Slashdot Mirror


NSA: We Mulled Ending Phone Program Before Edward Snowden Leaks

Mark Wilson writes Edward Snowden is heralded as both a hero and villain. A privacy vigilante and a traitor. It just depends who you ask. The revelations he made about the NSA's surveillance programs have completely changed the face of online security, and changed the way everyone looks at the internet and privacy. But just before the whistle was blown, it seems that the NSA was considering bringing its telephone data collection program to an end. Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.

39 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions.

    I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general.

    The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

    1. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or those who thought the US intelligence agencies were following the constitution.

      It was suspected, but even most of the people who were considered tin foil mad hatters were lowballing the amount of surveillance.

    2. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a "goddamned piece of paper" would curtail this?

      The *only* force that prevents powerful institutions from abusing their power is public accountability. Any talk about oversight committees and the state of the law is pure air.

      If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.

    3. Re:Not everyone by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

      There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re: Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How old are you? Because I learned about ECHELON 15 years ago (in computer magazines at the bookstore), and there were already talks about intercepting and accessing pretty much everything, large data stores, keyword analysis, etc. And I was just a slightly-geeky teen discovering the Internet 'underground' back then. From France. Even the EU was publicly investigating ECHELON around this time.

      Wikipedia tells me there has been some amount of public discussion about it for the past 20 years, and the program dates back to 50 years ago, so it's very easy to imagine much progress has been made since then.

      Even back then, I wouldn't have called them 'suspicions'... No need to be paranoid to understand how obvious it was, in a large part at least, and not just from the USA of course...

      One of the main issues with all our problems, is that people often 'forget' for how long they knew about them (even when nothing was ever really done to try and solve them), media always repaint them as 'news' for business purpose (and, it is easy to think, for more global manipulation), and new generations think they are new problems they just discovered themselves... It's easier to consider accepting to do nothing about recent problems, than understanding how everything and everyone has been so thoroughly covered in shit for so long and try to do anything about it.

    5. Re:Not everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.

      There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.

      There is?

      Seems 99.999% of the population did exactly FUCK ALL after Snowden about their online privacy.

      Even when the tinfoil hatters are proven dead-nuts right, people don't give a shit. Watch and see as they wet their fucking pants over the first lady Prez, in all her corrupt glory.

      People are not just stupid. They fucking stupid. They're not even smart enough to know why they should give a shit.

    6. Re: Not everyone by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Err, not the only force. Revolution works pretty well on occasion, too.

    7. Re: Not everyone by twitnutttt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.

      Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

      For shame!

    8. Re: Not everyone by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Dam straight! There needs to be a balance:

      * Too much authority with too little accountability leads to abuse of power
      * Too little authority with too much accountability leads to bureaucracy.

      You curtail abuses of Authority by having Accountability

    9. Re: Not everyone by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

      It's a bit like the Japanese and Whaling. Turns out that the whalers operate at a loss, nobody in Japan actually likes whale meat, etc... But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

      In short, they may have ended the program since then if Snowden hadn't leaked because the program wasn't justifying itself, but now they're having to defend their illegal and unconstitutional actions, thus they 'have' to continue and justify the program in order to avoid saying they made a mistake.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re: Not everyone by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Who gives a crap about the phone shit. What it revealed was that US government executives routinely lie to the public and attack members of the public with slander and false arrest when members of the public try to expose the criminal activities of above the law government departments.

      The US department of State, the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service and even the FBI at the highest levels all routinely consider themselves above the law. This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected and who will be selected to take the highest administrative positions in government not as agents of the public but as agents of the corporations who arranged for their appointment.

      The US government has become an empty teleprompter reading mouthpiece for those corporations who pay to get their colluding and conspiring pet politicians elected. The Snowden leaks exposed the underlying reality of how far the Public Relations show of the US government differs from corporate controlled reality of government agencies.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re: Not everyone by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Cutting their budget also has a profound effect.

    12. Re: Not everyone by dryeo · · Score: 2

      How many actual revolutions have improved things?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    13. Re: Not everyone by dryeo · · Score: 2

      That's true. They can either force the telecommunications companies to pay for the data collection, who will of course pass the costs on to their customers but is not a tax. Or they can become more self-financing, selling drugs and weapons is one traditional way for the 3 letter agencies to self-finance or they could do insider trading as they get all the insider intelligence. Since Reagan proofed that selling weapons to your enemies is a good election tactic they may go that route.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re: Not everyone by west · · Score: 2

      If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.

      Which is, of course, why every citizen must be constantly monitored. If we're outside the scrutiny of others, it is *guaranteed* that we are doing something nefarious.

    15. Re: Not everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected ....

      Not that I would deny that corporations attempt to influence government policy and the laws that are made, but .... Could you explain how you think corporations "control" which politicians get elected? Corporations don't vote, it's illegal for them to try to control the votes of their employees, and they have limitations on how they spend money for political purposes. Do they do it through mind control? Mass hypnosis? Could you explain? It looks to me like you are exaggerating their influence, not to mention a few other things.

      Since different corporations have different interests and goals, how is that reconciled if they control everything? How does that work if a very powerful corporation in one state disagrees with a weaker national corporation? What if different industries disagree on things? Is there a "congress of corporations" where this is all hammered out before they command the politicians to do their will? And who is it that gives the commands? What if they can't come to an agreement? Do you have any evidence of this sort of collusion?

      How do you think the corporations control government agencies? Is it Sears, Walmart, or IBM that controls the FBI? Does Ford control the Social Security Administration, or is it Du Pont? Who controls the State Department? Ikea? AT&T? Go Daddy? I think there are a few holes in your theory.

      --
      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
    16. Re: Not everyone by Pi1grim · · Score: 2

      >> If we're outside the scrutiny of others
      We're not. We're monitored at our workplaces (by performance and endresult in smart companies, by process in the rest). Whenever someone get's some power (puts on a cop uniform, gets keys to server room, etc), he is being monitored more closely while in power, as with power comes accountability. When you go home - noone is trusting you with any power, so no monitoring is necessary, so your comment does not apply. CIA, NSA, FBI, all the alphabet agencies are working for the country, the people, no matter how much cynicism you want to demonstrate - this is how it should be, this is the goal, so they should be held accountable and closely monitored, especially if they are having the power to snoop on entire world.

    17. Re: Not everyone by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

      If governmental employees think that "saving face" is more important than doing the right thing, they shouldn't be governmental employees any more.

      --
      That is all.
    18. Re: Not everyone by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Which French Revolution?

      The one that started in 1789 resulted in a Reign of Terror followed by a reactionary Junta-like Directory, followed by the Emperor of the French, Napoleon I?

      I think the French probably would have been better off without the Revolution, although it did eventually work out for them in the end. Four Republics and four monarchies later.

      I'm not sure why anyone thinks of the French Revolution as a success. All of the progress came from them getting tired of killing each other and everyone else.

       

  2. Sure you did.. by jaygridley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bullshit.

    1. Re:Sure you did.. by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if the NSA was considering terminating these programs due to cost, that's not the same as terminating them because domestic surveillance exceeds the NSA's mandate. It's kind of like saying that we don't jail people for homosexuality because the prisons would cost too much: while the argument does end the injustice in the short term, it leaves open the possibility of it returning in a way that a moral argument doesn't.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Sure you did.. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Oh, I have no doubt they considered ending it. Probably in a "how much power would we lose if" type scenario but consideration likely was there at some point.

    3. Re:Sure you did.. by infolation · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was contemplating ending my burglary career, but one of my accomplices grassed me up to the cops. So I sent the lads after him, and then decided my illegal housebreaking spree must continue with renewed vigour.

      The moral? Snitches get stitches.

  3. Re:But now we can all go fuck ourselves by bmo · · Score: 2

    Since Snowden blew the whistle, now they're going to dig their heels in more, and continue to track everyone.

    The world really does work by "toddler logic" and passive-aggressive bullshit.

    --
    BMO

  4. This should be the common case, though. by shess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Big deal. If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're doing a good job. Just that "Oh, yeah, we considered cancelling that program" is a stupid comment which doesn't excuse anything. Most likely they kept the program more because you don't give up power and money once you have it, and they really didn't care about efficacy.

    1. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

      Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.

    2. Re:This should be the common case, though. by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a stupid comment, it's a comment designed to lull credulous people into thinking they're less evil than they really are. That's evil in itself of course, but is par for the course for a three letter agency - goes without saying, really.

    3. Re:This should be the common case, though. by Blrfl · · Score: 2

      If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.

      Govvies don't operate that way. They measure their worth by the dollar value of the programs they oversee. This makes the incentives completely bass-ackwards.

  5. "We mulled..." by surfdaddy · · Score: 2

    ...which means "we thought about it in passing, but really never had any serious intention of changing. We are after all an intelligence agency and there is no way we are going to REDUCE the information we get (voluntarily)."

  6. I mulled laying off soda before I got fat. by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    I also mulled laying off gambling before I went broke.

    Therefore I am, morally speaking, thin and rich.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. So now we're supposed to believe by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that it's stopped.

    Mm hmmm.

    (google "disinformation")

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:So now we're supposed to believe by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, that's why they built their vast data center in the middle-of-nowhere Utah. Because they were shutting down the program.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  8. uh huh by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to know that the value of american citizen's privacy never factored in, just the cost to the federal budget.

  9. But Then We Said "Nahhhh!" by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bro-fisted, chest-bumped and laughed our asses off! I mean, stop doing what we do best? That'll be the day.

  10. Clapper's Girlfriend by Tokolosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    "He promised he wouldn't cum in my mouth! Promised!"

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  11. Searchable database of blackmail information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why else would they do something that produces no security benefit?

    These programs are CIA-NSA-military's power : they can affect any political decisin anywhere on earth, their database tells them who to call and what delicate hints to drop into the conversation.

    'Our' Congressional representatives stopped representing their constituents a while back, NSA has not been called to account. Neocons have taken over control of foreign policy.

    NSA's database is part of the answer, I think.

  12. Re:Told my girlfriend the same thing about the che by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the logic of the article is "now that she knows that I cheated I am forced to continue cheating forever, because F**K HER what makes her think she has a say. Because the guy who told on me is a traitor and we can't reward traitors. Also I'll send him to the hospital if he comes out of hiding"

    That's the logic of the article.

  13. GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The collection program is the tip of the iceberg. The comments and changes by Obama after the leaks leave the door wide open, only severing to deflect criticism and muddy the water with propaganda.

  14. WTF by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Mark Wilson writes Edward Snowden is heralded as both a hero and villain. A privacy vigilante and a traitor. It just depends who you ask.

    Such as the jailers instead of the prisoners?