Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about this guy.

I haven't really paid that much attention to the man's personal story, not enough to form a concrete judgment of him, but I'm interested to hear what the people of the forum think.

From what little I've seen it doesn't appear that the spying he uncovered is all that sinister or deep compared to some of the more nefarious programs espionage services have undertaken throughout history, but I would hope that if something truly despicable were uncovered by another such whistleblower then the government wouldn't immediately protect themselves by calling said whistleblower a traitor, and instead punish the insitgators of said despicable project. For instance, if there were a modern equivalent to MKUltra it would be easy to excuse the "(the whistleblower) broke his vows and betrayed his government's confidence" accusation.

I admire that he's wanted truth to come out but the way he has done it seemed very self serving and he initially seemed to revel in the celebrity it brought him. He seems to have suddenly disappeared from the cameras now that the pressure is on.

According to a number of sources he's in Moscow now.

He's clearly a traitor. He probably did not do it for heroic reasons but heroism will be attributed to him.


I work for the US Government (but my job will be changing back to the commercial sector next week, so I feel comfortable revealing that, now). By a textbook definition, he is a traitor to the US government and he broke agreements he signed by revealing that. Legal prosecution can and should occur. There are ways to report what one views as illegal and unethical in the government. He did not take those avenues. He, instead, decided to reveal it to the public. I don't know much about his case but if he didn't try the real checks and balances measures before revealing it to the public, he's clearly a "fame" seeking bastard.

Some may complain, "but, but, if the system is corrupt, what good is reporting it?" That's true only if you think the system is completely and entirely corrupt with no hope of anything being done. That's absurdly pessimistic to the point as to render you dysfunctional as a social entity. The probability that you would receive backlash for reporting impropriety is stupid small especially since third parties often do the checks and balances on that unethical/illegal stuff. I have been part of 2 separate investigations and I can assure you: your shit goes to jail, no matter how high up the food chain you are, if you do something illegal or unethical (that has specific laws governing the ethics). I don't know about this case but the individuals that sanctioned and ordered the unethical/illegal wire-taping and records collection would be in trouble (more on this in a second).

As stupid as it sounds, you can even report this shit straight to the office of the president (Obama).






In this case...I digress. It is possible that nothing would have been done because it was government sanctioned. In which case, he may have been morally right to disclose this to the public. But it was morally wrong. If I were in his position and I knew of these things, I would have resigned and worked within the system to get it stopped. Mostly because I'm not a traitor.


edit - I'm all over the place with this and I typed stuff in a confusing manner. Someone please tear me a new a****** by finding fault in what I'm saying. Then I can better explain what I meant (assuming you didn't understand or think I said something wrong).

Running to Hong Kong seemed like a pretty stupid choice--I realize there are reasons why Hong Kong made sense, but there had to be other countries he could flee to that wouldn't immediately hearken back to Cold War defections--it was all that his critics needed to brand him a Chinese spy.

For the levels of media attention he is receiving, one would think that he revealed things that weren't known circa 2006. The heavy involvement of the private sector in intelligence gathering is an interesting aspect to this that I was previously unaware of (something like 70% of money spent on intelligence gathering is given to private contractors).

Regardless of the "proper" avenues or what he "should" have done, he obviously broke the law and should have had the balls to face his day in court, otherwise, ya, it looks very opportunistic and largely draws skepticism to the claims he is making. That being said, I would not be surprised at all if the content of every phone call made in America were stored in that massive NSA facility they are building, even if it isn't specifically "monitored" at the time.

I personally find the biggest issue with all this to be the absolute lack of public debate about the surveillance state. At this point, there are still no confirmed terrorist plots that were stopped by this program (at the very least, the details aren't being released) and terror plots are almost always prevented by traditional police work. However, in a modern society I'm willing to accept that law enforcement needs modern tools that keep pace with technology. The problem is, the state shouldn't have the right to determine what privacy it can infringe and which it cannot: if the government is monitoring anything, people have a right to know. Maybe not in every specific instance (like, you don't need to be informed your phone is tapped, but you do have the right to know "phone tapping" is a thing the government can do).

Originally posted by Oliver North
I personally find the biggest issue with all this to be the absolute lack of public debate about the surveillance state. At this point, there are still no confirmed terrorist plots that were stopped by this program (at the very least, the details aren't being released) and terror plots are almost always prevented by traditional police work. However, in a modern society I'm willing to accept that law enforcement needs modern tools that keep pace with technology. The problem is, the state shouldn't have the right to determine what privacy it can infringe and which it cannot: if the government is monitoring anything, people have a right to know. Maybe not in every specific instance (like, you don't need to be informed your phone is tapped, but you do have the right to know "phone tapping" is a thing the government can do).

I like the premise of innocent until proven guilty.

And in situations where a person may be guilty, a warrant should still be required to wiretap or use surveillance.

Some call this too bureaucratic but it really isn't. That "system" of virtual checks and balances is there to ensure resources and time are not wasted on innocent people because you must first have a reasonable suspicion to get a warrant from a qualified judge.


That said, there is still room for corruption in such a system...it is just much harder to do than just blanket spying on everyone.



An alternative is using an AI to monitor everyone and no humans are involved, at all, unless the AI sends up a red-flag monitor. Certain filters could be used (definitions) and heuristic algorithms used to catch coded behaviors (code speak or bad behavior that is masked).

The kinks would have to be worked out to reduce false-positives at a tolerable rate of false-negatives.


That's a mildly fascist system, however. I wouldn't want that. The technology loving side of me says it is okay. The libertarian (live and let live) side of me says that's wrong even if the intentions are right.

If there were abuses of the surveillance, such as used to persecute innocent people, Snowden would have a case. But it seems like he betrayed his country for fame and is now trying to dodge punishment.

Originally posted by Lestov16
If there were abuses of the surveillance, such as used to persecute innocent people, Snowden would have a case. But it seems like he betrayed his country for fame and is now trying to dodge punishment.

if tracking people's phone calls and reading their emails doesn't count as "persecution", what would?

I don't care that he betrayed the government or his oath, I care that the government betrayed the people by spying on them. It seems a bit rich for such a state to label another a traitor--pot to the kettle, and all that. I'm not American, but I value the existence of people like Snowden. Cuz apparently in order to do the moral, constitutional thing, you need to break the law. That he was willing to do that makes him a rare and admirable case--I certainly wouldn't have done it. His "true motives" and intentions be damned, I care about what he actually did, not his purported possible reasons for doing so.

and yet, William Binney has no threads dedicated to him

That was like forever ago. F*ck that old guy, get with the times, brah.

true, it was so 2012

Originally posted by Oliver North
For the levels of media attention he is receiving, one would think that he revealed things that weren't known circa 2006. The heavy involvement of the private sector in intelligence gathering is an interesting aspect to this that I was previously unaware of (something like 70% of money spent on intelligence gathering is given to private contractors).

Regardless of the "proper" avenues or what he "should" have done, he obviously broke the law and should have had the balls to face his day in court, otherwise, ya, it looks very opportunistic and largely draws skepticism to the claims he is making. That being said, I would not be surprised at all if the content of every phone call made in America were stored in that massive NSA facility they are building, even if it isn't specifically "monitored" at the time.

I personally find the biggest issue with all this to be the absolute lack of public debate about the surveillance state. At this point, there are still no confirmed terrorist plots that were stopped by this program (at the very least, the details aren't being released) and terror plots are almost always prevented by traditional police work. However, in a modern society I'm willing to accept that law enforcement needs modern tools that keep pace with technology. The problem is, the state shouldn't have the right to determine what privacy it can infringe and which it cannot: if the government is monitoring anything, people have a right to know. Maybe not in every specific instance (like, you don't need to be informed your phone is tapped, but you do have the right to know "phone tapping" is a thing the government can do).
I think if we lived in a more "reasonable" world the way it would have gone is that Snowden goes through the proper channels, the government is exposed, the government admits their wrongdoing, some people are fired, Snowden is given a light sentence for breaking his oath and compromising government security, and the public gains some insight and is reminded that we must be vigilant about government power.

Instead Snowden tries to pull an Assange, the government brushes off criticism and claims that this is all necessary, and China capitalizes on it and does the "you got your hand caught in the cookie jar" dance, even though the worst allegations from Snowden's leak aren't even as bad as the day to day reality of Chinese internet surveillance and internal affairs.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't care that he betrayed the government or his oath, I care that the government betrayed the people by spying on them.

Nothing here is strictly a betrayal by the government. No laws were broken. They used official channels for their work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative is using an AI to monitor everyone and no humans are involved, at all, unless the AI sends up a red-flag monitor. Certain filters could be used (definitions) and heuristic algorithms used to catch coded behaviors (code speak or bad behavior that is masked).

This is basically how it works now, is it not?

Originally posted by Oliver North
if the government is monitoring anything, people have a right to know.

In a representative system this is a complicated issue. Elected representatives were told about the program which means that "the people" were informed. State secrets are done this way in an effort to follow the principle of democracy without compromising the secrets. Of course, since the public didn't know about these programs when they elected the representatives one could argue this standard is critically flawed.

Originally posted by Oliver North
That being said, I would not be surprised at all if the content of every phone call made in America were stored in that massive NSA facility they are building, even if it isn't specifically "monitored" at the time.

Yeah, the NSA director was dancing around this one in front of Congress. The NSA does not read everyone's "mail" but they definitely have it. I think that alone should be reason for concern. Just because something isn't being abused at the moment doesn't make it okay.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nothing here is strictly a betrayal by the government. No laws were broken. They used official channels for their work. I don't mean a 'legal' betrayal. Legality... fluff 'n such.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is basically how it works now, is it not?

No. They stockpile information, currently. That's different than creating files when a flag goes off.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. They stockpile information, currently. That's different than creating files when a flag goes off.

I thought it was set up so that the computers scanned everything for keywords.

I am fairly much in tune with OmegaVision here. In the end, I think making this hullaballoo about prosecuting him- for such a powerful concept as treason, no less- is unhelpful. I do think Snowden has overdone the drama here; I don't think what he blew was worth the effort. But that being so, if I was in authority, I'd take the stance "Well, we COULD prosecute, we'd be well within our rights to, but we'll let this one go. The guy's an idiot but he had positive motivations; a treason trial isn't worth it, it makes us look like the bad guys. Just make sure he's never allowed to take any job again that lets him anywhere close to secret info and drop the whole thing- no-one cares that much about the leak and it will be forgotten soon enough."

I think that would be both morally and politically appropriate. Nor do I think that dropping it would encourage others to crime; this is a pretty particular circumstance. I DO think trying to push this is just handing the political opponents of the administration (especially foreign ones) an open goal.

zKkTXAHOt8g
bOiSGCjiL1A

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nor do I think that dropping it would encourage others to crime; this is a pretty particular circumstance.

I have to think it would encourage leakers in the future.

I really don't think it would be a long-term issue. The really determined guys like Snowden leak anyway, and if a couple of small fries take this as a licence to leak, you prosecute them and that shuts that up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have to think it would encourage leakers in the future.

In the same way that the torture of Bradley Manning discouraged Snowden?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I really don't think it would be a long-term issue. The really determined guys like Snowden leak anyway, and if a couple of small fries take this as a licence to leak, you prosecute them and that shuts that up.

Prosecute the small leaks not the big ones? I'm not sure I follow.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In the same way that the torture of Bradley Manning discouraged Snowden?

Uh, yes? The fact that he's running all around the world is evidence that what happened to Manning in on his mind. If leaking carried no punishment way more people would do it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Prosecute the small leaks not the big ones? I'm not sure I follow.


You prosecute the opportunists, if necessary. But people like Snowden would never be stopped this way.

The decision to prosecute is already making the US look foolish. Snowden could have been a forgotten nothing, but now he'll become an anti-American symbol, and the decision does nothing to dissuade serious leaking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Uh, yes? The fact that he's running all around the world is evidence that what happened to Manning in on his mind. If leaking carried no punishment way more people would do it.

this might be nit picking, but I'd say he is following the route of Assange moreso than Manning.

Manning plead guilty and made a fantastic statement about his motives and behaved in a far more heroic fashion. Snowden could learn a lot from Manning, imho.

I'm not sure he should be charged as a traitor - MLK, after all, broke laws left and right, saying that there is a responsibility for humanity to perform civil disobedience when a law is truly "wrong."

Not trying to equate the two men at all, btw. But if he ever shows to trial, civil disobedience is a damn good defense.

The attitude of Chinese bloggers toward Snowden is puzzling. I wonder if their admiration for him is due to him embarrassing the foreign devil United States, or if it's out of a desire for a homegrown leaker.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the premise of innocent until proven guilty.

And in situations where a person may be guilty, a warrant should still be required to wiretap or use surveillance.

Some call this too bureaucratic but it really isn't. That "system" of virtual checks and balances is there to ensure resources and time are not wasted on innocent people because you must first have a reasonable suspicion to get a warrant from a qualified judge.


That said, there is still room for corruption in such a system...it is just much harder to do than just blanket spying on everyone.

not only do we agree about this, I think the evidence is abundantly clear that such traditional policing methods are in fact more effective at fighting terrorism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative is using an AI to monitor everyone and no humans are involved, at all, unless the AI sends up a red-flag monitor. Certain filters could be used (definitions) and heuristic algorithms used to catch coded behaviors (code speak or bad behavior that is masked).

The kinks would have to be worked out to reduce false-positives at a tolerable rate of false-negatives.


That's a mildly fascist system, however. I wouldn't want that. The technology loving side of me says it is okay. The libertarian (live and let live) side of me says that's wrong even if the intentions are right.

I'm not 100% against such a system, I would just prefer it be discussed and debated in a democratic manner, not done with no oversight and in secret. If such a system is needed to fight terrorism, I'd love to hear the argument.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think if we lived in a more "reasonable" world the way it would have gone is that Snowden goes through the proper channels, the government is exposed, the government admits their wrongdoing, some people are fired, Snowden is given a light sentence for breaking his oath and compromising government security, and the public gains some insight and is reminded that we must be vigilant about government power.

the unfortunate problem in reality is that there is such bi-partisan agreement about these NSA programs that the "proper" channels are almost certainly going to produce something similar to Manning's incarceration. Snowden doesn't strike me as a man with the courage of his convictions to stand up for people's privacy in such a circumstance.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Instead Snowden tries to pull an Assange, the government brushes off criticism and claims that this is all necessary, and China capitalizes on it and does the "you got your hand caught in the cookie jar" dance, even though the worst allegations from Snowden's leak aren't even as bad as the day to day reality of Chinese internet surveillance and internal affairs.

indeed, then flies to Russia and is rumored to be headed to Cuba or Venezuela (among other nations). Not really the top destinations of people concerned about government spying on their people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In a representative system this is a complicated issue. Elected representatives were told about the program which means that "the people" were informed. State secrets are done this way in an effort to follow the principle of democracy without compromising the secrets. Of course, since the public didn't know about these programs when they elected the representatives one could argue this standard is critically flawed.

given the approval levels of all branches of government in America, I don't see how one could possibly make such an argument.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The attitude of Chinese bloggers toward Snowden is puzzling. I wonder if their admiration for him is due to him embarrassing the foreign devil United States, or if it's out of a desire for a homegrown leaker.

if they are the bloggers the Chinese state employs as part of its propoganda arm, likely the former

Originally posted by Oliver North
not only do we agree about this, I think the evidence is abundantly clear that such traditional policing methods are in fact more effective at fighting terrorism.
i'm curious. which evidence is that?

Originally posted by Oliver North


the unfortunate problem in reality is that there is such bi-partisan agreement about these NSA programs that the "proper" channels are almost certainly going to produce something similar to Manning's incarceration. Snowden doesn't strike me as a man with the courage of his convictions to stand up for people's privacy in such a circumstance.



indeed, then flies to Russia and is rumored to be headed to Cuba or Venezuela (among other nations). Not really the top destinations of people concerned about government spying on their people.

It reminds me of Assange, who claims to be in favor of freedom of speech on principle, but then speaks out in defense of repressive governments like Iran and Syria, presumably because they oppose America. He even claimed that Iran was unable to embrace democratic reform due to the constant threat of attack from foreign powers, which sounds very similar to the arguments used to justify the American scandals that Assange worked to expose.

It seems to be a problem that befalls even brilliant people like Noam Chomsky, who became a camp follower of Hugo Chavez because he stood for land reform and opposition to American intervention in Latin America--that it's difficult to avoid binary thinking with geopolitics, as if in any given situation one country must be right and the other must be wrong, and if you don't like a certain country then you have to support that country's opponents. I'll admit I fall victim to this all the time. I support the Syrian rebels even while it seems more and more clear that the moderates are being crowded out by radicals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought it was set up so that the computers scanned everything for keywords.

It may be. But the difference between what I proposed and what happens now: the suggestion I have is to only "save" the information if the active scans return a positive result.

Whereas, now, the big hoopla was it was all being stored AND scanned. The current setup is more "everyone is guilty" than my suggestion. However, even my suggestion can be argued to be "everyone is guilty" because it is still actively scanning.


In government IT, there are guidelines and rules about gathering and storing information. Just scanning traffic is not as "bad" as storing all of it, from a digital forensics perspective. If the scanners ONLY store/create an audit file when a positive results, it is a much less intense operation. The only reason you would want to store all the phone, e-mail, and/or internet traffic for an individual is if you strongly suspected that person of truly heinous crimes. That's the step you take, in the Cyber Security community, if you know a person is guilty but need to get hard evidence on the remainder of their activities (to escalate the charges). This is part of why there is such a large outrage at what the NSA is doing: that's a pretty bad way to treat innocent people.


You probably know all of this, actually. Not sure why I am rambling. I could talk about this stuff for ages.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm curious. which evidence is that?

to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).

Whereas plots that have been stopped, the finding of the 9-11 masterminds, Bin Laden, and essentially all other counter-terrorism that has been successful has been based on traditional intelligence and law enforcement methods.

I'm not a super expert on any specific case, but I can elaborate a bit on some of the successful operations. For instance, interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).

This may become less true as the AI is developed and matured into a more robust solution. Then it becomes a case of looking for a needle in a haystack (even if the needle is painted in the same colors as the hay) with a giant electromagnet.

Right now, the heuristic algorithms are becoming so adept at detecting impropriety that they can detect when a person using a secured network is about to initiate an attack and even proactively shut the terminal down. Quite literally, the psychology behind the actions is being heavily analyzed, simulated, tested, and then solutions deployed.*

When reading a white paper on this, they mentioned that the pace at which these solutions are improving is exponentially faster than what Moore's Law states for hardware (and exponent raised to an exponent, gaspity).


*So good, in fact, that there was work done that was adequately predicting when an attack would be initiated before the attacker knew they were going to do it...just based on their activity. Their behavior, even though they did nothing wrong, gives a "tell". That's some Minority Report level shit, right there.

Originally posted by Oliver North
interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11.

lulz, "enhanced". Just go ahead and call it torture.

Originally posted by Oliver North
to date, the government has revealed no specific cases of terrorism that were prevented by this type of thing, and there are reasons to believe such data mining enterprises will not bare much fruit (literal needle in a haystack, if the needle were actively trying to look like hay and evade you).

Whereas plots that have been stopped, the finding of the 9-11 masterminds, Bin Laden, and essentially all other counter-terrorism that has been successful has been based on traditional intelligence and law enforcement methods.

I'm not a super expert on any specific case, but I can elaborate a bit on some of the successful operations. For instance, interrogations with Yemeni members of AQ in the wake of 9-11 proved hugely fruitful because they used tried and true interrogation methods, whereas the "enhanced" methods produced the intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs and plotted 9-11. i see. what's curious about that is that if it's so ineffective then i have to wonder why they would continue to waste so much money and time on it. also, it makes me wonder why it's seen as such a threat to our privacy that they have collected such data. i understand the principle behind such an objection... but practically speaking wouldn't that make it sort of a non-issue?

p.s.: didn't 'enhanced' methods lead in part to locating osama?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may become less true as the AI is developed and matured into a more robust solution. Then it becomes a case of looking for a needle in a haystack (even if the needle is painted in the same colors as the hay) with a giant electromagnet.

Right now, the heuristic algorithms are becoming so adept at detecting impropriety that they can detect when a person using a secured network is about to initiate an attack and even proactively shut the terminal down. Quite literally, the psychology behind the actions is being heavily analyzed, simulated, tested, and then solutions deployed.*

When reading a white paper on this, they mentioned that the pace at which these solutions are improving is exponentially faster than what Moore's Law states for hardware (and exponent raised to an exponent, gaspity).


*So good, in fact, that there was work done that was adequately predicting when an attack would be initiated before the attacker knew they were going to do it...just based on their activity. Their behavior, even though they did nothing wrong, gives a "tell". That's some Minority Report level shit, right there.

as a psychologist I find that laughable, but will concede when the government decides to let the public in on how it busts up terrorist cells using such a program.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lulz, "enhanced". Just go ahead and call it torture.

I personally find the childish euphemisms more troubling

Originally posted by red g jacks
i see. what's curious about that is that if it's so ineffective then i have to wonder why they would continue to waste so much money and time on it. also, it makes me wonder why it's seen as such a threat to our privacy that they have collected such data. i understand the principle behind such an objection... but practically speaking wouldn't that make it sort of a non-issue?

stopping terrorism is only the expressed justification for such a system.

In essence, the NSA wants to be a more sophisticated version of the Stasi, but can't just say that directly, so they use "terrorism" as a way to justify their actions. Make no mistake, this system was designed to control you and the American public, not keep you safe.

Originally posted by red g jacks
p.s.: didn't 'enhanced' methods lead in part to locating osama?

no, not even close

that was the major controversy behind zero dark thirty, in fact

Originally posted by Oliver North
as a psychologist I find that laughable, but will concede when the government decides to let the public in on how it busts up terrorist cells using such a program.

Obviously, places like the NSA will not declassify information on how or what they did with that information until they are good and ready.

But, you studied criminal psychology, right? I'm pretty sure you've talked in depth about that massive area of psychology, before. I've taken a single semester and it focused more on the IT side. I would just assume it focuses much more on the terrorism aspect of it and much less on the hacker side. I would really like to spend years studying that.




Originally posted by Oliver North
I personally find the childish euphemisms more troubling

I don't get it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
given the approval levels of all branches of government in America, I don't see how one could possibly make such an argument.

It's not a secret that Americans dislike the word government. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Representative democracy is based on the belief that it is impractical or undesirable to have everyone 100% engaged in governing the people select people to represent them. The representatives of the people knew what was going on so the people still have control over these projects.

This is more of a strike against the US system of representative democracy than in favor of PRISM but it is relevant. Lots of people remember Lincoln's line about government being "by the people" and "for the people" but it starts with "of the people" for a reason. Representatives are people (in the literal sense) and part of the people (in the political sense), that's the point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, places like the NSA will not declassify information on how or what they did with that information until they are good and ready.

But, you studied criminal psychology, right? I'm pretty sure you've talked in depth about that massive area of psychology, before. I've taken a single semester and it focused more on the IT side. I would just assume it focuses much more on the terrorism aspect of it and much less on the hacker side. I would really like to spend years studying that.

not to a serious degree, no. It comes up in relation to other things.

My point would be more along the lines of: It is nearly impossible to predict much less complex behaviour, in far more controlled settings, with potentially trillions of times the data points per subject than the NSA would have per individual, and further, modeling and predicting such behaviour says nothing about the mechanisms behind it, which are essential for identifying criminal behaviour.

Its almost like the lie detector. Its not that it can't work, it is that to make it even moderately effective at detecting lies, you have to accept a hugely inflated number of false alarms. In terms of storing data of hundreds of millions of Americans, plus any "foreigner" they want, the NSA is going to have massive difficulties finding signals in the noise. Assuming even the best intentions from the NSA , there is no way they wouldn't end up determining innocent people are about-to engage in terrorist activities.

in terms of hackers, you mean very specifically the behaviours you can track as they use the web, right? not from screening their email or who they are calling? I'd look at these as being very different types of profiling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get it.

the fact we call torture and "enhanced" interrogation technique is almost more troubling to me than the fact we engage in torture. The sanitization of evil, basically. I use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" because I think it actually sounds worse than saying "torture"

Originally posted by Oliver North
stopping terrorism is only the expressed justification for such a system.

In essence, the NSA wants to be a more sophisticated version of the Stasi, but can't just say that directly, so they use "terrorism" as a way to justify their actions. Make no mistake, this system was designed to control you and the American public, not keep you safe.that is what it seems like. i'm just wondering how far they are from accomplishing that sort of thing. if they can't catch terrorists then hopefully they're equally inept at using the data for other means.
that is where i first heard that the torture techniques even played a role. from what i read the controversy was that the film overplayed the role such techniques played in locating him, not that they played no part at all. here is where i got that impression:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/opinion/bergen-zero-dark-thirty

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a secret that Americans dislike the word government. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Representative democracy is based on the belief that it is impractical or undesirable to have everyone 100% engaged in governing the people select people to represent them. The representatives of the people knew what was going on so the people still have control over these projects.

This is more of a strike against the US system of representative democracy than in favor of PRISM but it is relevant. Lots of people remember Lincoln's line about government being "by the people" and "for the people" but it starts with "of the people" for a reason. Representatives are people (in the literal sense) and part of the people (in the political sense), that's the point.

I'm not really interested in an academic discourse on what is or isn't "the people" in a representative democracy, except to say, by that logic, the president can pass and enforce otherwise secret law, because he is a citizen and he knew about it, thus making it not secret.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its not that it can't work, it is that to make it even moderately effective at detecting lies, you have to accept a hugely inflated number of false alarms. In terms of storing data of hundreds of millions of Americans, plus any "foreigner" they want, the NSA is going to have massive difficulties finding signals in the noise. Assuming even the best intentions from the NSA , there is no way they wouldn't end up determining innocent people are about-to engage in terrorist activities.

That was the problem (false positives) that was discussed in the material. However, despite the false positive issues, the AI used in the heuristic definitions are (not going to be, but "are" as in presently) so advanced that even brand new behaviors can be discerned by the system and properly identified as 'bad.'

But, yes, there is still the hurdle of false positives in those systems. That is the biggest concern. Followed by false negatives.

Since students are studying it in school, it is much more likely that the NSA is already using more robust versions of the things I am discussing (classified systems and programs). It makes me think, "What is the point of even storing all of the public's information if they already have IDS/IPS's that pretty dang advanced?"

Originally posted by Oliver North
in terms of hackers, you mean very specifically the behaviours you can track as they use the web, right? not from screening their email or who they are calling? I'd look at these as being very different types of profiling.

1. Yes, improper use of IT systems, not just hackers (some people innocently go places they shouldn't or do things they shouldn't).
2. Yes, the psychology for hackers is definitely going to be different than the psychology of terrorists. That much is obvious. The terrorism stuff does not get taught to or disseminated to students. IIRC, it is classified.



Originally posted by Oliver North
the fact we call torture and "enhanced" interrogation technique is almost more troubling to me than the fact we engage in torture. The sanitization of evil, basically. I use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" because I think it actually sounds worse than saying "torture"


That makes sense, now.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that is where i first heard that the torture techniques even played a role. from what i read the controversy was that the film overplayed the role such techniques played in locating him, not that they played no part at all. here is where i got that impression:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/10/opinion/bergen-zero-dark-thirty

the claims are incredibly dubious and come from the government itself in most cases.

and remember, it was nearly 10 years after these guys gave up a name (which is still debatable in the Ghul case) that they got Bin Laden, whereas traditional intelligence work that involved tracing phone calls made by bodyguards in 2010 led the Americans right to the compound.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0502/Bin-Laden-bodyguard-s-satellite-phone-calls-helped-lead-US-forces-to-hiding-place

further, going by that CNN article anyways, it shows quite clearly that more advanced techniques are associated with less reliable information...

the importance of those two individuals seems to be what is overblown

EDIT: there is also no evidence that I can find of enhanced techniques being used against Ghul, or when during interrogation al-Qahtani gave up the courier's name, re: there is no evidence torture played a role.

228YY-Fzc9Q

Originally posted by Oliver North
228YY-Fzc9Q

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/250x250/37445936.jpg

indeed, with all the problems in the world, like Syria, it is good to know the major cold war powers can still agree on ****ing over the little guy

Originally posted by Oliver North
indeed, with all the problems in the world, like Syria, it is good to know the major cold war powers can still agree on ****ing over the little guy

It gets the ol' USSR politicians in the feels, this Snowden crap does.

LEsZHi1ZVBE

Originally posted by Oliver North
LEsZHi1ZVBE

I cannot watch the vid, mang. How did they do it? Through their stockpiling of information?

Originally posted by Oliver North
LEsZHi1ZVBE

Someone a the NSA should leak the details of their good deeds.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I cannot watch the vid, mang. How did they do it? Through their stockpiling of information?

how? classified

how man? classified

but trust them!

LipTV didn't have the follow-up, and they are more conspiratorial than I typically like to post, so I wouldn't go looking there to find it. There have been senators on the intelligence committee who have seen the classified data and have essentially said none of these claims are true, but given it is classified, we sort of have to choose whose word to take.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Someone a the NSA should leak the details of their good deeds.

considering how much they generally tout the plots they do break up, even the most mundane, its amazing they are willing to offer no details here...

Originally posted by Oliver North
considering how much they generally tout the plots they do break up, even the most mundane, its amazing they are willing to offer no details here...

Has the NSA ever spoken about plots they were involved in?

Russia has now said that they will not extradite Snowden.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/edward-snowden-moscow-vladimir-putin

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Has the NSA ever spoken about plots they were involved in?

I'm actually not sure. you could be right, it might just be more of an FBI thing

mmmm, I'm so gay for Glenn Greenwald

P1Dqofm71VE

That was a good interview. Just saw clips of it on liberal viewer. I also very seldomly disagree with Greenwald lately.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was a good interview. Just saw clips of it on liberal viewer. I also very seldomly disagree with Greenwald lately.

normally, it is really easy for me to find issues I disagree with most of the people I follow on. Greenwald is one of the few that I honestly have almost no disagreement with, and that scares me more than anything. Makes me feel like I need to step up my cynicism game...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23084166

So it seems Obama is trying not to make a big deal about this (at least publicly) and isn't treating this like an issue of national security. I wonder how that will play out at home.

I dont see what the big deal is. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Spy away.

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
I dont see what the big deal is. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Spy away.

Everyone has something you can use against them.

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
I dont see what the big deal is. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Spy away. http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/5043-cringe.jpg

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
I dont see what the big deal is. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Spy away.

post your address and phone number then...

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
I dont see what the big deal is. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. Spy away.

Yeah, but I have lots of stuff to hide...so...

Originally posted by Oliver North
post your address and phone number then...

I have both and I've actually been there. He really doesn't have anything to hide...he keeps it simple.



But if a person spends just a tiny bit of time looking over controversial criminal cases, you can see quite quickly how ANYTHING can be twisted into something horrible, disgusting, or otherwise not positive. This is why people say to "plead the 5th until you lawyer up". Even if you don't have something to hide, you should do it, anyway.

so, if he has nothing to hide, he would provide them openly on the internet

Even if no one in the world had anything to hide ever there would still be the question of whether it's ethical to snoop through other people's business.

For instance, when I write I almost never write something that I want to hide and keep from light of day, but I still don't like it when someone reads it without my saying they can (usual reasons are that it's not finished or it doesn't make sense out of context).

And besides that, an increasingly powerful, increasingly paranoid government can redefine what it means to have something to hide until everyone has something to hide. The East German Stasi secret police actually had a section called the Division of Garbage Analysis which went through citizens' garbage to find if they had consumed any Western foods.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, if he has nothing to hide, he would provide them openly on the internet


I see a problem, here, with what you two tried to do: He trusts the government, not the general public.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see a problem, here, with what you two tried to do: He trusts the government, not the general public.

so he has something to hide

EDIT: much like his statement, there is no qualifier about who one wants privacy from, and Snowden wasn't a government employee

Originally posted by Oliver North
so he has something to hide

EDIT: much like his statement, there is no qualifier about who one wants privacy from, and Snowden wasn't a government employee

Per the usual song and dance, you've taken a poster's comments too literally and I haven't. He'll agree with me for the reasons I've stated and you'll say he backpedaled in one form or another.

I'm tired of these fights we have: I want a divorce.

You should stop sleeping around, DDD.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Per the usual song and dance, you've taken a poster's comments too literally and I haven't. He'll agree with me for the reasons I've stated and you'll say he backpedaled in one form or another.

I'm tired of these fights we have: I want a divorce.

except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job...

also, yes, I have a very literal mind. I'm the type of person who thinks Animal Farm is just a story about farm animals.

It is. And about how no one is surprised when they talk.

Originally posted by Oliver North
post your address and phone number then... Yeah, because you are a high level government official.


Wait, you're just some net noob.




See what I did there?

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
Yeah, because you are a high level government official.


Wait, you're just some net noob.




See what I did there?

Sounds like you've got something to hide.

So, fair enough, you trust your government officials. But do you also trust the British government? The Chinese government? Russian Hackers? The Mafia? Everyone on this planet? Cause once that data is collected, at some point there will inevitably be some leaks out there.

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
See what I did there?

missed/proved my point?

Originally posted by Oliver North
except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job...

also, yes, I have a very literal mind. I'm the type of person who thinks Animal Farm is just a story about farm animals.

And in cases like those, they are required to meet or exceed the same standards as the federal employees (making your point moot or even worse, making your intended point backfire because they are more secure and more qualified than the federal employees (almost universally)).


Additionally, where is your evidence that people other than NSA, FBI, and/or CIA federal employees analyzed the PII and associated records that were collected?


Because this would be the first I am hearing/reading about that happening (to be more direct (because I have gotten in trouble in the past, over it) I think you're full of shit...but I can eat a large helping of humble pie if you have something).

And, btw, I was right:

Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
Yeah, because you are a high level government official.


Wait, you're just some net noob.




See what I did there?



nya nya

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, fair enough, you trust your government officials. But do you also trust the British government? The Chinese government? Russian Hackers? The Mafia? Everyone on this planet? Cause once that data is collected, at some point there will inevitably be some leaks out there.

Well, this government has a vested interest in maintaining, securing, and improving this country. Other countries do not necessarily have that same interest in US Citizens. So, I don't think your rhetoric is working to prove this trollwagon.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Well, this government has a vested interest in maintaining, securing, and improving this country. Other countries do not necessarily have that same interest in US Citizens. So, I don't think your rhetoric is working to prove this trollwagon.

I think my argument is of the essence here. While he may trust his government, he obviously won't trust everyone that can potentially receive that data at some point. So the big deal is that the government is collecting data, that could feasible fall in the wrong hands and hurt its citizens. The point being that even if we accept his naive trust in the government as valid, the collecting of the data brings other issues with it that are not glossed over by love for ones government.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And in cases like those, they are required to meet or exceed the same standards as the federal employees (making your point moot or even worse, making your intended point backfire because they are more secure and more qualified than the federal employees (almost universally)).


Additionally, where is your evidence that people other than NSA, FBI, and/or CIA federal employees analyzed the PII and associated records that were collected?


Because this would be the first I am hearing/reading about that happening (to be more direct (because I have gotten in trouble in the past, over it) I think you're full of shit...but I can eat a large helping of humble pie if you have something).

I made none of those claims...

if he has nothing to hide, he should have no desire for privacy, ie: nothing to worry about. My point about private companies is to demonstrate that it is not simply the government who collects your private information, and I've never suggested that the security of that data makes any difference in the world.

How can you be such a pedant with what other poster's say, yet go out of your way to infer so much that I never say? You were the one who accused me of being too literal. If I am that literal, you should know there is going to be very little hidden in my words. If I wanted to argue that private companies were more of a risk to your data becoming public, I would have said that verbatim, you would not need to infer anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, btw, I was right:

sure, you were right that he missed/proved my point, I never argued that he was talking about anything but the state. Such a limited application of this sentiment is beyond foolish imho.

It's like when Mariuzu argues about the only real oppression we have to worry about is that from the state.

EDIT: I might be wrong, but I think you are confusing where Bardock and I are approaching this issue from. He seems to be the one talking about data falling into the wrong hands, I'm talking about data collection in the first place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think my argument is of the essence here. While he may trust his government, he obviously won't trust everyone that can potentially receive that data at some point. So the big deal is that the government is collecting data, that could feasible fall in the wrong hands and hurt its citizens. The point being that even if we accept his naive trust in the government as valid, the collecting of the data brings other issues with it that are not glossed over by love for ones government.
That was the problem that East Germans were faced with during reunification--if Stasi files fell into the wrong hands it would be open season for blackmail and public humiliation (think of the episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Malcolm reads the psychological/disciplinary files of every student in the school)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That was the problem that East Germans were faced with during reunification--if Stasi files fell into the wrong hands it would be open season for blackmail and public humiliation (think of the episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Malcolm reads the psychological/disciplinary files of every student in the school) I think about that episode all the time

Originally posted by Oliver North
I made none of those claims...

if he has nothing to hide, he should have no desire for privacy, ie: nothing to worry about. My point about private companies is to demonstrate that it is not simply the government who collects your private information, and I've never suggested that the security of that data makes any difference in the world.

How can you be such a pedant with what other poster's say, yet go out of your way to infer so much that I never say? You were the one who accused me of being too literal. If I am that literal, you should know there is going to be very little hidden in my words. If I wanted to argue that private companies were more of a risk to your data becoming public, I would have said that verbatim, you would not need to infer anything.

I am going to go ahead and ignore everything you just typed, here:

"except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job..."

Originally posted by Oliver North
...I never argued that he was talking about anything but the state.

I am going to go ahead and ignore this statement, too, because you said this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, if he has nothing to hide, he would provide them openly on the internet

So you just trollin' for lulz, bro? If so, "haha", you got me.

yes, that is clearly what I am doing. pointing out that he does in fact want to hide his private data is trolling.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, that is clearly what I am doing.

I assumed as much.

Originally posted by Oliver North
pointing out that he does in fact want to hide his private data is trolling.

This is a backpeddle and a willfully dishonest representation of what happened. Pointing out that he wants to hide his private data form the general public instead of the government is what you did.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljctuzoqZC1qdlkgg.gif

oh well, it's there for everyone to look back on and read for themselves, and DDM has once again raced in to rescue another individual who says needlessly silly things.

/shrug

Originally posted by Oliver North
oh well, it's there for everyone to look back on and read for themselves, and DDM has once again raced in to rescue another individual who says needlessly silly things.

/shrug

I beat you to the punch:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Per the usual song and dance, you've taken a poster's comments too literally and I haven't. He'll agree with me for the reasons I've stated and you'll say he backpedaled in one form or another.


/moonwalk

I think, DDM, the issue isn't whether you're right about what you think this poster meant, but rather whether it's necessary to play advocate for other adult posters.

If someone says something and it's misinterpreted, I see no reason why that poster shouldn't be allowed (or indeed, expected) to deal with that misinterpretation on their own, and if there's any "piling on" then there's always the report button.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If someone says something and it's misinterpreted, I see no reason why that poster shouldn't be allowed (or indeed, expected) to deal with that misinterpretation on their own,

None of you are dumb enough to have taken his post to be strictly literal and at face value. Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see you jumping on the "taking the piss" wagon with his post so you really don't have to be worried. It is done and over with, imo. There is nothing left to discuss about it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
and if there's any "piling on" then there's always the report button.

The report button is for trolls and assholes. None of you are those.

http://i.minus.com/i52DkrwgNalFF.gif

The more I hear from Snowden, the less I like him.

Originally posted by Oliver North
if tracking people's phone calls and reading their emails doesn't count as "persecution", what would?

Arresting them for pointless crimes.

I agree with Fat Rambo in that I don't mind government surveillance of my personal documents, because it's not as if the surveillance will harm me personally. It's not like they're reading my emails and telling everybody my secrets. They aren't going to use my personal records against me unless I do something worthy of the persecution, such as terrorism or something.

It's not an 1984 situation. The reason the surveillance of 1984 was so scary was because Ingsoc was persecuting people who even sneezed the wrong way. The same definitely does not apply here. In the US, you can outright say things like "Phuck Obama! I hope he goes to hell!" with no repercussions whatsoever. The only thing the NSA is tracking down is terrorists and people who are legitimately trying to bring harm to others. Any other info they gather is irrelevant to them. IDK how the NSA knowing that you secretly don't like your girlfriend is going to affect you.

The NSA isn't demanding people follow it's rules or else. It's not plucking people out for being too left-or-right wing. It's not plucking people out for their personal opinions. It only plucks people out if they are conspiring a terrorist act or some other violence or crime.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the NSA have arrested people solely for their political views and opinions, but I've never heard of it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Arresting them for pointless crimes.

I agree with Fat Rambo in that I don't mind government surveillance of my personal documents, because it's not as if the surveillance will harm me personally. It's not like they're reading my emails and telling everybody my secrets. They aren't going to use my personal records against me unless I do something worthy of the persecution, such as terrorism or something.

It's not an 1984 situation. The reason the surveillance of 1984 was so scary was because Ingsoc was persecuting people who even sneezed the wrong way. The same definitely does not apply here. In the US, you can outright say things like "Phuck Obama! I hope he goes to hell!" with no repercussions whatsoever. The only thing the NSA is tracking down is terrorists and people who are legitimately trying to bring harm to others. Any other info they gather is irrelevant to them. IDK how the NSA knowing that you secretly don't like your girlfriend is going to affect you.

The NSA isn't demanding people follow it's rules or else. It's not plucking people out for being too left-or-right wing. It's not plucking people out for their personal opinions. It only plucks people out if they are conspiring a terrorist act or some other violence or crime.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the NSA have arrested people solely for their political views and opinions, but I've never heard of it.

And will the next administration act that way? And the next? And the next?

It's only problem if it is abused but it is a danger simply by existing.

I understand the risk, but what about the rewards? Would you rather prevent a terrorist attack or see the aftermath on the news?

Will the American people allow the next administration to imprison people based on political beliefs? I think the public outcry to such government action would be overwhelming for the administration to handle. True there's outcry now, but lack of abuse keeps the outcry from making a direct impact to the government. If the NSA does start persecuting people, the outcry will be far more vitriolic.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I understand the risk, but what about the rewards? Would you rather prevent a terrorist attack or see the aftermath on the news?

I cannot estimate the reward without information the NSA keeps secret.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Will the American people allow the next administration to imprison people based on political beliefs? I think the public outcry to such government action would be overwhelming for the administration to handle. True there's outcry now, but lack of abuse keeps the outcry from making a direct impact to the government. If the NSA does start persecuting people, the outcry will be far more vitriolic.

I agree that its easier to stop the government than people think. Librarians just said "no" to the PATRIOT Act after all and that was the end of being required to hand over patron records. I don't agree that we should wait for things to be a problem to stop them. When there's a gun to your head it's best to do something before the trigger is pulled.

So you would rather the NSA use more difficult methods to catch perpetrators? What about the victims? Will they have died in the name of privacy?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you would rather the NSA use more difficult methods to catch perpetrators?

Right now we have no reason to believe these methods have caught any perpetrators.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What about the victims? Will they have died in the name of privacy?

Your hypothetical victims are no more real the my hypothetical victims, however I have historical precedent for collected information being used to harm people.

I think Lestov might be seeing things with Jack Bauer goggles.

But there's no reason to think they've been used to harm any victims either.

Is this historical precedent Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? Because the US doesn't operate like those governments.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But there's no reason to think they've been used to harm any victims either.

Is this historical precedent Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? Because the US doesn't operate like those governments. Doesn't mean the US can't operate like those governments in the future.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Lestov might be seeing things with Jack Bauer goggles.

Possibly. I'm more of an optimist though (sometimes).

Originally posted by Newjak
Doesn't mean the US can't operate like those governments in the future.

Only if US citizens allow that to happen. A Hitler-esque guy isn't going to be nominated POTUS and start making his own rules with no repercussions. Again, the US doesn't work like that, and only will if the American people allow it to happen.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Possibly. I'm more of an optimist though (sometimes).



Only if US citizens allow that to happen. A Hitler-esque guy isn't going to be nominated POTUS and start making his own rules with no repercussions. Again, the US doesn't work like that, and only will if the American people allow it to happen. You think every country that had this type of abuse happen were all different than the US prior to it happening?

Cause things change often slowly. Just because you feel the US doesn't work like that now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

The idea that government can collect personal data on everyone and the only checks placed on them are self imposed is a problem imo.

I would also like to see how many plots this has uncovered vs how much potential for harm it gives.

Also it wasn't like Hitler was elected because he was a tyrant he forced/scammed his way in through the German people.

Originally posted by Lestov16
But there's no reason to think they've been used to harm any victims either.

Is this historical precedent Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? Because the US doesn't operate like those governments.

We have two groups of hypothetical people: People harmed by massive gathering of personal information. People saved by massive gathering of personal information.

History shows us the first happening.
Nothing shows us the second happening.

If the NSA reveals the cases where it has used PRISM to save lives then we could have a discussion about weighing privacy against security, but they haven't so we can't. If I give you a cyanide tablet and say it will save your life you would be right to not swallow it until I give you a very good reason. There is a known risk to ingesting cyanide and no known benefit. We should apply the same standard to all dangerous things.

Originally posted by Newjak
You think every country that had this type of abuse happen were all different than the US prior to it happening?

Yes. Did democracy define their governments like the US government?

Originally posted by Newjak
Cause things change often slowly. Just because you feel the US doesn't work like that now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it does, it's the fault of the US people for allowing it to happen. The NSA surveillance system would be beneficial to any government, whether repressive or democratic.

Originally posted by Newjak
The idea that government can collect personal data on everyone and the only checks placed on them are self imposed is a problem imo.

Only if the system is abused, and it hasn't been. The US has responsibly used the system only for tracking terrorists rather than persecuting dissidents.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would also like to see how many plots this has uncovered vs how much potential for harm it gives.

I would like to see proven abuses of NSA surveillance vs how much potential for preventing crimes it has.

Originally posted by Newjak
Also it wasn't like Hitler was elected because he was a tyrant he forced/scammed his way in through the German people.

Because Germany was facing it's worst economic crisis ever and the WWI reparations weren't helping. The state of Germany in 1933 wasn't the same as the contemporary US, or the future US unless we decide to get involved a costly war with another superpower.

Originally posted by Newjak
You think every country that had this type of abuse happen were all different than the US prior to it happening?
Umm...yes. I can't really think of any examples of a stable (and true) democracy becoming a dictatorship through slow erosion of rights and freedoms. When major democratic backsliding occurs it's always in a country that already has a flawed system.

Not to say it can't happen, (it's definitely something to be on guard about) but America would be something of a first if this happened.

It's just that American policy, even at it's most corrupt, is all about democracy. It was founded on that principle and even if it strays somewhat from that ideal, it will never be completely separated from it. Thus I don't see a scenario in which the US government seizes totalitarian power unless it's the aftermath of WWIII with another superpower. As such, I trust the NSA with my secrets because unless shit gets really bad, I can't see them using it to abuse me.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Umm...yes. I can't really think of any examples of a stable (and true) democracy becoming a dictatorship through slow erosion of rights and freedoms. When major democratic backsliding occurs it's always in a country that already has a flawed system.

Not to say it can't happen, (it's definitely something to be on guard about) but America would be something of a first if this happened. Do you feel the US system is unflawed?

Also wasn't Rome a republic that allowed someone named Ceaser to take power. I know not the same system but roughly the same idea of representative government being taken over through abuse of the said representative system.

Also Germany at the time of Hitler being elected was considered a democracy. I know it was under extreme circumstances that the people allowed Hitler to take their freedoms away but it did happen. People were afraid and a monster used it to his advantage.

Other than Lestov saying it can't happen here there is no reason to believe abuse of such a system can't happen here especially concerning history.

Originally posted by Lestov16
It's just that American policy, even at it's most corrupt, is all about democracy. It was founded on that principle and even if it strays somewhat from that ideal, it will never be completely separated from it. Thus I don't see a scenario in which the US government seizes totalitarian power unless it's the aftermath of WWIII with another superpower. As such, I trust the NSA with my secrets because unless shit gets really bad, I can't see them using it to abuse me. At it's most corrupt the government can impose it's will on the people without them being able to stop it.

I'm not saying it always happens,I'm not a conspiracy nut, but to ignore the fact it could happen because you want to feel safer is a common trend in history that doesn't end well for the people.

Originally posted by Newjak
Do you feel the US system is unflawed?

When I say "flawed" I mean it in the sense that the Democracy Index considers a democracy "flawed."

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but for its faults America is still a full and stable democracy.


Not really. Not by the modern sense. Cesar taking over from the Senate didn't really change the lot of the common people much for better or worse. The vast majority of Rome's population had already been totally disenfranchised from the political process. And Cesar didn't "abuse" the system--he ignored it. He marched an army into Rome and proclaimed himself ruler.


The Weimar Republic was a fragile system that would have failed anyway even if Hitler hadn't taken over. Germany had no tradition of democracy in the sense that America has one. If you look at the leadership of the Weimar Republic prior to the Nazi takeover, many of them were Junkers--Prussian nobility, the same people who'd ruled the German Empire prior to and during WWI. So no, not a democracy to compare with America.


I'm not arguing that it can't happen, just that it happening to America would be unprecedented (or close to it) historically. It would be a black swan event, which is very different from saying it's impossible (it certainly isn't.)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When I say "flawed" I mean it in the sense that the Democracy Index considers a democracy "flawed."

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but for its faults America is still a full and stable democracy.


Not really. Not by the modern sense. Cesar taking over from the Senate didn't really change the lot of the common people much for better or worse. The vast majority of Rome's population had already been totally disenfranchised from the political process. And Cesar didn't "abuse" the system--he ignored it. He marched an army into Rome and proclaimed himself ruler.


The Weimar Republic was a fragile system that would have failed anyway even if Hitler hadn't taken over. Germany had no tradition of democracy in the sense that America has one. If you look at the leadership of the Weimar Republic prior to the Nazi takeover, many of them were Junkers--Prussian nobility, the same people who'd ruled the German Empire prior to and during WWI. So no, not a democracy to compare with America.


I'm not arguing that it can't happen, just that it happening to America would be unprecedented (or close to it) historically. It would be a black swan event, which is very different from saying it's impossible (it certainly isn't.) Most people would consider later Ceasers a determent to their living. I mean most people were okay with Julius Ceaser ruling because he was preventing bad things at the time. Most people are it's when the power starts to get abused that people generally realize it started with good intentions. An Army that was under his control because of the title he was holding at the time. I know his men loved him but it was mainly his position that gave him the power to use them. Him not giving back his power is also an abuse of the system.

You asked for Democracies I've given you a democracy. Hitler was elected(I'll admit through suspect means) but still elected.

Historically governments change and abuse power all the time so it happening to America is not that unprecedented imo. I would say a possible modern analogy would be what had been happening in Greece.

Originally posted by Newjak
Most people would consider later Ceasers a determent to their living. I mean most people were okay with Julius Ceaser ruling because he was preventing bad things at the time. Most people are it's when the power starts to get abused that people generally realize it started with good intentions. An Army that was under his control because of the title he was holding at the time. I know his men loved him but it was mainly his position that gave him the power to use them. Him not giving back his power is also an abuse of the system.

You're speaking from a modern view on governance and legitimacy, a Post Magna Carta viewpoint. What the people wanted was irrelevant to Cesar AND to the Senate. They governed because they were rich and had soldiers. There wasn't even the appearance of governing by popular will as we see in modern dictatorships.


The Weimar Republic is not comparable to modern America, so the comparison doesn't work.


Greece is a lot closer to America's situation than the others you've mentioned, but it still hasn't been taken over by Golden Dawn, and rampant corruption there makes Washington scandals look like nothing.

I'm not saying that it's absolutely 100% impossible, but given that the core of American ideology is "democracy" and "free rights", it would have to be one hell of an circumstance to get the American people to give up their liberties to a totalitarian government.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're speaking from a modern view on governance and legitimacy, a Post Magna Carta viewpoint. What the people wanted was irrelevant to Cesar AND to the Senate. They governed because they were rich and had soldiers. There wasn't even the appearance of governing by popular will as we see in modern dictatorships.


The Weimar Republic is not comparable to modern America, so the comparison doesn't work.


Greece is a lot closer to America's situation than the others you've mentioned, but it still hasn't been taken over by Golden Dawn, and rampant corruption there makes Washington scandals look like nothing. Fair point but Ceaser was given extra power he didn't have and eventually abused it to maintain it or get more.

It is a democracy that allowed someone to become a dictator.

Greece is in bad shape though because of that corruption and america could just easily head there.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm not saying that it's absolutely 100% impossible, but given that the core of American ideology is "democracy" and "free rights", it would have to be one hell of an circumstance to get the American people to give up their liberties to a totalitarian government. You mean like giving up their freedom to privacy because of a fear of terrorism attacks...

I don't think anyone sane here is trying to say the end is tomorrow. But giving the government such a huge power boost over people is a huge red flag. And gives future people the possibility of abusing said power.

Invasion of privacy is only a problem if the information gathered is actually used against me. Why would I care if a phone conversation I had about bagels goes into a database never to be seen again.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Invasion of privacy is only a problem if the information gathered is actually used against me. Why would I care if a phone conversation I had about bagels goes into a database never to be seen again. Given any amount of time there will be information that can be used against you. I doubt after all you only talk, email, google search about bagels. And most people aren't concerned with what they are doing now it's how easily that system can be abused.

so, at the risk of violating my self imposed exile due to not being able to stomach idiotic positions like those espoused by lestov, here is, yet again, a Canadian terror attempt solved by typical police work with no need of violating the rights of Canadian citizens.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/02/british-columbia-rcmp-to-announce-terror-charges-tuesday/

so sorry that I can't not stress over small things or endure small minded people. I'll just laugh while you self-justify your own way into tyranny...

Exactly. It's only a potential threat, only capable of being abused if the US citizens elect someone that slimy, and at that point, it's the US people's fault, not the NSA.

But as for now, if the system is not being abused, I won't criticize it. I'd much rather prevent crime than have to react to it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Exactly. It's only a potential threat, only capable of being abused if the US citizens elect someone that slimy, and at that point, it's the US people's fault, not the NSA.

But as for now, if the system is not being abused, I won't criticize it. I'd much rather prevent crime than have to react to it. So you would be okay with a King as long they prevented crime and didn't abuse their power?

Most slimey people don't go around advertising they are slimy. It's a gradual decline in freedoms. That's how it works.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, at the risk of violating my self imposed exile due to not being able to stomach idiotic positions like those espoused by lestov, here is, yet again, a Canadian terror attempt solved by typical police work with no need of violating the rights of Canadian citizens.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/02/british-columbia-rcmp-to-announce-terror-charges-tuesday/

so sorry that I can't not stress over small things or endure small minded people. I'll just laugh while you self-justify your own way into tyranny...

And who is bringing this tyranny? Is the NSA breaking into people's homes because they said they don't like Obama or Bush? And hypothetical 1984 scenarios are improbable unless the US undergoes a massive policy shift, which will not be done without the consent of the American people.

The totalitarian Ingsoc government you're trying to portray the US government as is simply false. It may not be perfect, and there are some self-serving politicians out here, but it is predominantly a democracy. The government turning into a tyranny is possible, but would involve unpredictable circumstances to occur.

we don't have NSA spying, we foil essentially all terror plots against us...

you have NSA spying and the Boston bombing still occurs...

justify it however you want, I'm bored of the conversation already

Originally posted by Lestov16
And who is bringing this tyranny? Is the NSA breaking into people's homes because they said they don't like Obama or Bush? And hypothetical 1984 scenarios are improbable unless the US undergoes a massive policy shift, which will not be done without the consent of the American people.

The totalitarian Ingsoc government you're trying to portray the US government as is simply false. It may not be perfect, and there are some self-serving politicians out here, but it is predominantly a democracy. The government turning into a tyranny is possible, but would involve unpredictable circumstances to occur. Did I say the government has reached that part yet. I even said it's a gradual decline over time. But the most prominent ways these things happen are people willing giving government more power which can be easily abused.Something the NSA now has.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you would be okay with a King as long they prevented crime and didn't abuse their power?

The POTUS is not equivalent to the NSA database. It will exist no matter what ruler is in charge. The ones in charge now, and even Bush, did not abuse the system. And while it could hypothetically happen in the future, the circumstances would be so dire, they would be unpredictable at this current time.

Originally posted by Newjak
Most slimey people don't go around advertising they are slimy. It's a gradual decline in freedoms. That's how it works.

Again, the American people will not allow their freedoms to be taken away from them when the core of American ideology is democratic freedom.

There's a difference between the NSA intercepting your call and putting it into a database never to be used again, and using your call to arrest you because you disagree with the POTUS's policies, which is what you are trying to say will happen.

The NSA database is like a nuke, a powerful weapon, but one that must be wielded by responsible parties only.

Originally posted by Newjak
Did I say the government has reached that part yet. I even said it's a gradual decline over time. But the most prominent ways these things happen are people willing giving government more power which can be easily abused.Something the NSA now has.

So you think a few years down the road, people will just be giving up free speech and freedom of the press, with no backlash whatsoever?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q73/1000080_10151497845284205_12702363_n.jpg

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think a few years down the road, people will just be giving up free speech and freedom of the press, with no backlash whatsoever? It doesn't even have to be a few years down the road, it could be 50 years down the road. All it really takes is people not caring what the government is doing or not caring about possible systems that can be abused like this one.

I mean how much reward does this system really offer? What are the odds it actually catches someone, what are the odds innocent people get abused by it? All things needed to be considered.

But we haven't reached that point yet. The reason there isn't too much fervor about the NSA situation is because we know there are laws in place which will protect us from government persecution with the system. I'm just saying that it will be incredibly difficult to get rid of stuff like free speech, when it is the basis of American ideology. The NSA database does nothing to halt people's free speech.

I'd say the odds are about the same. And innocent people will only get abused if the American people allow that to happen, which they won't. You'd have to be crazy to think the US public would be nonchalant if people were persecuted for their political views.

I think an even more interesting aspect of this rather than the NSA database is the effect this is having on international affairs.

Originally posted by Oliver North
we don't have NSA spying, we foil essentially all terror plots against us...

in argument against my own position, it turns out some advanced spying may have actually been what prevented the Canada day bombings...

As I stated before, surveillance is like a nuke. It can serve as a powerful weapon, but it's the wielder who must be monitored.

Listening to NPR the transit zone that Snowden is in is essentially an area where the Russian government has declared certain laws and rights to not apply, specifically to prevent unwanted immigration. Lots of governments realized they could do this on the same basis as duty free zones.

What truth was everyone so shocked about? REALLY what truth? Didn't people already know this was going on? i mean really, when i first heard about this i was asking the question, who did he sell the information too? By giving secrets to other countries, youre being an *******. That's all that is. It benefits no one here and everyone that didn't know they were being monitored on the internet, well...,welcome to having a brain.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
What truth was everyone so shocked about? REALLY what truth? Didn't people already know this was going on? i mean really, when i first heard about this i was asking the question, who did he sell the information too? By giving secrets to other countries, youre being an *******. That's all that is. It benefits no one here and everyone that didn't know they were being monitored on the internet, well...,welcome to having a brain.

I used to be in the same boat as you, regarding this, until I read this article:


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/5-things-snowden-leaks-revealed-about-nsas-original-warrantless-wiretaps/

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
What truth was everyone so shocked about? REALLY what truth? Didn't people already know this was going on? i mean really, when i first heard about this i was asking the question, who did he sell the information too? By giving secrets to other countries, youre being an *******. That's all that is. It benefits no one here and everyone that didn't know they were being monitored on the internet, well...,welcome to having a brain.

then there is no reason to charge him with anything, right?

certainly no reason for an international man-hunt or grounding the planes of foreign leaders, right?

damn, the American intelligence apparatus is acting like a frightened child...

bvl0pWKaZ14
rx7OeCO88ps

AfhP2mmmUdU

Originally posted by Oliver North
then there is no reason to charge him with anything, right?

certainly no reason for an international man-hunt or grounding the planes of foreign leaders, right?


I have no idea how you inferred that from my post but, no, I do not believe this guy deserves amnesty. Working for the NSA and regarding our laws, yea, he needs to be found and tried for treason. I was just asking why everyone was so shocked? Thought most of this shit was common knowledge since the patriot act.

actually, what snowden revealed violated the patriot act...

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, what snowden revealed violated the patriot act...

And said act has provisions that violate the constitution and is, therefore, illegal without an Amendment that validates the Patriot Act's currently illegal provisions.


The Patriot Act needs to be just thrown out.

Isn't that for the supreme court to decide?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Isn't that for the supreme court to decide?

Thankfully, no. Being an educated citizen is all you need to determine whether or not some provisions of a law or constitutional or not. What the Supreme Court decides is not necessarily fact or correct...it's the thing that legally counts.

But, so you know, some Federal Courts have already determined that some provisions were unconstitutional. Google.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thankfully, no. Being an educated citizen is all you need to determine whether or not some provisions of a law or constitutional or not. What the Supreme Court decides is not necessarily fact or correct...it's the thing that legally counts.

This is an argument that has never made sense to me. Constitutionality is decided by the Supreme Court, they are correct by definition. What you can do is provide your own, unofficial interpretation.

Or lobby and vote for amendments to the constitution or a president to appoint supreme court judges that agree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-chinese-servers-seen-as-spy-peril.html?ref=world&target=comments#commentsContainer

So, I think this newest leak adds a new dimension to Snowden's leaks. Before, pretty much all of his leaks were aimed at exposing government programs and espionage that either targeted the American people or American allies, things that embarrassed the country but that needed to be aired out, but now he's exposed what's arguably a legitimate and well-needed service of the NSA, compromising what I would argue is a critical part of the nation's national security.

My original skepticism of Snowden's motives is surfacing again.

Edit: I just realized that Sym hasn't been around for a while. Without him, ON, and King Kandy, this place is pretty slow.

And now Snowden is officially a tool of Russian propaganda.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And now Snowden is officially a tool of Russian propaganda.

What is he doing now?

"Inteviewed" Putin about surveillance in Russia

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/europe/russia-snowden-putin/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is he doing now?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/video-of-snowden-asking-putin-about-surveillance/#permid=11588214

He just appeared on Russian TV to ask Vladimir Putin about whether Russia conducts surveillance on its own citizens, to which Putin replied "we don't have an extensive surveillance system, and if we did, it would only be conducted by court orders."

Many Ukrainians have pointed out that Snowden should have asked Putin about Russia's social network site VKontakte, given that the Russian government recently asked VKontakte's president for the identities of Ukrainians using the service to coordinate anti-government activities during the Euromaidan.

Basically, Snowden just set Putin up for a propaganda moment and in doing so made it clear that if he had principles he's compromised them in exchange for Russian protection.

Edit: I still think he should get a pardon from the US Government, but he's really not doing much to help his case.

Thanks for the update.

That sounded suspiciously similar to "cool story, bro"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/video-of-snowden-asking-putin-about-surveillance/#permid=11588214

He just appeared on Russian TV to ask Vladimir Putin about whether Russia conducts surveillance on its own citizens, to which Putin replied "we don't have an extensive surveillance system, and if we did, it would only be conducted by court orders."

Many Ukrainians have pointed out that Snowden should have asked Putin about Russia's social network site VKontakte, given that the Russian government recently asked VKontakte's president for the identities of Ukrainians using the service to coordinate anti-government activities during the Euromaidan.

Basically, Snowden just set Putin up for a propaganda moment and in doing so made it clear that if he had principles he's compromised them in exchange for Russian protection.

Edit: I still think he should get a pardon from the US Government, but he's really not doing much to help his case.

That sounds like a huge stretch to me. You've skipped "b"-"y" and went from "a" all the way to "z."


You need to fill in the gaps to justify why you think Edward Snowden knowingly went out of his way to ignore other Russian specific programs that contradicts Putin's answer (or Snowden's intended question).


Check it: I would have asked the same question to Putin as Snowden. I'm all about privacy and all about the government being beholden to the people. But, if I were in Snowden's situation, you would accuse me of being Putin's lap dog for asking that question when I am definitely not.