FISA Court Will Release More Opinions Because of Snowden 179
cold fjord sends this news from the Washington Post:
"Call it the Edward Snowden effect: Citing the former NSA contractor, a federal judge has ordered the government to declassify more reports from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In an opinion from the FISC itself, Judge F. Dennis Saylor on Friday told the White House to declassify all the legal opinions relating to Section 215 of the Patriot Act written after May 2011 that aren't already the subject of FOIA litigation. The court ruled (PDF) that the White House must identify the opinions in question by Oct. 4. 'The unauthorized disclosure of in June 2013 of a Section 215 order, and government statements in response to that disclosure, have engendered considerable public interest and debate about Section 215,' wrote Saylor. 'Publication of FISC opinions relating to this opinion would contribute to an informed debate.' The ruling comes in response to a petition by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking greater government transparency. But because the ACLU already has a similar FOIA case pending in another court, Saylor wrote that the new FISC order can only cover documents that don't relate to that case."
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Snowden's information leaks started conversations that should have happened a long time ago. Also, the privacy reform panel created by President Obama met for the first time earlier this week. It did not discuss the NSA's surveillance activities. [Two attendees of the Monday meeting said the discussion was dominated by the interests of major technology firms, and the session did not address making any substantive changes to the controversial mass collection of Americans' phone data and foreigners' internet communications, which can include conversations with Americans."
Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress needs to impeach Obama.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
Congress needs to impeach Obama.
Who do you think gave the Executive branch (NSA is part of that) the power via the Patriot Act to do this horseshit?
And you do honestly think it was the Obama Administration who got this shit going?
And don't get me started on why Obama kept it going, though, because I'll be vomiting "Hope And Change".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress needs to impeach Obama.
Who do you think gave the Executive branch (NSA is part of that) the power via the Patriot Act to do this horseshit?
And you do honestly think it was the Obama Administration who got this shit going?
And don't get me started on why Obama kept it going, though, because I'll be vomiting "Hope And Change".
Well Congress would need to impeach itself. But that is something they can't do. So the only realistic option is to set free those motherfuckers and elect other politicians that will do the interest of the american people. And that means voting third party. It means not voting democrat or republican at the local level. It means start from the base and then go up to the top. It means get yourself interested in politics and do away with that stupid attitude of "nothing can ever change".
Re: (Score:2)
And you expect this government to be only unreasonable? That fairy dust you're snorting must be powerful stuff indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't understand this viewpoint. it's like a kneejerk reaction to protect obama or shift blame. so, the govt was doing unconstitutional practice 'A' when he entered office. He had to choose between eliminating 'A' (as would be his job under the constitution) or going balls-in with 'A++'. He chose the latter, and I think he should be impeached for it. This has nothing to do with Bush or Congress, it's an evaluation of his actions.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
why the fuck, does every american citizen say, that surveilance is okay, when its sure, that no american citizens are targeted? Are you really that hostile to foreigners? Here in germany, everyone against surveilance, is against surveilance everywhere. We hate your oppressive laws as much as ours.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Informative)
why the fump, does every american citizen say, that surveilance is okay when no american citizens are targeted? Are you really that hostile to foreigners? Here in germany, everyone against surveilance, is against surveilance everywhere. We hate your oppressive laws as much as ours.
Most of us americans who are against surveillance are against it everywhere. However, fighting against surveillance locally is currently the "low hanging fruit," especially since doing so was specifically prohibited by the law that all the agencies cite.
Also, as cynical as it sounds, spying on citizens violates our constitutional rights, while non-citizens don't have constitutional rights. So it's just an easier point to make.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
while non-citizens don't have constitutional rights.
The constitution clearly differentiates between persons and citizens, and the majority of the constitution and bill of rights applies to persons.
Only select elements are limited to citizens.. some sections even refer to both such as "No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the united states."
The constitution, for the most part applies to all persons. It is a travesty that anyone thinks otherwise.
Naturally US law only applies within the US, but that means at the very least foreigners on united states soil or on united states controlled territory *cough*gitmo*cough* should have the full protection of the constitution.
And as to foreigners outside the US, that's more complicated. But at the very least tapping communications between any party on US soil and a party in a foreign state is violating the constitutional rights of the party on US soil, even if we don't assign any rights to the foreign party.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone should have told the CIA this back in the 50's before they started listening in on international phones calls from the US in the Bahamas under the the legal concept of "we aren't on US soil, so the US Constitution doesn't apply to what we are doing".
Re: (Score:2)
Legal concept, listening in on phone calls wasn't even unconstitutional from a legal perspective until the mid 1960's. Until then, it was considered constitutional with a few challenges at lower courts that kept getting overturned. It wasn't until the 60's that a supreme court case solidified it as unconstitutional and then it only claimed domestic calls were covered and presumed foreign calls was within the scope of national security. Congress ended up creating the omnibus crime bill or something like that
Re: (Score:2)
While the Constitution doesn't often use the term citizen instead of person, the US Government has no obligations or responsibilities (aside from those agreed upon by international treaty) to anybody but US citizens or people within the US borders. This is a good thing, for both US citizens and foreigners. Claiming that foreigners outside of US borders have standing under the US Constitution is an implicit acceptance of American Imperialism. You don't want that.
This whole thing is best approached through in
Re: (Score:2)
Bill of rights then (which is part of the US constitutation). Of course all that would be unnecessary if the US only accepted the international human rights (which were inspired by the Bill of rights).
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming that foreigners outside of US borders have standing under the US Constitution
I didn't claim that. I only claimed that foreigners inside the borders have standing.
As to whether foreigners outside the borders have standing? At the very least we have a moral obligation not to attack them. (from sending drones to kill them, to invading their private communications) unless we are in a declared war against them. Although that is not in the constution it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is just an acceptance that the Constitution applies to the U.S. government anywhere and everywhere for all time. The U.S. government isn't banned from banning free speech in China because the Constitution applies to China. It is banned because the Constitution applies to the U.S. Government wherever it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
From the responses, I think I must have made my point very poorly. The US isn't supposed to be able to ban free speech in China because China is out of US jurisdiction. The Constitution has nothing to do with the situation.
The solution to this mess is not for citizens of other countries to try to directly tweak the behavior of the US government to be less offensive to them. The solution is to petition their own governments to stop letting the US exercise so much power inside of their borders.
If the US is ba
Re: (Score:2)
I am a U.S. Citizen, so the Constitution is one of the bludgeons I might use on my government (not that it seems to be working so far).
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, we're trying. Problem is our own governments are behaving just as offensively.
its actually something that needs to go to the UN, but god damn if the UN aint a tool of the governments anyway.
I think the UN is probably the most vital institution on the planet. But what it needs to fix it is that its positions be voted for by the citizenry of the world. That would be a spectacular development.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, the USA is one of the few countries of the world that claim extraterritorial jurisprudence, so it can claim that the laws of the United States applies to citizens even if they are not in the United States.
Seems like an odd double standard, don't you think?
Not really. People can claim whatever they want, but it takes the cooperation of others to actually do whatever they want. The US doesn't allow the agents of other countries to freely operate within its borders, so why do other countries allow the US to do so?
It bothers me that everyone here just takes it as a given that the US can do whatever it feels like doing in other sovereign nations. Stop asking the US to be more considerate when they trample your garden and start telling them to get off your lawn. Y
Re: (Score:3)
There's a new thing (for you) involved, that's named "money". The U.S. spends more money on military than all other states of this planet combined.
That's the reason, the "US can do whatever it feels like doing in other sovereign nations." Well, quite simply -- it can, we don't. Power speaks. And you don't even seem to know this elemantary truth.
The real pity is: You, US citizens, once were the spearhead of civil liberties. Now, you don't know this even more,
Re: (Score:2)
The US population constitutes around 5% of the world population. That 95% of the world's population feels as if they are powerless against such a tiny minority speaks more about the pathetic majority than the minority. That the world population needs such tiny groups of people to "spearhead... civil liberties" speaks poorly of the majority of humanity. That the majority of the world's population will roll over and let a government that they see as corrupt dictate their own domestic policies says the most ab
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that? That's saddening. I'm glad that, effectively, I don't belong to this "pathetic majority" -- they are scraping to get enough water and enough food, shelter against warlords (in some countries, against US drones targeting cvilians, effectively the same). I, living in a G8 state, have the luxury that 80% of the world's population do
Re: (Score:2)
I poured on the vitriol a little thick because I was in a sour mood when I wrote that, but I really do believe that it's true. The bad people of the world are allowed to win because the "good" people don't care to hold them back. Defeatist attitudes like yours, combined with the apathy of the moronic great silent majority, are why the world is as bad as it is today (at least socially and politically).
You're right that the people in the countries that the US actually bombs on a regular basis can't do much to
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, since the Constitution limits the power of the U.S. government, it applies equally to foreigners outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The Constitution applies to the U.S. government at every single point in the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the first few lines of the constitution saying "U.S. Government grants all citizens these following constitutional rights (not void where not applicable)." . NOT.
Don't confuse the negative enumeration of rights in US constitution with the constitution of many other countries (eg. India) which treats the government as the source of these protected rights (positive rights).
Re: (Score:2)
why the fuck, does every american citizen say, that surveilance is okay, when its sure, that no american citizens are targeted? Are you really that hostile to foreigners? Here in germany, everyone against surveilance, is against surveilance everywhere. We hate your oppressive laws as much as ours.
I am an American citizen and I don't agree with surveillance on anyone like we are doing it. Mass collecting data? Sorry, not needed and way to costly. Plus it makes us (American citizens) look worse then we really are.
So don't lump me in with "every" American, or I will start lumping all you Nazi's together. I mean, German citizens.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
You may lump as all together as Nazis; but we fight Nazis here, in Germany. We have them, but we do something against them. We could do more, but many citizens -- and that's the majority of people -- work hard to make these tendencies a non-issue for federal politics.
Whereas, you -- well, you have a government that doesn't bring an action against its officials who lied before congress, doesn't bring an action against its sworn officers who have knowingly decided to breach the law. Instead, it prosecutes the people who defend your constitution. You allowed the government to comandeer private resources, an action that is constitutionally only allowed in war time. And worse -- you don't care about it. Your press calls to suppress freedom of press and there's no outcry about it.
You voted them in, Bush and Obama, and you knew what you were doing.
You, the U.S.A., returns to behaviour of the 50s -- concentration camps like the Japanese citizens, or like Guantanamo, witch hunts like McCarthy, power without checks-and-balances. You think J. Edgar Hoover was bad, and it got over when he died? Well, Keith Alexander is worse. He should be the American darkest nightdream -- but he isn't. He is beyond the law now and can do like he wish, he is the living proove that you are neither willing to care for your republic nor for your democracy. And you will not get rid of his heritage, because he's much more intelligent than Hoover ever was.
There was a time when the U.S.A. was revered for their spirit, for their strive for justice and freedom. Well, these days are long over. People like Keith Alexander and others destroyed this spirit, and you -- the people of the U.S.A. -- didn't fight it.
Shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, first, we are never given a choice. Usually, our "choice" is between a member of the Skull and Crossbones club, and a member of the Skull and Crossbones club. Our Yale club Skull and Crossbones, whose members also occupy most of the high appointed positions by now, was an outgrowth of Nazi Germany; more specifically it seems to tie to the occult pagan rituals that were associated with high ranking nazis who appeared, well, posessed.
I really should just rate the above "-1, Troll", but, hey, some people might actually think it's not nonsense, so:
Or is there actually a "Skull and Crossbones" club, separate from Yale's Skull and Bones, which accepts people who
Re: (Score:2)
(1) sorry, running off memory.
(2) You are correct; not *every* candidate is a member. Look up how many of them were, though. But though I said Yale, there is also a university in Virginia, maybe Longwood IIRC.
(3) Please wait on sources... I have to look up something in a book I *may* have around (it may be a couple hundred miles away, too): Roy Schoeman. Regarding it being an outgrowth, I don't know that the original club was, but I do remember seeing sources that I considered reputable that indicated
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why the fuck, does every american citizen say, that surveilance is okay, when its sure, that no american citizens are targeted?
This is actually really simple. I will approach it from two sides for clarity.
As an American, do I give a fuck if Germany is spying on me? Not really. Why? They can not do anything to me. They can not take my house, my family, my job, affect my social environment, or do anything else to me that I care about. I suppose they could kill me... but is that something I really need to worry about from Germany?
As an American, do I give a fuck if America is spying on me? You betcha! Why? They can do all sorts of thi
Re: (Score:2)
why the fuck, does every american citizen say, that surveilance is okay, when its sure, that no american citizens are targeted? Are you really that hostile to foreigners? Here in germany, everyone against surveilance, is against surveilance everywhere. We hate your oppressive laws as much as ours.
Do you know the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do"? Well, I, the government am surveilling, and I say I am against it.
Re: (Score:2)
I read this online. There are many news sites and much more commenters there, who emphasize, that not only strangers, but AMERICANS are targeted.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course nearly everyone else warned that the abuses would be rampant. Yet they not only passed it anyway, they re-upped it.
Time to kill it dead, preferably with a no take-backs clause.
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called checks and balances. Congress can share just as much blame for this mess as Obama is.
If Congress, the republicans anyways, weren't so focused on trying to repeal Obamacare, half of this crap would have actually seen the light of day.
And the other half, Democrats, have been soaking up donor dollars for the DOJ while DHS and ICE implement absurd IP, and draconian drug efforts.
Plenty of blame to go around here, across all manner of topics. The lot of elected politicians we have right now really doe
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Republicans have NO interest in stopping this, because they were the ones who kicked it into high-gear under GWB by passing the Patriot Act.
If Obamacare wasn't around, they would just be working on killing other social programs, or just going "no' for whatever Obama says he wanted to do.
Re: Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that the Patriot Act was passed 98 to 1 in an evenly split Senate, you don't get to blame the Republicans. They ALL voted yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress needs to impeach Obama.
The Congress & Senate need to impeach themselves also for allowing this to happen during their watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't.
Just pardon him and stop wasting government time and taxpayer money and frivolous dog and pony shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't.
Just pardon him and stop wasting government time and taxpayer money and frivolous dog and pony shows.
You want a pardon issued to George W. Bush?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think they'll get around to a trial quicker than they've done for Manning or Hasan?
"You'll only be in solitary confinement for 3 or 4 years, followed by a nice quick trial. After the guilty verdict and sentencing, whoever's in office then will pardon you and you'll be free-as-a-bird.
Trust us, we're lawyers from the government."
That's your plan? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:1)
There is absolutely no reasonable question that what Snowden did was illegal. In fact, there's little if any question that what he did at least borders on treason. However, that doesn't make it wrong. Courts rarely allow that to decide a verdict (pretty much only in a constitutional case, which this simply isn't), and unless the law changes drastically, Snowden would be a fool to come back to the US without a signed pardon in hand.
Courts don't decide if what someone did was right or wrong morally, they deci
Re: (Score:2)
What section of the whistle blower act specifically protects Snowden?
disclosing the apparatus in which the country collect intelligence on enemies- foreign and domestic and monitors their movements is very close to treason as defined in the US constitution in "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". HE essentially aided the ene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Charge the NSA with Treason for what?
Here is the problem, the US government determines who is and isn't an enemy baring an invasion or attack against us. Right now, we are trying to arm Al Qaeda in Syria knowing that they waged war against us. The president has determined them not to be our enemies any more and ended the war on terror a few months ago.
You may think it is screwed up and arbitrary and I would agree. But those are the rules. Reagan inadvertently gave weapons to Al Qaeda not knowing they would
Re: (Score:2)
The dictionary doesn't do shit. the definition for treason in the US is specifically defined in the US constitution and limited to that definition. As the GP said, it is close to that definition.
Seeing as he did not levy war against the US the only grounds for treason would be if you claimed he was aiding the enemy. Since he did not give the enemy (and which speciously defined group is that anyway?) means to avoid surveillance (if anything we've learned there is no avoiding it at all), it's not anywhere close to the definition given in the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Please pay attention. No one said he committed treason, they said "In fact, there's little if any question that what he did at least borders on treason".
I specifically pointed to the aiding the enemy part and specifically laid out where Al Qeada was using the information disclosed to test and determine which lines of communication they use are compromised and the results were a bunch of specific embassy closings a month or so ago without any of the threats materializing. Giving an enemy enough infor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice straw man there. Since when is general information the same as secret information? The problem isn't that publicly available information has helped our enemies, it is that secret or hidden information has been.
But I guess logic and reason isn't a strong point any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are full of it.
For one, It has always been the discretion of the powers to be. Or do you think the FBI creating and keeping a file on Marin Luther King or John Lenon was justified and keeping it secret for years was too? The US government decides what documents and information it has is open or secret not you. It has always been that way. Your analogy is still a fail.
Second, if anything I have said allows anything, it would only be that some actions come close to treason. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE HAS SA
Re: (Score:2)
NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE HAS SAID SNOWDEN COMMiTED TREASON in this thread
You did- or at least tried to. You took something that was not treasonous in the least and made it "appear" treasonous by stating that it "borders on treason". Well tell us- is it treasonous or not? Because if it is not you can stop flapping your mouth about how it is "aiding the enemy". It is not aiding the enemy anymore than anyone else that disagrees with your government.
Especially if they go to a foreign country, stand up and say "I did it" then go to another foreign country and seek asylum.
So he should have what- trusted the government that is clearly not trustworthy and taken 4 or so years of solitary confinement? Wo
Re: Obama needs to pardon Snowden (Score:2)
Borders on means right next to- touching each other. If my property line borders on your back yard, it means we are close not that i am in your yard.
As for legal avenues, he could have informed any member of congress of what he thought to be illegal without failing the law. He could have aldo made the accusations without disclosing any specific information. You must be really messed up to think his only choice wss to copy a bunch of secret files and give them to foreign countries snd enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
"It has been done before, just look to most of the recent presidents for guidance"
FTFY
It's been done by a lot of presidents. The pardon is probably one of the most powerful tools a president has and on their way out, it is often used liberally.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Wrong link. Damn copy and paste on a phone.
This should be correct: http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/presidential-pardons-1789-present.html [infoplease.com]
Bush pardoned 179 people vs. Clinton at 456. I was a little shocked to see that FDR pardoned almost 3400. Usually pardons are granted when a president is leaving office. Since FDR died in office during his 4th term, I was surprised it was so many.
I also see a lot of people bitching that Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, which isn't true. He commuted his sentenc
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is hardly going to pardon someone that outed his own criminal behaviour.
But what should be happening is a special prosecutor. Snowden would be easy to get back in the country, just give him immunity. I am sure he would be happy to come back and testify in a real court about the crimes he has knowledge of.
Re: (Score:2)
And Congress's behavior and Bush's Behavior.....Fuck em all.
Re: (Score:2)
And Congress's behavior and Bush's Behavior.....Fuck em all.
Why? Aren't there enough of those bastards around already? Why breed more?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution isn't a handwave for Snowden's practices either. It doesn't magically make the argument any better (or worse) by invoking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Aside from an overzealous use of commas it seems pretty clear that the US Gov can't just scoop up everything, or require the Telecoms to retain records so that they can
Re:Save the immunity for anti-Snowden citizens. (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. The 4th amendment was put into the constitution specifically to outlaw what was called a general warrant. This happened when someone connected to any authority had it in for you. They would get a general warrant, it allowed them to search you, your house, place of employment, or anything any time they wanted in hopes of catching you doing something wrong so that charges could be brought against you.
This kind of data collection and retention is specifically the kind of actions the amendment was designed to make impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon didn't need a pardon to get off the hook. He needed one in order to put it behind the business of government. There was very little legal evidence of Nixon actually doing anything illegal at the time of the pardon.
The only real evidence against Nixon was a gap in tape recorded conversations and someone who was indicted for a crime taking a plea deal to lesser jail time if he connected Nixon and said the Watergate hotel breakin's were about
Re: (Score:1)
What makes anyone think that Snowden would want to be pardoned? To come back to America? Fuck people, Snowden came to the understanding that all that America is now, is a corporate prison-camp, where the government is simply there to act as both a corporate litigator, and a regulator for the workers, aka 'the people'. Laws (in America) are no longer things that keep the peace for The People, but rather act as walls for a society where the rich get to walk on one side, and 'the people' have to stay on the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually what would be a lot more useful would be to have a process in place for the American public to pardon people it wants pardoned, and damn what the politcos want if they chose to pardon someone or a class of someones. That would act as a big check on abuse of power by people holding public office.
For example, I'd likely vote to pardon Snowden, all non-violent drug offenders, and almost everyone engaged in a consensual crime, or those currently incarcerated for a crime for which the law has since bee
Re: (Score:2)
The Nobel committee needs to give him a peace prize first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Were this to actually happen, I still wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he were to fall victim to an unfortunate "accident" upon his return to America.
... or to collect his Nobel prize. FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Richard Nixon was preemptively pardoned. So was Caspar Weinberger.
It's completely academic anyway. Snowden has a better chance of getting head from Hillary Clinton than getting a presidential pardon.
Dear Edward, (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for your service.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And Dear Mr. Clapper,
Compartmentalization is good for security, but if things are so compartmentalized that nobody in your organization knows whether it's committing crimes or not, you need to re-read your history. It's not a defense to say you only put people onto transportation, unaware of the destination. It's not a defense to say you only drove a trains, unaware of its destination. It's not a defense to say you only processed prisoners, unaware of their source.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for you, the information will stop and your idol (and his helpers) will be put in his rightful place - a supermax prison in Colorado for a good chunk of his life.
How is your job at the NSA working out Seth?
The citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden has moved the crypto debate into the 21C and lets hope the next generation of students and professors learn something about trusting their codes and the hardware 'offered'.
Skilled US legal teams will start talking with academics and law makers. Overtime more will become clear and the rest of the world can start thinking about the products they import or who they trust data to.
Public interest (Score:5, Insightful)
>" 'The unauthorized disclosure of in June 2013 of a Section 215 order, and government statements in response to that disclosure, have engendered considerable public interest and debate about Section 215,' "
Well, yeah, amazing isn't it? That is the way a democracy is SUPPOSED to work. It DOESN'T work properly when tons of things are all held in secret.
I suspect that at least half what is currently kept secret from the public is unnecessarily secret. And probably much more than half of what is left could at least be shared with Congress committees.
Re:Public interest (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that at least half what is currently kept secret from the public is unnecessarily secret. And probably much more than half of what is left could at least be shared with Congress committees.
Congress, all of it, and the Senate, too, should be informed of what the executive branch does. Withholding information about the government itself from legislators is irrational.
Re:Public interest (Score:4, Informative)
>"Congress, all of it, and the Senate, too, should be informed of what the executive branch does. Withholding information about the government itself from legislators is irrational."
Although I totally agree with you, the Senate and the House of Representatives are both parts of Congress. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Clapper has lied through his teeth many times before. Can anyone say this is any less false and self serving?
“Espionage is illegal and the clandestine service’s job is to break those laws without being caught. Espionage is deceptive, covert, underhand. It is probably the second oldest profession in the world.” This is a quote by Justice Robert Hope from his "Hope Report". This was released after Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam instigated a Royal Commission into the Australian se
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect much more. The past two administrations have classified more documents than all previous administrations combined.
Re: (Score:2)
But look at all the people who have been reprimanded or jailed for classifying documents that should remain open to the public.
Oh, there aren't any.
Re:Public interest (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, America was only ever great because it was a nation that was acting as The People. But slowly slowly, it became regulated, and then government corruption took over.
When will Americans stop believing that fucking Disneyland fairytale, honestly it's worse than listening to someone rant about their fucking horoscope. America, like many empires before it, has had moments of greatness and vision, but lets not pretend the life of a commoner was better in the 17/18/19th or even the first half of the 20th century. Just ask any black grandfather or white grandmother about how great life was in the 50's and 60's.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how the hell do you expect the cops to execute a search warrant if the subject of the warrant knows the cops are coming before they have even left the fucking court room? Or do you expect burglars to s
Interesting how he claims we should be (Score:4, Insightful)
having these conversations (referring to Clapper) when he was the one actively LYING about the extent of activities under his jurisdiction.
So: We should be having these conversations, but I actively lied about it to avoid having these conversations.
My general experience is when people are lying about things in response to very direct questions, they're usually doing it to hide activities that they know they shouldn't be doing.
Compartmentalize (Score:5, Insightful)
General Alexander's games only work because he can tell one story to one group of people, and another story to another.
The 5 eye allies get to see intelligence from abroad and don't see the surveillance of their own people, their companies and their politicians, and so think they are 'special', not spied up, protected and private, even as they spy on their own people for the NSA.
The FISA court was told stories about how NSA was using its warrants and how essential those warrants were. I suspect FISC never authorized storage of everything. Rather it probably authorized collection of everything, filtering out just the terrorist related and storing of that. But once General Alexander had access to all the data, he didn't need to throw it away, because FISC would never know he kept it and who is powerful enough to stop him?
Dianne Feinstein, seems to have been told all manner of court orders are needed and the data has never been abused (she said it as though she believed it). Perhaps she was shown snippets of terrorist info, and the occasional tip about her political rivals, but never shown her own record, or all the abuse of data stories, or the surveillance of ordinary Americans for reasons other than terrorism.
Obama was told all sorts of warrants are needed, and kept talking about telephone calls, as if that was the limit of the surveillance. To tap a US telephone, its done by computer request, and apparently a very large portion of US calls are routinely recorded without a warrant. They only need a warrant if they decide they need a warrant after listening and concluding both parties are American. But who would know if they didn't flag it? No one. General Alexander says only 300 selectors in 2012 were searched, yet the NSA 'auditor' says 20 million searches a month against the big database.
David Cameron was probably told only the terrorist data is filtered out of the UK feed and then the rest thrown away. But it isn't, it's kept and handed to Israel on presumably others. Used for commercial and political surveillance, there's no special relationship with 5 eyes, only 4 idiots deluding themselves and betraying their countries.
DEA thinks it's given hot tips in secret, which is why it needs to cover up the source, in reality it could well be party to falsify a crime, or covering an entrapment, or coercion. Who knows!? Because the evidence is never examined, instead a false cover story is examined in court.
Each party thinks THEY are not being spied on and only get to see OTHER people's data. General Alexander plays a very compartmentalized game to keep it so. As the FISC court saw the leaks, so it see that the FISA warrants don't correspond to the reality and want them released.
If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. But 'wrong' in the free world is supposed to mean 'illegal' not 'upset someone powerful'. The courts are there to protect people and if they did that, and the NSA ignored the court and did its own thing, then its time we knew. FISC court is happy to let people see what it authorized, so let see how the reality and the warrants correspond.
Everybody's a criminal (Score:2)
"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide."
That only works if you know what's wrong, and I'm not talking about obvious wrongs like killing people or stealing candy from a baby. With the mountain of laws that are in the books, the only way not to be a criminal is to stay at home and stop communicating with the outside world (no jaywalking, no libel, no copyright infringement). Assuming you can survive on the food you've hoarded, even that might not work. Who knows what health, tax or community l
Open source security is a failure (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm shocked, shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Two attendees of the Monday meeting said the discussion was dominated by the interests of major technology firms
Fancy that.
And how will this be positioned? (Score:3)
FISA Court Will Release More Opinions Because of Snowden?
Nope. Any releases will be made as part of the administration's drive to increase transparency while retaining the tools needed to protect against the terrorists. It's not coming because of public pressure or legal challenges. No siree, not like last time:
https://www.eff.org/mention/obama-administration-dishonestly-wants-public-believe-it-voluntarily-declassified-secret-nsa [eff.org]
This time they'll be truthy. We can be certain of course that this information would have been released even if Snowden hadn't kicked-off this shit-storm. After all, isn't this the most transparent administration, with unprecedented levels of openness? Must be true - it says it on the White House site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment [whitehouse.gov]
Edward Snowden is like Santa Claus! (Score:2)
Edward Snowden is like Santa Claus! He know whether you've been good or bad, and the presents just keep coming like clockwork!
No Credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
build on the ideas of parallel internet using only private nodes. Article in Mother Jones gives the example of what the Greeks have done B.A.T.M.A.N. and other resources are available . Set yourself free of the internet owned by the companies and governments. Check it out.
Re:Prosecute, convict, and imprison him first. (Score:5, Insightful)
After Snowden's in prison, do the same to those whom have aided and abetted the release of such information - including those at the Washington Post(if the NSA does its job right, that newspaper should have wished that it had done the right thing by not publishing national secrets).
Given the evidence that he not only broke his trust to keep secrets, he also did so in a manner that harms this country entirely. If there should be any pardons and praise, they are to be reserved for anyone who may be prosecuted in bringing Snowden to justice. In addition, reward and protect them from any retaliation that may occur from any Snowden fanatics.
Of course, this won't all go well with those that worship Snowden as some idol and not rightfully consider him as a betrayer of one's country. However, I do not recognize any value in destroying the country or ensuring that it cannot protect itself from threats within and without.
Harmed the country or harmed the Administration? Which is the greater harm: revealing to our enemies that they are being spied on or hiding from every American that they are being spied on?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally! Someone who gets it.
Of course, this won't all go well with those that worship Snowden as some idol and not rightfully consider him as a betrayer of one's country. However, I do not recognize any value in destroying the country or ensuring that it cannot protect itself from threats within and without.
Couldn't agree more. I found out that my brother had been raping his own daughter, and I did not recognise any value in destroying the family or ensuring that it cannot protect itself from threats within and without. My cousin wanted to get the cops in, so we threatened her to keep her quiet. The relative (unnamed for obvious reasons) has promised to stop raping his kid, and the family avoids the scandal and serious financial loss that'd come from him being convicted.
You know wh
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one thing the government is wiping its ass with the constitution, so that does not seem to account for much.
As far as things are now, they aren't.
And a "republic" is supposed to represent the public, but how do you represent somebody who does not know what's cooking?
You might know the final product and the ingredients, but the exact recipe remains a secret. This would be much like revealing every recipe one could get their hands on for hating the cook.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? No matter what it was? What if they were kidnapping children and harvesting their organs?
Indirect evidence would show up, much like it has prior to Snowden's actions.
It's certainly a very interesting position you take, that is to say an authoritarian and amoral one.
It is a position that maintains the idea that the US does not submit to the world.
I'd say it was his moral duty as a human being, which is the only authority anyone should ever need.
However, he cannot escape the consequences of putting his own judgment in front of others.
Re: (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward:
You disgust me. I don't think you belong in a country that is said to be the land of the free and the home of the brave; you're a coward.
How interesting that you're calling me out with a greater amount of anonymity versus my own. At least I'm willing to put my "name" to my opinion regarding the misdeeds of Snowden and their implications throughout the world.