Top NSA Official Raised Alarm About Metadata Program In 2009

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top NSA Official Raised Alarm About Metadata Program In 2009

Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 21, 2014 @09:48AM from the should-have-listened dept.

An anonymous reader sends this report from the Associated Press: "Dissenters within the National Security Agency, led by a senior agency executive, warned in 2009 that the program to secretly collect American phone records wasn't providing enough intelligence to justify the backlash it would cause if revealed, current and former intelligence officials say.

The NSA took the concerns seriously, and many senior officials shared them. But after an internal debate that has not been previously reported, NSA leaders, White House officials and key lawmakers opted to continue the collection and storage of American calling records, a domestic surveillance program without parallel in the agency's recent history.

110 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If only... by ValentineMSmith · 2014-11-21 09:56 · Score: 2

If only the NSA listened as well as the NSA listens, we wouldn't be in this situation.

--
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
1. Re:If only... by AHuxley · 2014-11-21 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it goes back to the Trailblazer Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  ThinThread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Before that was Main Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Recall Project MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  and going way back to the The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) with Project SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:If only... by davester666 · 2014-11-21 14:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  don't fall for it. this story is only part of managing the the snowden revelations.
  this is to try to minimize that he came forward and told the public instead of going through "proper channels", by making it seem that others had gone through proper channels, and that everything had been carefully scrutinized and it was all on the up and up.
  "NSA took the concerns seriously, and many senior officials shared them" = "wow. this looks so wrong. let's do it anyway because we can. and puppies, pedophiles and terrorists."
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Derp by zieroh · 2014-11-21 09:59 · Score: 2

the program to secretly collect American phone records wasn't providing enough intelligence to justify the backlash it would cause if revealed
File that under "duh".

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
1. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  You just don't hoover up all Americans info. You just DON'T.
  If you want something, you need to go get a judge to sign an individualized warrant against you, personally.
  You just don't disrespect innocent people like that.
  The gov't and corps need to take some serious smackdown from the public on this until they get the message beyond loud and clear that you don't that. Heads need to and MUST roll over this. Otherwise you give up any remaining power you do have to them.
2. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  I guess the foolish officals thought they were actually working focusing on security instead of undermining dissent. Since intelligence was never really the reason but the excuse.
Argument by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 09:59 · Score: 0

I've heard the argument that this is what Snowden should have done. So... It would have meant us not knowing about the programs. Now, apparently many more people than NSA knew. Put them up on the headroll list too...
1. Re:Argument by vux984 · 2014-11-21 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've heard the argument that this is what Snowden should have done. So... It would have meant us not knowing about the programs
  Pretty much. This. Its just further vindication of Snowden's actions.
  The NSA asserts he should have gone through channells. Snowden asserts he did... at the moment its he said/she said. But this really moots the argument entirely. Other people DID go through internal channels, and it didn't fix the problem.
  Therefor leaking/whistle blowing really is the ONLY way that would have worked.
2. Re:Argument by dkman · 2014-11-21 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yet even that didn't work because our government isn't for the people anymore.
  
  --
  I refuse to sign
3. Re:Argument by jafac · 2014-11-24 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but even leaking/whistleblowing didn't "work".
  A few of us are beside ourselves at the loss of our rights. A large number of armchair hacktivists are outraged that "The Man" is at it again. Most people are like **shrug** ". . . are we safe from terrorists yet?"
  There's been no backlash I'm aware of. And no real change in how spying is being done, or accountability, or oversight.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I got some backlash for you. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · 2014-11-21 10:03 · Score: 2

It's time to abolish the NSA.

--
I write sci-fi for metalheads
1. Re:I got some backlash for you. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  Moreover, it's time to hold accountable those who made the decisions and supported all the shit Snowden exposed.
  What is the penality for treason these days? Whatevfer it is, that's what they need to receive. We need to restore the nature of the law as applying to the big guys as well as the little guys.
2. Re:I got some backlash for you. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  Moreover, it's time to hold accountable those who made the decisions and supported all the shit Snowden exposed.
  The only way to have that happen at this point would be to buy a prison, hire some judges, and hire a militia to do what the police/legal system should be doing in the first place.
3. Re:I got some backlash for you. by dbIII · 2014-11-21 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  What is the penality for treason these days?
  You have to do a photoshoot wrapped in a flag and run as a Republican candidate for Virginia.
Not all spooks are bad by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-11-21 10:07 · Score: 1

The people who choose to be spooks are ordinary people, just like you and me. Many of them choose to become spooks because of their patriotic feeling towards their respective countries, and their willingness to do everything they can (within the confine of the laws, of course) to contribute to the well being of their motherland/fatherland
Not all spooks from CIA/NSA are bad dudes either. There are conscientious people within those organizations because I do have friends (close friends) working in there
On the other hand, the politicians, whether they are the career politicians or otherwise, have no conscience. One has to have no conscience to become a successful politician
The matter on hand has illustrated one thing - that the spooks themselves have raised alarms but it was the politicians who have overruled the spooks and insisted that the illegal programs be continued, and expanded

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Not all spooks are bad by AHuxley · 2014-11-21 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Re continued, and expanded
  With domestic surveillance now been talked about more in public the press now understands what keywords and interviews will result in.
  The media can wait to type a report into a networked computer just before publication.
  A journalist can also fill their networked computer with a lot of non fiction that reads like a real story thats been worked on.
  Drive out with a phone on to meet a person with more information.
  All the domestic surveillance teams have is networking. The connected computer, the phone, the operating system, the logs over years.
  Once a journalist understands that part of domestic surveillance they can shape it.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not all spooks from CIA/NSA are bad dudes either.
  Yes, they are. You don't accidentally do evil on this scale, and these people have absolutely no excuse. They have betrayed their country, their friends and family, and their morals. Saying things like "they aren't all bad!" is almost as bad as saying the same thing about people running drug cartels. I say "almost" because at least those drug cartels don't pretend to be on your side.
3. Re:Not all spooks are bad by mr_mischief · 2014-11-21 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of them are working on the domestic spying. The NSA, believe it or not, was created to spy on other countries, not Americans.
4. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, by that logic, not all Nazis are bad people.
5. Re:Not all spooks are bad by sabri · 2014-11-21 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well, by that logic, not all Nazis are bad people.
  Godwin's law. You lose.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
6. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  patriotic feeling ... within the confine of the laws ... conscientious people
  My head just asploded trying to parse that nonsense. People that have those attributes would have refused to go along with unconstitutional domestic spying. I suppose they were just following orders so that makes it ok, right? I guess there were a few (like Snowden) but being patriotic and conscientious hasn't worked out very well for them so far.
7. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 11:18 · Score: 2
  
  You are utterly ignorant of what Godwin's law is. Godwin's law deals with the probability of people making such comparisons or analogies. It does *not* say that the comparisons or analogies are false, or that the person making them 'loses' the argument (What does that even mean?).
  Saying that someone 'loses' just because they make a certain analogy or comparison is just a non sequitur. You must respond to the specific arguments they made.
8. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Em+Adespoton · 2014-11-21 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  By that logic, I can extend your argument to "All Americans are bad dudes" because they have done nothing to rein in the US Military complex, US IP complex, US entertainment complex and US meddling in foreign politics, not to mention the doubletalk used in dealing with the US itself.
  Don't demonize others for not doing things you haven't done yourself, nor make them guilty by association, unless you're willing to be called out as similarly guilty.
9. Re: Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  {In case you meeded it to be said, this response is correct}
10. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well, by that logic, not all Nazis are bad people.
  Correct, not all Nazis are bad people. If you were attempting to prove mr_mischief wrong, you've failed miserably.
  
  That said, anyone who chooses to don the Nazi name, should not be surprised when they get lumped in with the bad.
11. Re:Not all spooks are bad by lgw · 2014-11-21 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's a widely accepted corollary to Godwin's law that the person who compares his opponent to Hitler or the Nazis has thereby lost the argument, as he clearly has run out of rational objections and moved on to argumentum ad Nazium.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
12. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  It's also logically fallacious. Either respond to their specific arguments or don't bother. Whether the comparison or analogy is valid depends entirely on the situation.
  And 'losing' an argument doesn't even make sense to begin with, unless you're talking about bullshit popularity contests. I love it when you have people arguing with each other and insisting that the other person "lost" the argument because they violated some arbitrary 'rule.'
13. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  By that logic, I can extend your argument to "All Americans are bad dudes" because they have done nothing to rein in the US Military complex, US IP complex, US entertainment complex and US meddling in foreign politics, not to mention the doubletalk used in dealing with the US itself.
  No you can't, because that's not the same logic. People working directly for an evil organization that conducts mass surveillance is absolutely different from merely being a citizen of a country that does evil things. By remaining with the evil organization, you are helping them conduct mass surveillance far more than if you were merely a citizen of the country they operate in.
  But if there are people in the NSA that are good people, then they are certainly planning to leak information like Snowden did or otherwise sabotage the organization.
14. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 12:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Also, reading that guy's comment, he didn't actually compare his opponent to nazis or Hitler, anyway. He just said "If your logic applies here, then let's apply that same logic to the nazis."
15. Re:Not all spooks are bad by dbIII · 2014-11-21 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Drive out with a phone on to meet a person with more information.
  Thanks to the influence of such groups as the NSA your mobile phone transmits it's data in an easily readable format instead of something encrypted such as was first proposed for the devices. The performers "Negativeland" some years back demonstrated that very clearly with analogue phones, and apparently it's not much more difficult now with digital but it can land you in legal deep shit if you do it and you are not a government associated body. So organised crime could be listening in to that mobile call, and less organised crime with NSA or similar kids playing at James Bond can just get it via the exchange.
16. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  What is your justification for calling the NSA evil? Do you even know what the NSA does? So the NSA collected some records that said which phone numbers called other phone numbers. Big deal. How did that harm anyone? Even if that is outside their jurisdiction, how is that evil? Do you even know what evil is? Snowden was a traitor whom tried to hurt the NSA as much as he could because he was disgruntled (he was almost fired for incompetence). The only ones elevating him to hero status are the ones who are just parroting what they hear on Foxnews. You're not one of those people that thinks the NSA is listening to your phone calls are you?
17. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 14:36 · Score: 2
  
  There was no "unconstitutional domestic spying". It was simply records of which phone number called another phone number. If you think that is spying then your phone company has been spying on you for decades. Stop parroting what you hear on the news and actually do some research yourself.
18. Re:Not all spooks are bad by currently_awake · 2014-11-21 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's a matter of what the government can force your phone provider to hand over without a warrant. Given that the president of the USA is NOT a judge, I don't think he should be able to issue search warrants (NSA Letters).
19. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  What is your justification for calling the NSA evil? Do you even know what the NSA does? So the NSA collected some records that said which phone numbers called other phone numbers. Big deal. How did that harm anyone?
  Awful trolling.
20. Re:Not all spooks are bad by cold+fjord · 2014-11-21 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's not building a case. Care to do that?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
21. Re:Not all spooks are bad by cold+fjord · 2014-11-21 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Those records are considered ordinary business records. That question has been to the Supreme Court before. The government doesn't legally need a warrant to get them.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
22. Re:Not all spooks are bad by NotSanguine · 2014-11-21 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  There was no "unconstitutional domestic spying". It was simply records of which phone number called another phone number. If you think that is spying then your phone company has been spying on you for decades. Stop parroting what you hear on the news and actually do some research yourself.
  Research? Ten seconds with a search engine shows you're wrong. So you're either trolling, stupid or a government shill.
  Well, yes, they do that. But they are also doing this:
  
  Real Time Access to Phone and Internet Traffic Second, the same telecommunications companies also allowed the NSA to install sophisticated communications surveillance equipment in secret rooms at key telecommunications facilities around the country. This equipment gave the NSA unfettered access to large streams of domestic and international communications in real time—what amounted to at least 1.7 billion emails a day, according to the Washington Post. The NSA could then data mine and analyze this traffic for suspicious key words, patterns and connections. Again, all of this was done without a warrant in violation of federal law and the Constitution.
  The relevant Executive Order (12333) details the scope of domestic surveillance for US Intelligence agencies (Section 2.3b) and states:
  
  Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons; [emphasis added]
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
23. Re:Not all spooks are bad by CBravo · 2014-11-21 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  The word nazi triggers godwins law, regardless of validity of arguments. QED
  
  --
  nosig today
24. Re:Not all spooks are bad by CBravo · 2014-11-21 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Try another repressive regime next time, there are lots of them.
  
  --
  nosig today
25. Re:Not all spooks are bad by AHuxley · 2014-11-21 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Re "Thanks to the influence of such groups as the NSA your mobile phone transmits it's data in an easily readable format instead of something encrypted such as was first proposed for the devices"
  Thats the idea. Fill the gps logs with random trips to locations that fit in well with the non fiction "story" on a networked computer.
  Who was that journalists phone around or who did it stop near? How would it fit in with a story been worked on? So many new digital hops to follow up on thanks to one random drive and a long coffee. Keep adding to that non fiction "story" on the networked computer every few days. Start a new story.
  Once people know they are been watched they can change. The old idea was never to talk about tracking. Now terms like cell-site simulator and IMSI catcher are in the local press.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
26. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  People have responded to people like you hundreds of times, writing paragraph after paragraph explaining the problem to you. You won't listen. You won't ever agree with us, and we won't ever agree with you.
27. Re: Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  If your level of discourse is governed by such shallow and mechanical principles, then you're a fucking dumb twat.
  Get off the internet, you're bringing our average IQ down.
28. Re:Not all spooks are bad by cold+fjord · 2014-11-22 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  First, that post wasn't a response to me. Second, posting bad arguments and opinions contrary to the facts "hundreds of times" doesn't make them good arguments or factual. I can be persuaded, but you have to be right to do it. Maybe you've heard that two wrongs don't make a right? Well neither does ten thousand wrongs make a right.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
29. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps in fantasyland.
30. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Second, posting bad arguments and opinions contrary to the facts "hundreds of times" doesn't make them good arguments or factual. I can be persuaded, but you have to be right to do it. Maybe you've heard that two wrongs don't make a right? Well neither does ten thousand wrongs make a right.
  I agree 100%. So stop posting.
31. Re:Not all spooks are bad by cold+fjord · 2014-11-22 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's fine that you agree, but what about everybody else? If I stop posting then much of what's left on varous topics will be bad arguments and non-factual "facts." Nobody should want that, it doesn't help anybody. I'll keep posting to benefit everybody else even if you agree with me.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
32. Re:Not all spooks are bad by Em+Adespoton · 2014-11-25 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's fine that you agree, but what about everybody else? If I stop posting then much of what's left on varous topics will be bad arguments and non-factual "facts." Nobody should want that, it doesn't help anybody. I'll keep posting to benefit everybody else even if you agree with me.
  Usually CF and I come down on opposite sides of arguments to do with US government overreach, but I completely agree with him on this point. Using blanket statements and emotion-based arguments does nothing to prove a point, and both he and I have called that out on this thread.
  So, like him and Chris453, I'd like some further explanation as to why the US isn't evil, but the NSA, which is a US government organization, IS evil? It seems to me that either US citizens should disband it if they feel it's evil, or they should get rid of the parts that are evil and keep the good parts, or they should leave their country if they feel it is evil and not providing them the power to excise the evil parts. Or, of course, topple the entire government.
  Living in a country, complaining that its signals branch of the government is evil, and then doing nothing else about it but complacently reaping the benefits of the "evil" government's actions seems just as evil (or at least hypocritical) in my view. "Because they're evil!" is the sort of reasoning that lends itself more to fascist regimes than to true democratic republics.
Good by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-11-21 10:32 · Score: 1

GOOD. When people fear the government, there is tyrrany. When government fears the people, there is freedom.
I would also like to add that, when there is little barrier to tracking the calls of mundane political opponents, or even listening in to their calls, than a check box on a piece of paper saying "You got a warrant, didn't you?", there is nothing to stop a G. Gordon Liddy type from listening in on the other presidential candidate's conversations, and their planners and donors and strategists.
This is the mechanism by which 1984 will happen -- sufficient important stuff done in the virual world that a government, with an easy-to-use virtual world panopticon, will indeed abuse it.
All human history teaches this course.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Funny you mention a Republican from decades ago when the CURRENT PRESIDENT is doing this. In addition to illegally handing over details of opposition groups to his supporters while claiming "Not a smidgeon of corruption".
  Maybe if you stopped licking Obama's ass and held him accountable, you know the guy ACTUALL DOING THIS SHIT RIGHT NOW, instead of trying to spin it into a partsian attack against someone 40 years ago something would change. But as long as the current administration does this and you blame his opposition, why would he ever consider even slowing down?
  Idiots like you are the reason it is still going on.
2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Funny you mention a Republican from decades ago when the CURRENT PRESIDENT is doing this.
  Funny, Impy the Impiuos Imp didn't say anything about "Repubs bad, Dems good", so why do you bring it up? It isn't relevant to the point at all, which is that if it is this flippin' easy to perform Watergate-level spying, then there is literally nothing to stop another Watergate-style scandal, regardless of which mascot the politician follows.
  
  Idiots like you are the reason it is still going on.
3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Moron, he mentioned G. Gordon Liddy. Read a book and stop posting your ignorance for everyone.
4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  And where did he make the case that it was a partisan thing? You imagined that out of whole cloth. Just because the person had a political affiliation doesn't mean that was Impy's point. Impy made a point that if one person took a physical action, so could another. Political affiliation was irrelevant and not mentioned.
  You need to sit down, shut up, and stop being part of the problem.
5. Re:Good by Richy_T · 2014-11-21 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  He said "a" G Gordon Liddy which just means somebody like him (not necessarily because of party affiliation)
6. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it is true that the people in power right now and those who back them are responsible for this continuing to go on. Can't argue that. However, people like you continue to gloss over, and indeed get angry when it's pointed out that the reason they can CONTINUE the programs is because Bush and company STARTED the programs. People like you called people like me conspiracy theorists, un-American, and bunches of really not polite things back when the existence of these programs was coming to light. And you did nothing.
  Obama and company failed in that they continued these programs. They also failed in that they didn't prosecute the traitors of the Bush administration. One reason they didn't, of course, is that if they had conservative nutjobs would havr gone ballistic, said it was politically motivated, and continued to defend programs they were just fine with as long as their guy was in the White House. This was pre-Snowden and so the probabilities of them successfully lying to the public about that were pretty good.
  Historically it's not liberals who are pro spying, pro military industrial complex, and pro expanded police powers. If you want to know why we're in this mess, look in a mirror.
A bit missing here... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 10:33 · Score: 0

...But after an internal debate that has not been previously reported, NSA leaders, White House officials and key lawmakers opted to continue the collection and storage.. ...AND the people who had raised the concerns, and lost the argument, found that it had been a VERY career-limiting move...
I've been there. And there isn't another spy organisation around the corner that you can move to...
Shows how wrong they were by morgauxo · 2014-11-21 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one has been punished and they are still spying on us all. Where's the backlash? People complaining on Slashdot?
Those who have betrayed the USA are ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-11-21 10:41 · Score: 1

They have betrayed their country

While I will agree with you that some of the NSA spooks have betrayed the United States of America, I do need to point out that it's the POLITICIANS who are the biggest traitors of all
Politicians in Washington DC, many of them, no matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, do not care about America. They only care about power (unlimited power), money (enormous amount of money), and getting re-elected, again, and again and again, ad nauseum

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Those who have betrayed the USA are ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Military spooks in the NSA took this oath of office:
  "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
  Taco, you said, "Not all spooks from CIA/NSA are bad dudes either. There are conscientious people within those organizations..." The actions of the NSA were (are) obviously and blantanly unconstitutional. If the people you spoke of were truely concerned, they would have stood on their hind legs and thrown a shit-fit about Gen. Alexander's abhorrent actions. The only ones with cojones were Snowden, Binney, Drake, and Wiebe. The rest are just bureaucrats and sheeple for whom their oath means nothing.
2. Re:Those who have betrayed the USA are ... by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  I dispute your statement that collecting records of which phone number called another phone number is "blantanly unconstitutional". I didn't know numbers had constitutional rights. But regardless of that, how small do you think the NSA is? Do you think every one of the ~40,000 employees knows about every program? That is like saying that everyone that worked at Sony should have been fired for the whole rootkit fiasco. Imagine a tiny office of 20 people. Chances are there are things someone is working on in that tiny office that other people don't know about. If Sandra in payroll is embezzling money do you get thrown in jail for working at the same company? Just because there were a few bad apples doesn't mean snowden was this hero you people are trying to turn him into. If he stopped with the metadata program he might have had some sympathy, but revealing any secret he could get his hands on to hurt the US is the act of a traitor. There is no justification for that.
3. Re:Those who have betrayed the USA are ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  Seems to me Snowden followed his oath, which makes him the only one.
The United States is turning into Untied States by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-11-21 10:50 · Score: 2

No one has been punished and they are still spying on us all

That's the kicker, ain't it?
No matter how much the citizens have protested, TPTB still REFUSES to listen
We call ourselves a "democratic country" but are we truly democratic?
Our government, the government of the United States of America, is behaving exactly like a tyrannical regime - in which it not only conveniently ignores the wish of the citizentry, it continues to carry out programs which are designed to undermine the validity of the democratic principles within the country

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-21 11:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We call ourselves a "democratic country" but are we truly democratic?
  Our government, the government of the United States of America, is behaving exactly like a tyrannical regime - in which it not only conveniently ignores the wish of the citizentry, it continues to carry out programs which are designed to undermine the validity of the democratic principles within the country
  Many have argued that this is the natural tendency of democracy. Plato ranked democracy as the second-worst type of government, inevitably degrading into tyranny, since the "mob" will always eventually be swayed to vote away their power by promises from some prospective tyrant who promises them something that appeals to their immediate concerns (safety, security, food, wealth, homes, land, etc.). So, the "mob" votes away their rights in exchange for something else that seems more important at the moment.
  The ancient Romans solved this problem with a special office of dictator, which was only appointed for limited times to deal with a crisis. There was a strong tradition in the Roman Republic (which held for at least a few centuries) where ambition to be a sole leader was strongly discouraged among the ruling class -- to be accused of desiring power was one of the worst sins. The topmost offices were only to be held for one short term in one's lifetime, or at least with a period of several years between, to prevent anything like a "king" or "tyrant" gaining permanent power.
  But in the late 2nd century BCE, various elements were set in motion that ultimately led to the downfall of the Republic, mostly due to populist reformers who wanted to give suffrage to more people beyond the traditional "Roman citizens," and those reformers who promised the poor and landless all sorts of things. In exchange, the poor and landless broke with Roman tradition and started electing people to offices for many consecutive terms, and when crises arose, the dictators stayed in their offices for longer and longer.
  Eventually, Julius Caesar came along and got himself declared dictator to deal with various things, but then arranged to become effectively dictator for life. (There's a lot more to the story, involving the gradual accumulation of power in central locations and people, standing armies who supported generals in lawless actions, etc.)
  Anyhow -- the founders of the U.S. tried their darnedest to keep such a degradation from happening in the republic they designed. They were terrified of the mob (as Plato had been), and they saw the mistakes of the Roman Republic. So, they only gave the vote to those who seemed to have responsibility (male landowners, effectively similar to the heads of the ancient Greek demos, the root of democratic ideas). They isolated the upper chamber from popular election in the federal government. They deplored standing armies, preferring to rely on militias when a crisis occurred. They included even more checks and balances than the Roman Republic. In case any group of people did gain control, they built in strict Constitutional limits to federal power, so even if someone had a lot of power within the federal government, most of the powers and rights would be handled by state and local governments.
  Gradually, particularly over the past 75 years or so, most of these aspects of the original governmental structure have gradually been overruled -- often in the name of "democracy" or "protecting the people" or providing aid and help to the poor through a central system.
  Is it a coincidence that this also happened around the same time that the educated class stopped reading the classics? You couldn't graduate high school in the 1800s without having a level of knowledge of Latin and Greek that would probably beat out an undergraduate classics major today. And with that knowledge of ancient languages generally came a
2. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by blahplusplus · 2014-11-21 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  "Gradually, particularly over the past 75 years or so, most of these aspects of the original governmental structure have gradually been overruled -- often in the name of "democracy" or "protecting the people" or providing aid and help to the poor through a central system."
  Without this helping the poor capitalism would have fallen, let's be honest here. The american/Europe/English capitalist governments all had these problems because capitalism is fundamentally irrational at based reflecting the irrationality of mankind. All these changes were required to keep the capitalist system going. Say what you want but Lenin was correct about imperalism being the highest stage of capitalism.
  http://www.marxists.org/archiv...
  The reality is human beings just aren't intelligent enough to form long lasting social orders because too many people have negative evolutionary characteristics they've inherited from the past. Our primate psychology is at the root of everything regardless of what collection of words and labels one flies under. The biology is still there.
3. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by dbIII · 2014-11-21 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Is it a coincidence that this also happened around the same time that the educated class stopped reading the classics?
  Maybe more because the educated class didn't get to run the place anymore and those that did get to run the place appointed their young catamites to run departments instead of people with the experience to operate effectively. I'm not sure when it happened but by the end of WWII the executive branch of the US government had the wool very effectively pulled over their eyes by Stalin despite potential access to a vast number of experts in European politics who knew it detail what sort of monster he was.
  Look at the careers of people like Rumsfeld or the political Generals that somehow managed to avoid any association with Korea, Vietnam or Central America, or any conflict at all, before ending up on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Neither education or experience appears to be of value. Intimate contact with a Senator as a young intern is the more likely path to power, and to get to be an intern you have to study something, and those classics are too damned hard apparently.
4. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-21 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Without this helping the poor capitalism would have fallen, let's be honest here.
  [Citation needed] -- I mean, seriously, let's be TRULY honest: for most of history, there have been people living under much, much, much more poorer circumstances than today. And the lower classes have been much more oppressed than today. How exactly would capitalism "have fallen" just because the poor were only slightly better off than they were for -- well, all of history -- rather than MUCH better off (as they are in modern industrial societies for the most part)?
  I fail to see what democracy has to do with capitalism, other than if you only see the world through skewed Marxist "lenses." And most of my post was about ancient societies, which had dynamics very different from modern capitalism. While capitalism certainly became tethered to American democracy at some point, that was an outgrowth of an older strand of (old-school) "liberalism," which would be the more accurate companion of a democratic republic as the Founding Fathers understood it.
  In any case, my argument was NOT that we shouldn't help the poor, but rather that promising the poor things coupled with increased suffrage and power to the poor will likely lead to voting for politicians who might have other motives and will expand power as necessary to create their own personal vision.
  For an example from the beginning of the era I'm talking about, see Huey Long, a man who seemed to want to go to extreme measures to help the poor and downtrodden -- but when he was threatened, he responded by becoming increasingly dictatorial in his governance. Long's story has many parallels with the Gracchi brothers of ancient Rome, which arguably began the big downslide in the republic.
  As for all the stuff about the fundamental irrationality of people -- sure, yeah, that's true. But it's not capitalism's fault. (Not that I'm defending unbridled capitalism either.) Marxist socialism won't fix it either. It just is.
5. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-21 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe more because the educated class didn't get to run the place anymore and those that did get to run the place appointed their young catamites to run departments instead of people with the experience to operate effectively.
  I probably shouldn't respond to a post that uses a word like "catamite" so loosely... but do you really think nepotism (which might be a better term for what you're talking about) was new to the 20th century? It was not. That sort of corruption has been around a LONG time. Incompetent friends and relatives have always been a staple of the political process.
6. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  "How exactly would capitalism "have fallen" just because the poor were only slightly better off than they were for -- well, all of history -- rather than MUCH better off (as they are in modern industrial societies for the most part)?"
  There was this thing called World war 1, World war 2 and the cold war. Jesus these days people on slashdot are fucking illiterate. Imagine you're being drafted to go fight in some war for some rich oligarchs and you're poor and not totally braindead. You'd have some sense of self preservation would you not? The downtrodden are alive and many of them are not totally braindead.
  Let's not forget the trillion dollar bailouts, next time you hear "deficit spending" remember all the free money the fed pumped to the rich after they lost bets speculating on world markets:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8
7. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Hear me out for a sec. Could this be why women have always been unable to vote in those ancient societies? Women (in general) tend to make decisions based more on emotions and feelings rather than on facts, logic, etc. Now, please don't discount me as a woman hater, etc etc. But what I don't get is why no one seems to ask the question "why were there so many societies that disallowed a woman vote?" It seems that if you say anything other than "patriarchal oppression", you are anti-woman scum and should be ignored.
  Think about it. I'm not saying yank away their vote now. I don't think it'd help and it'd be impossible to do anyway. But just consider it. We copy so much from these societies and built ours around their ideas. Perhaps their reasoning for disallowing women voting, in the context of their times at least, could appear to be logical or rational. I wish we could discover why. REALLY why. Not PC why. And I say this as a white male who does not own land, and in these societies I'd get the same no vote as women.
8. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by dbIII · 2014-11-21 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  That word sorted out the people who've actually heard of the classics from those who have not even if it's a bit too extreme to apply to nearly every case.
  
  In rare cases it fits precisely and in others simple nepotism (as you suggest) or a wish to promote keen youths "with the right stuff" applies far better. Of course I don't think it's new or I wouldn't use such an old word, but it's rife today when you look at situations like that kid put in charge of a big chunk of NASA that took on their climate scientists - despite being highly political from the start that was a new one for NASA.
  Either way we've ended up with a situation where good looks and Spaniel style devotion to masters trumps all else. A handsome empty headed youth that says yes a lot who is on the political track is likely to be in a position of power before the age when an engineering graduate gets to be in charge of his first project with a small workforce. It's no way to run a country. The same stands with my comment about the political track to the head of the military - with plenty of conflict over the past few decades it's a hole in the system that someone can avoid all association with that and make it to the top ranks.
9. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-11-21 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  There was this thing called World war 1, World war 2 and the cold war. Jesus these days people on slashdot are fucking illiterate. Imagine you're being drafted to go fight in some war for some rich oligarchs and you're poor and not totally braindead. You'd have some sense of self preservation would you not? The downtrodden are alive and many of them are not totally braindead.
  Judging by history, the poor and downtrodden are trivial to manipulate into completely discarding all thought of self preservation. "For king and country!" A rallying cry that worked for centuries. Nowadays it's "For God and country!" since kings are out of fashion. And I include recent history in that assessment. 407,000 American men died fighting World War II. Just how many oligarchs do you think were in those ranks? Zero. And how many sons of oligarchs? A few. A handful. Hundreds? Not likely. The American oligarchy is only 400 right now. It was even less then. Not a lot of sons available. You're claiming they fought because they were better off. I say they had forgotten how bad off they had been. The Great Depression was already a generation gone by the time World War II rolled around. Their parents remembered it, but those who fought and died were children in its aftermath, and unaware of their plight. No, they fought for the same old wheeze that worked before: "For king and country!"
10. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by chihowa · 2014-11-21 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  The reality is human beings just aren't intelligent enough to form long lasting social orders because too many people have negative evolutionary characteristics they've inherited from the past. Our primate psychology is at the root of everything regardless of what collection of words and labels one flies under. The biology is still there.
  Those negative characteristics are only negative in the context of forming long lasting social orders (really only in the context of forming long lasting egalitarian social orders -- dynastic empires last longer than most of our social structures). They are extremely positive in the context of the affected individuals and in the case of avarice, they are beneficial to the affected's offspring (and their offspring, and so on). There is extreme benefit to be had from sabotaging the social order and norms.
  We humans are intelligent enough to form effective and equitable social structures, we just don't have the collective stomach for removing the saboteurs from our society. So we/they continue to undermine every system we devise.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
11. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Suffrage for women is problematic as it allows them to take by force what is needed to support them, destroying the basis of the institution of the family, in turn releasing irresponsible males from the responsibility to care for their offspring, further burdening those (male and female) performing a productive role in society.
12. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by dbIII · 2014-11-21 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  An example of where it is entirely appropriate is Joseph McCarthy and his protege Schine, another Wolfowitz and his mistress who ended up being paid more than her purely theoretical boss Rice. Whether the relationship was physical or not is immaterial when the powerful are putting their special friends into positions of responsibility that that they show no signs of being fit for.
  I suspect that's led to a change between having a successful legal career or similar being the way to power to being a kid who has got to be on the inside immediately after graduation from a relatively short course with nothing as onerous as classics, law, science or engineering.
13. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by khallow · 2014-11-21 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Without this helping the poor capitalism would have fallen, let's be honest here.
  Well, if we're going to be "honest" here, we should note that modern capitalism inherently helps the poor due to the efficiency of creating capital which requires well paid labor to operate. This feature has been more successful than the welfare state at alleviating poverty (though the two things can work together successfully as the current state of the Scandinavian countries indicates).
  
  because capitalism is fundamentally irrational at based reflecting the irrationality of mankind.
  Just because you assume something is "fundamentally irrational" doesn't mean it is.
  
  Say what you want but Lenin was correct about imperalism being the highest stage of capitalism.
  I'll say that Lenin was a real piece of work. It is a vast non sequitur to make that particular claim. And need I add that Lenin disproved that particular claim by creating his very own non-capitalist empire?
  
  The reality is human beings just aren't intelligent enough to form long lasting social orders
  There are plenty of counterexamples today. Egypt and China, for example, has been kicking around in one form or another for about 5000-6000 years. A number of religious institutions and belief systems are hundreds to thousands of years old. And there are many education institutions over half a millennia. old.
  
  What is the point of asserting something that is near trivial to disprove?
14. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by NotSanguine · 2014-11-21 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Many have argued that this is the natural tendency of democracy. Plato ranked democracy as the second-worst type of government, inevitably degrading into tyranny
  And Winston Churchill said:
  
  Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
  [emphasis added]
  So who are you going to believe? huh?
  
  --
  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
15. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by blahplusplus · 2014-11-21 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  "Just because you assume something is "fundamentally irrational" doesn't mean it is."
  There are countless examples of capitalisms fundamental irrationality and waste in terms of natural resources. You should learn some science, I can tell you the facts and you won't believe them!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
16. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by blahplusplus · 2014-11-21 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  "We humans are intelligent enough to form effective and equitable social structures, we just don't have the collective stomach for removing the saboteurs from our society."
  But that means you're not intelligent if you leave the saboteurs alone. Some science on reasoning, someone can tell you what is true and you won't believe them!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
17. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by khallow · 2014-11-22 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, so what does that video which has nothing to say about capitalism or economics have to do with your claim that capitalism being "fundamentally irrational"? One could with similar glibness similarly say that human math is fundamentally irrational - which would be wrong.
  
  There are countless examples of capitalisms fundamental irrationality and waste in terms of natural resources.
  
  No. Because we aren't try to do things in terms of natural resources. It isn't a goal of humanity to use as little energy, aluminum, or acres of land as possible. Since that is the case, then one can't perceive irrationality in that way since you are completely missing actual effort and goals of capitalism.
18. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-11-22 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  The Great Depression was already a generation gone by the time World War II rolled around.
  Interesting theory you have there, Butch...
  Black Friday (widely acknowledged as marking the start of the Great Depression) was in 1929.
  WW2 started in 1939.
  I've never heard of a human society with ten year generations. we generally CAN'T have children much less than 14 years after birth, and generally don't for 20+ years. Hence the notion that a "generation" is 20-25 years....
  And even that ten years assumes the Great Depression was over in a few months. As opposed to dragging on and on, as it actually did.
  It should also be note that WW2 is generally credited by people with a clue with ending the Great Depression (though some argue that it didn't end it so much as hide it with a high fever - war production got people working, while the war lasted. And post-war production (it's no coincidence that America's most prosperous period was followed after much of the industry of the rest of the world was bombed into rubble) hid the continuing issues with the need to make things for most of the civilized world....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
19. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  No one has been punished and they are still spying on us all
  That's the kicker, ain't it?
  No matter how much the citizens have protested, TPTB still REFUSES to listen
  We call ourselves a "democratic country" but are we truly democratic?
  Our government, the government of the United States of America, is behaving exactly like a tyrannical regime - in which it not only conveniently ignores the wish of the citizentry, it continues to carry out programs which are designed to undermine the validity of the democratic principles within the country
  No it isn't. Polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Americans are not concerned about these issues. In fact, many of the pro-privacy democrats were recently voted out in the mid-terms in favor of anti-privacy republicans. This is how a democracy would be. Tyranny would be if your minority view were imposed on everyone else. In a democracy, you have to learn to deal with not always getting what you want, even some issues you feel very strongly about.
20. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by chihowa · 2014-11-22 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure that intelligence, beyond a certain baseline, really enters into the formula for creating long lived social structures. For the individual, there is no tangible benefit to creating structures that will last more than a few generations. After a few generations, as you point out, they will require the efforts of other people to keep alive, so there is little that the originator can do to ensure that the structure survives.
  The most rational course of action for all individuals involved in a society is to maximize their personal benefit and plan to pass that benefit on to their offspring. Tangling with those who are successful at maximizing their benefit has real negative consequences, so the most rational action for the downtrodden is to take as much of the scraps as possible or jealously guard what you have while staying out of the eye of others.
  The ambition to create structures that will outlast you and your offspring comes from irrational motivations. Historical drivers for this are abstract concepts like duty, fairness, or religion. There is no tangible benefit to creating these structures and there is often great personal cost. As there is no assurance that the structures will even survive, no matter how well you craft them, it's hard to say that building them is an intelligent choice.
  I think that improving the lot of humanity as a whole is a noble goal, but I don't think that it has anything to do with intelligence or rationality. History is littered with people who have tried, and sometimes succeeded, to do so at great personal cost. Often their success only lasted a few generations, if that, before being undone by others. What real benefit to we get from creating these structures and how does that benefit weigh against the costs required to build them?
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
21. Re:The United States is turning into Untied States by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-23 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  We are a representative republic. We have a constitution that the government must follow. The majority do *not* and should not have absolute power.
  It might be a minority view that the government should follow the constitution, but it's not optional; it's mandatory. The NSA's mass surveillance must stop.
  So don't repeat that "You're a minority, so deal with it." nonsense again, because it simply doesn't make sense.
Snowden was only the latest whistleblower... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 11:05 · Score: 1

Snowden was only the latest whistleblower...
There have been a half-dozen whistleblowers since 2002 regarding the extreme surveillance that this agency, and the dozens that have been formed since then, have been doing. Just Google the names, oh wait, don't do that! Anyho, Snowden, I'm sure, saw what happened to people who were actual officials in the agency. They went to jail. Personally, I think his actions showed he had no confidence in a lawful response from the US government. And that turned out to be true.
So it wasn't "we have to have" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 11:29 · Score: 0

instead, it was --and is-- "we can have, so we shall have" and no matter the consequences.
Apparently being a politician is entirely consequence-free these days.
Dear American People, only you can rid the world of this abomination.
Damn NSA by MarkvW · 2014-11-21 11:38 · Score: 1

I LIKE the idea of the NSA spying on foreigners, but when it spies on American Citizens--without warrants--it becomes a vile and despicable organization that can and should be fully defunded.
1. Re:Damn NSA by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 12:05 · Score: 2
  
  As someone who cares about freedom and privacy, I don't support mass surveillance of any form, regardless of whether it's used against foreigners or not. I just think that we should have standards before we're allowed to spy on someone.
2. Re:Damn NSA by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Do they also have flying cars in your utopia?
3. Re:Damn NSA by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  It never spied on Americans, any more so that your phone company does for having records of who called who. The information would be used to find out who a criminal was talking to. Despite what the "news" might have reported, the NSA does not listen to everyone's phone conversations.
4. Re:Damn NSA by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-21 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  You're absolutely right. Only in utopias do the concepts of standards and limited government exist.
5. Re:Damn NSA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  Cold Fjord, did you get modded down one too many times? We're well past the point where we're going to buy the line "the NSA doesn't spy on Americans!"
  I suppose you support their redefinition of the word "collection" to mean "not collection until we do something else with it" too. Fuck off with your newspeak garbage. Fucking jackboot-licking shill, move to a country that agrees with you, like North Korea. You neither want nor deserve freedom.
6. Re:Damn NSA by cold+fjord · 2014-11-22 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I still post under the same user name. You replied to someone else under the foolish assumption that nobody else could hold views that might be considered similar to my own in some fashion despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans hold similar views.
  I find your little hateful rants a source of amusement, a demonstration of your impotent rage, and proof of your hatred of pluralism and democratic principles. Of course I do leave open the possibility that you are simply unmedicated.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Not all spooks are bad - to start with... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 12:08 · Score: 0

There. Fixed that for yer...
Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by dbIII · 2014-11-21 13:33 · Score: 1

So do those posters here calling Snowden a "traitor" now get how the only way he could get the message out to the people he worked for - the American people - was to tell it to the press?
Internal complaints just got buried.
1. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by Chris453 · 2014-11-21 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't call him a traitor for leaking this instance of the metadata. I call him a traitor for abusing his position as a system administrator to download as much intelligence as possible and then releasing it with the sole intent to damage the US. How can ANYONE claim that isn't treason.
2. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by dbIII · 2014-11-21 15:13 · Score: 2
  
  Was his sole intent to damage the US or was it to damage those who are abusing their position?
  Absolute right of Kings went out with King John. The NSA are not the US, only part of it, and should not have unquestionable power.
3. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 20:13 · Score: 0
  
  You call him a traitor and I call you a sheeple.
  I mean -- by your logic Benjamin Franklin and his buddies were traitors to the British crown. Oh-kay. Or the white rose folks. By which I invoke Godwin.
  Perhaps we should have a higher regard of traitors instead of splitting hairs?
4. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden's intent wasn't to damage the US. His intent was to reveal the institutionalized lawlessness at the NSA and hopefully to get them to adhere to the fucking Constitution. If that "damages the US", it only does so because the US is so far in the wrong that it'll take the light from "not wrong" several hundred years to get there.
  Jim Clapper is a traitor, not Snowden.
5. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Then he should have only revealed information that violates the Constitution... like the spying on American's part... and I would have labeled him a Hero.
  Exposing our foreign intelligence collection efforts to the world and giving away over a million documents (reportedly) to various media people... that is treason. No matter how much he says he needed help sorting through the documents, he still gave that information to foreign interests and it has undoubtedly been captured and copied by other nations.
6. Re:Do you get how Snowden's way was the only way? by Pablew+Nopl · 2014-11-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. Why is this important? Because what is constitutional is not necessarily morally right. Mass surveillance is simply wrong, regardless of whether it's done to foreigners or not. You might not care about morality, but I do. I thank Snowden for leaking everything.
  
  that is treason.
  What material support has he provided? You'll find that our constitution's definition of treason is far too narrow for it to be applied to someone like Snowden. You're really pushing it here.
But that is not Washington... by nicoleb_x · 2014-11-21 13:49 · Score: 1

As usual, the Democrats and the President are NOT part of the Washington establishment (that is to blame for this) and so this can't be blamed on them. They have campaigned against this (even last week). You should probably look to the Republicans to blame.
1. Re:But that is not Washington... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  Is this a joke or are you that delusional?
Benjamin Franklin + mod parent up by bussdriver · 2014-11-21 14:46 · Score: 1

Benjamin Franklin's speech that ended the constitutional convention is often cut short but you will like it. He basically says all democracies fall to despotism and lets end the debate because what we have is good enough for now.
I don't have much faith that if Americans had to read some history that they are capable of learning from history enough to prevent it from repeating. Look at Vietnam and how easily Iraq happened despite a couple generations living thru that history.
The fall of Rome probably has many parallels given it took 100s of years to collapse while the USA is going to do it in less than 100. As far as functional democracy, that already is gone. Widespread success increases the rate of downfall as the citizens shirk their duties for selfish escapism. I bet TV would have tripled speed of Rome's demise.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If you think by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 16:56 · Score: 0

If you think they started then, you are naive.
They have been collecting all signals worldwide for a very long time.
All that is new that has come online is more sophisticated search and storage automation along with enhanced network penetration and
becoming the zero node for the internet, allowing to cut out all between source and sink.
Frontline covered this already by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 17:24 · Score: 0

Frontlline did a 2 part story on this. They rightfully threw Obama under the bus as well. It is hard to watch and keep your emotions in check.
They were 3 years late to worry in 2009 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-21 18:11 · Score: 0

Well if they were worried about the public learning of the program in 2009, they were three years too late. Here is a USA Today article from May, 2006 that completely describes the NSA's phone metadata collection program. In 2006 it was reported and it was a non-story with few people very concerned about it. While this story is the life blood of those posting here on Slashdot, most people still don't really care about it.
A Minor Correction by hyades1 · 2014-11-21 19:01 · Score: 1

"An anonymous reader sends this report from the Associated Press..."
"A reader who thinks he's anonymous sends this report from the Associated Press..."
There...fixed that for you. ;-)

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
NSA concerned over domestic surveillance program? by lippydude · 2014-11-21 23:08 · Score: 1

"Dissenters within the National Security Agency .. warned in 2009 that the program to secretly collect American phone records wasn't providing enough intelligence to justify the backlash it would cause .. after an internal debate that has not been previously reported, NSA leaders, White House officials and key lawmakers opted to continue the collection and storage of American calling records" ..

Retrospective ass covering by the management at NSA. What were the names of these top NSA officials. What was the nature of these concerns. How has it come to light at this time?
But what abolut the MTSOs? by kilodelta · 2014-11-22 01:13 · Score: 1

I mean every cell phone, I don't care it it's 1G, 2G, 3G or 4G connects to a tower that then forwards to what is called an MTSO. And an MTSO is nothing but a Lucent #5ESS/2000 or Nortel DMS series switch, same as in the PSTN. So are you telling me the NSA gave all the MTSOs a pass? That's really odd.
It's Bush's Fault! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 02:34 · Score: 0

It's Bush's fault! He decided to continue the program in 2009.... wait. Right?
He didn't give information to foreign interests by dbIII · 2014-11-22 12:03 · Score: 1

Really? What if the media people are US citizens (as they are), does that still make it treason or does that mean the media people that "gave that information to foreign interests" are the ones that are treasonous in your eyes? Funny how they are not facing any charges at all isn't it?
As for other nations, if a civilian contractor in Hawaii has got hold of all this stuff you can bet that any other nation that can pay off a significant Las Vegas gambling debt or other way into to this sprawling mickey mouse operation has already got it.