the emails doesn't mean it isn't being recorded and can't be read at a later date. Gotta love the subtle way Gen. Alexander phrases things.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Desler]

My logic is not correct in the least. Original jurisdiction if SCOTUS only applies to cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consulates and those involving a state. Everything else is appelette jurisdiction which Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate and has done so in the past. The only way such a case could fall under SCOTUS original jurisdiction is if a state government filed a case against the Federal government.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Desler]

To add from Article III Section 2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Desler]

Incorrect, that is,

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[geminidomino]

That's a tad unfair. "Lied to congress", perhaps. "Participating in an illegal[sic] unconstitutional mass surveillance." Illegal, No. It was authorized by Congress and granted access to continue multiple times by the courts. That makes it legal. "Unconstitutional?" Maybe.

To nitpick your nitpick: If it's unconstitutional, then it's illegal, doesn't matter who authorized it.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Dishwasha]

Although I'm not denying that Gen. Alexander has not spoken the truth, at the same time some of his "lies" may just come down to his lack of technical knowledge and the sheer vastness of the programs and bureaucracy that have been instituted over the years.

As another poster pointed out, if they have a program where they are recording raw IP packet information, then they are in effect able to read the emails of every person that flows through their system if and when software is written to process this information in that fashion. Perhaps this program's intention was not SPECIFICALLY to read the emails of every person, but it can happen INCIDENTALLY and Gen. Alexander may have not thought of or fully comprehend the capabilities of his own NSA programs. I think Gen. Alexander makes very large sweeping generalizations and poorly informed statements in response to people's concerns because he is answering questions based on what the intent of the programs are rather than what they actually are capable of doing.

I personally am less disturbed by the recording of information and more disturbed by the complete lack of due and chain of command approval processes when anybody from a high official to a simple contractor has access to these systems. As the article surmises about his talk, there are minimal protections to prevent an agent from accessing information and instead the NSA is being reactionary and instituting disciplinary actions AFTER the incident has occurred, been audited, and some process he did not identify has hopefully detected this breach and notified the agent's superiors. That leaves a VERY long period of time for an agent to view confidential information and take action upon it for personal gain well before any disciplinary action occurs. In addition, no disciplinary action can remove that knowledge now gained by the agent and prevent future exposure.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Agent0013]

When they decide to look through the last 5 years of data in the database and round up anybody with Fox in their online name because that has been deemed the new scary communist thing then it becomes a problem. The data being collected only helps to look back in the past after acts have been done to see where connections are made. If they have suspicions of someone they can get a warrant. When they just grab everything it can be used later for anything they want to find and you can then be sent off to the concentration camps and disappeared.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[cayenne8]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a more overt backlash against it here in the UK,

I'd guess that would have to do with the citizens of the UK already being so used to being under surveillance ...with all the cameras everywhere.

They've been there awhile too...and remember:

"What one generation accepts, the next generation embraces."

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[cayenne8]

MI6 isn't allowed to spy on British citizens. The NSA isn't allowed to spy on Americans.

But Britain and America are allies.

So MI6 let's the NSA spy in Britain and looks the other way.

The NSA lets MI6 spy in America and looks the other way.

Afterwards, like good allies, they "share intelligence" and now MI6 has all the surveillance data the NSA gathered in Britain, and the NSA has everything MI6 gathered in the USA.

They already do this...have been for awhile.

Re:Aren't NSA blackhats too?

[Agent ME]

STUXNET had some impressive zerodays, including an MD5 collision that still isn't well understood publicly. That sounds to me like something the NSA probably helped with.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Ash-Fox]

When they decide to look through the last 5 years of data in the database and round up anybody with Fox in their online name because that has been deemed the new scary communist thing then it becomes a problem. The data being collected only helps to look back in the past after acts have been done to see where connections are made.

What you're saying is that they don't have sufficient controls in "new scary communist thing". Sounds like a different problem to me.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[fritsd]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a more overt backlash against it here in the UK, particularly given the key role of The Guardian in recent disclosures,

<sarcasm>
Oh! Didn't you know? The Guardian is no longer on-line from the UK -- it turned out that www.theguardian.com was a porn site (*) and has now disappeared behind the Huawei HomeSafe Filter Wall.


(*) well, I'm sure it's a porn site according to some people, or at least a self-harm website; you wouldn't like to get harmed because you surfed government-critical websites, NOW WOULD YOU?
</sarcasm>




Warning: message may contain sarcasm and even not be completely true at the moment.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Agent0013]

We know they don't have sufficient controls. Everything they are doing is secret and illegal. Anybody with access can look up the phone calls and emails of anyone they want to without any permissions or warrants. I would say that is a severe lack of sufficient controls.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[flaming error]

Who are you going to shoot?

Before there was a 2nd amendment there was a concept of Natural Law, that held that all men had an inalienable right to self-determination. Government got its authority from the will of the governed.

What We The People brought into this world, We The People can redesign or dissolve. Peacefully. The States can convene a Constitutional Convention and amend or rewrite the federal charter as we see fit. If congress doesn't go along, states can recall the critters and replace them.

This idea of shooting our way into a better world is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Nobody says anything about what's supposed to happen when the smoke clears.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Ash-Fox]

Honestly, I don't see these mass scale "new scary communist thing" happening over there. There is always a few incidents of abuse that can be found in any legal system, so I hope you're basing your arguments on some massive thing that applies to a good chunk of people instead of one of these incidents that happens in some really low statistic of 0.000001% incidents.

So far, you haven't convinced me.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[fritsd]

Rare earth minerals aren't very rare, just expensive to purify. Neodymium (which you're probably referring to because it's used for wind turbine supermagnets) has about the same abundance as Lithium, and more then Gallium and Indium (which also occur only in trace amounts in bulk ores).

But when a wind turbine breaks down, you don't chuck its turbine house and massive supermagnets on the city dump, you re-use them. Reduce, Re-use, Recycle in that order.

To give an indication of Neodymium abundance: Cerium, which is the most common rare earth, 50% more than Neodymium, is used in disposable cigarette lighters as the flint (that grey metal rolling thingy). Probably because for lighting cancersticks the purity doesn't matter whereas for producing the exact Neodymium-Iron-Boron compound that maximizes magnetic field strength it does.

Some countries will just start fighting anyway, because... well... they just are like that.

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Agent0013]

I think you are way to trusting. Power like this has been abused in the past and will continue to be abused. If I ran a bus load of nuns off a cliff, all I have to do is make it top secret information and nobody can do anything to me. Children being given radioactive drinking water in schools, woman having the uterus removed without their knowledge, injecting large numbers of black men with syphilis, all these things and more have been done by the US government. I am so glad you trust them, I don't.

EQ vs IQ

[NewYork]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient != https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_quotient

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Cederic]

Hmm. A job creation scheme too? We could be onto a winner here.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Shadow of Eternity]

We had something like that for a while, the truth is people don't give a damn and nobody is willing (or able, these days) to run against them.

Great Comedy!

[LifesABeach]

Arch Conservative vs. Anarchists. Who did this general piss off?!

Re: Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in pol

[Agent0013]

Oh look, new article out about how the feds are using the data without warrants to harass people who look online to buy a pressure cooker. What a wonderful use of police resources. But I guess we can just write that off as not enough proof that the system is being abused by those in power. Since it is secret we cannot prove anything. But they don't have to prove anything to harass innocent citizens.

Re:In case you're wondering what he got applauded

[steelfood]

Even if the NSA doesn't read your emails, it doesn't mean they haven't read my emails or say, Nancy Pelosi's emails or more likely, John Boehner's emails or Rand Paul's e-mails. And, taking that a step further, just because it hasn't been abused so far doesn't mean it's not going to be abused in the future. In fact, the secrecy around the program means that we'd have no way of telling whether it was abused or not, now, and in the future.

There are so many things wrong with this entire affair, at so many levels, you can start anywhere and get there by aimlessly wandering around.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[Dunbal]

To be honest I've always found the British "bobbie" to be reasonable, unlike American trigger-happy cowboys. So long as you don't get in his face and disrespect him in my experience he won't be in a hurry to escalate the situation. Of course I've never participated in a riot.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[ultranova]

The USA already has an overly high incarceration rate. Raising it to 100% doesn't seem like a sensible approach.

But isn't that what this ultimately comes down to? Turning the whole country - indeed, the whole world - into a giant panopticon?

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[silentcoder]

If you were referring only to the "share intelligence" bit - then yes, I know. I am sure I didn't intend THAT line to be speculative.
If you mean the whole idea - if you have proof that they do I would not be surprised but I haven't seen any conclusive claims to this effect. But then, i'm neither American nor British - I live in a small country in Africa. I cannot be expected to read EVERY American headline.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[BACbKA]

Unfortunately, not using gmail doesn't mean gmail won't spy on you -- thanks to your helpful correspondents who use gmail themselves, or send a CC to a gmail address. Same with the social networks -- even if you vehemently ignore all the invites, all those helpful enthusiasts that use the networks' spam-invite feature also betray your social graph to whoever mines it.

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[TheRaven64]

Most of the invitations I get from social networks are from people I've never heard of (most of my friends know not to send me spam), so if someone's using this for datamining they'll get a very strange view of my social graph...

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[VisceralLogic]

Stop being such a frightened coward. Be a man and accept that there are risks in life. You simply cannot stop suicide bombers. Most of them don't have a Facebook page for your friends to monitor. They may not have an internet connection at all and certainly don't have a smartphone.

Some of us value liberty, value not being watched by law enforcement agents every second of our lives to see if we might be breaking some law or might secretly be planning to blow up the white house. Do you have no understanding of the sort of freedom this country was founded on?

Pff, shows what you know! The NSA/TSA/DHS have already stopped hundreds of thousands of terrorist plots based on monitoring our communication!

Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll

[zidium]

I *totally* agree with this!

Being a politician should be a **involuntary, random, volunteer job** (just like a jury) where for 2 years you give up your life. You have to go to basic political school for, say, a month or three to learn the basics, then you get thrown into a huge group with a bunch of other neophyte politicians.

Wages should be good, to minimize the damage of having to give up one's life and/or move (if you don't already live in the capital you're assigned). There would be assigned houses for each position, just like the White House, so that relocation will be cheaply provided.

Oh! And their houses, cars, and political staterooms will all be recorded and broadcast for the entire world to see. Most of it will be livecasted on the Internet. I think every single room should be recorded, some rooms / sessions can be encrypted with a time of expiry 1 day after the existing politicians will have their tenure end. This will ensure proper law enforcement against every politician, as well as keeping them completely ethical.

Then you'd only really have to worry about malfeasants rigging the election, but they'd have to have a huge pool, since consecutive terms won't be allowed.

This is the solution to almost all of every democratic republic's political ills.