Why the Snowden Situation Shows 'Protected Disclosure' Is Critical (zdnet.com) 239
An anonymous reader writes: In the wake of NSA leaks debacle, New Zealand's Inspector General of Security and Intelligence has developed a process to enable whistleblowers to act safely. "The Edward Snowden disclosures demonstrate how critical it is to have a clear path, with appropriate protections, for disclosing information about suspected wrongdoing (PDF) within an intelligence and security agency," Cheryl Gwyn says. The Inspector General's powers were boosted after it was discovered New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau had been spying illegally on Kim Dotcom and others. "Edward Snowden has consistently said it was impossible for him to make internal disclosures about what he believed was wrongdoing due to the lack of whistleblower protections he faced in the U.S."
Prison!!! (Score:2, Funny)
What really needs to happen is that people responsible for illegal activity, including spying, need to go to fucking prison, just like any one of the great unwashed goes to prison for breaking laws. These people break these laws, which then requires some whistleblowing because they know they can do it with impunity.
Re: (Score:1)
You need spies in order to catch the other side's spies. Unless you don't know what "spying" means and you're conflating it with something else, you're off your rocker.
Re: (Score:2)
So ignoring the law and becoming a criminal organization is fine as long as there is some abstract goal behind it? You would the also be perfectly fine with what the KGB, the Stasi and the GeStaPo were doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by their post, and the replies of a few others, why yes, yes they *would* be okay with the Stasi, KGB, etc... So long as they believed it was for their own good. Remember, some of the best agents those people had were civilians, after all.
I watched a documentary (several in a row so I'm not sure which but I think it was titled Gestapo) where a lady ended up in prison for political reasons. After the fall of the Wall and the ensuing disclosures, she learned that it was her husband who had done all th
Re: (Score:2)
If fall-of-the-wall was in there, then it was the Stasi (hard to keep track of all that fascist scum, I know).
One important factor of fascism is to make sure the population is mostly in their side. As people are stupid and external enemies can be easily created (just look at the US today, or northern Korea, same principle), this is pretty easy.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot. Or a paid shill.
It is completely immaterial who Snowden is. What is important is what the NSA and the GCHQ have been doing. And nobody sane is claiming the documents on that are faked.
Re: (Score:2)
You need spies in order to catch the other side's spies.
That's like saying the only way I can catch a burglar is to break into his house and find my stuff. Nope. If I catch him in the act, that's good enough. And it's perfectly OK for me to watch my own house to catch him.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are saying it's perfectly OK to watch your own house to catch him, are you suggesting the U.S. government should conduct ridiculously illegal massive surveillance on the lives of every single one of its clearance-holding employees? You realize that employees of the government are allowed to live free lives without surveillance of their day-to-day lives... right?
Actually, no, they aren't...
If you have someone who is cleared to have knowledge of some very secret stuff, then he/she has to accept that their life and behavior will be watched.
Does this mean we care if they cheat on their spouse? Yes it does, because that is a possible point of blackmail.
Does this mean we care if they suddenly drive an expensive car and buy a boat they shouldn't be able to afford? Yes it does, because that money might have come from other governments.
Now, that surveillance should only
One Problem (Score:2)
They will get some lawyer to right a secret opinion that what they are doing is legal then point to the secret opinion paper that they can't show you that what they are doing is legal. Oh, can't show you the paper because what we are doing is legal because what we are doing is secret but trust us we have the opinion paper.
Waterboarding not being torture, yeah right.
Impasse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Having standing and having a crooked judge admit you have standing are very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
And US government cannot afford that risk, thus no justice for you, Snowden.
There can't be justice, broadly, until the Espionage Act is repealed. The US managed to survive without it up until 1917, and the very worst abuses of said government are protected by it.
Of course the Espionage Act cannot be repealed without imperiling those in power and their beneficiaries. So, even though it will lead to such a untenable situation that they will eventually lose their power, rapidly, the current system has no mec
Re: (Score:2)
He's a traitor, not a whistleblower.
Fuck you.
Re:Impasse (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden refused to follow the procedures established by congress to deal with these things.
Because they're ineffective. Ask Jeffrey Sterling, Bill Binnie, or John Kiriakou how well that works.
He's a traitor, not a whistleblower.
He's a traitor to the government - he's a patriot to the People. Choose wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Snowden had whistleblower options. Flying to China/Russia and leaking the information to a foreign governments is not blowing the whistle but espionage and treason (during war time at that).
Because they're ineffective. Ask Jeffrey Sterling, Bill Binnie, or John Kiriakou how well that works.
Leaking classified information to a journalist is not the same as someone who has the clearance to know the information, and is the designated authority to blow whistles to (congress).
Re: (Score:2)
Who is the fuckhead? Where did I say we were at war with China or Russia? I said we are at war, that makes the treason be a death penalty if the government chooses to persue it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because who else do we listen to about proper legal procedures than the guy in that position explaining them. But I guess you know more about proper whistleblowing procedures for the intelligence community than Eric Holder?
Protected disclosure is useless (Score:1)
It doesn't matter if you have a means to report it. Nothing will -ever- happen to stop the activity. The 'system' as a whole has an invested interest in assuring that any such disclosures never lead to actual repercussions. No matter how protected it is, you will be outed as the one who complained and you will be dealt with either by being framed, arrested on some technicality and having the book thrown at you or simply find yourself unable to work in your profession again because apparently you no longer g
Re:Protected disclosure is useless (Score:5, Interesting)
New Zealand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is New Zealand that bad?
Fight for your bitcoins! [coinbrawl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa... [stuff.co.nz]
US has protections, its just convoluted (Score:1)
It wasn't lack of protections that worried Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
As several news articles have pointed out, the very same man who Snowden saw lying to Congress about the extent of the spying would have been the one Snowden would ultimately be reporting to, were he to report his concerns. Sure, they might have then fired Snowden as a result - but it's also entirely possible they wouldn't. The main thing is, there was no chance whatsoever that the NSA would decide to come clean and tell the truth because a junior IT guy pointed out they were lying. They knew they were lying at much higher levels and were ok with that.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Snowden had several legal options he chose to ignore. Every employee that works around protected data is briefed on legal paths of whistle-blowing that are outside of the chain of command. Legal reporting has protection against reprisal and isn't treason. He could have presented his case to IG, FBI, Congress, Congressional Committees and Sub-Committees... There were hundreds of routes available that did not entail dumping classified data out to the public that placed lives at risk and would not be consid
Re: (Score:2)
None of those routes would have resulted in anything but "complaint dismissed because the NSA's internal investigation says they did no wrong."
In fact, other NSA employees before Snowden did blow the whistle...
Re: It wasn't lack of protections that worried Sno (Score:2)
Rule: Public = Whistle Blower (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Because such disclosure defeats the most important goal which is to not let the victims know they have been owned. If the victim knows they were owned, they fix the hole and you can't do it again. No temporary knowledge is ever worth what you can get next year and the one after that.
If you go public, then you are almost always not engaged in espionage, you are a Whistle Blower.
The few exceptions are the revelations of specific details such as plans on how to build top secret physical objects, copies of top secret computer code, or the names of undercover agents. That type of information should never be disclosed, not even publicly.
General methods, avenues of attack, etc. simply do deserve the same level of protection. The fact that we do X is never really secret, no matter what the government says.
Part of it is the reputation issue. China's main problem is that they care more about their politicians' reputation than what the politicians are doing.
America should NEVER make that mistake - what someone actually does is always far more important than their reputation - and that includes the reputation of government agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply isn't done that way.
Sometimes it is. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The US government kept it secret for weeks. Then the US government made it public, not the spy.. I repeat, real spies NEVER reveal their information publicly.
Moreover, this is arguably an example of the 'few exceptions' I mentioned - it was specifics - the physical location of secret nuclear missiles - not techniques.
stop dreaming (Score:2)
Disclosing "within the intelligence agency" would have been pointless; it would simply have been swept under the rug, protections or not.
The only thing Snowden could do with this information is disclose it publicly if he felt it was sufficiently important, and if he was willing to pay the personal price and hope for leniency eventually. That's what he did. Now, you may agree or disa
The formal internal policy in action .. (Score:2)
'New Zealand's Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, said a formal internal policy for handling protected disclosures, or "whistleblowing", has been developed by her office in liaison with security agencies.'
ROTFLMAO
a. Inform senior management of acts of malf
it depends.... (Score:2)
Snowden isn't a good example.. the man had taken the job with the intentend of finding classified information and bringing it out in the open (and all for his own pleasure/15 minutes of fame (which became a bit more than 15 minutes))..
I think there is a difference between somebody working at a company/institution for many years and stumbeling upon that information, or entering a position and signing a NDA knowingly you're not gonna break the NDA..
In reality Snowden is not a hero, but a traitor (even though
Re:Lack of protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Snowden has publicly stated [washingtonpost.com] that he is willing to do time.
However, had he not taken the course of action that he did then we would not know the extent of government spying and Snowden would be considered just another conspiracy kook making accusations without any hard evidence.
Snowden did the right thing and took the appropriate measures to do so. We all owe him our gratitude.
Re: (Score:1)
"If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time"
Snowden has publicly stated [washingtonpost.com] that he is willing to do time.
However, had he not taken the course of action that he did then we would not know the extent of government spying and Snowden would be considered just another conspiracy kook making accusations without any hard evidence.
Snowden did the right thing and took the appropriate measures to do so. We all owe him our gratitude.
I agree he did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. I personally think he did this because he is under the misguided opinion that the US can be fixed, he didn't know the half of it, how far back it goes or exactly what and who it involves. I unfortunately do not share his opinion. Technically information that is classified is done so by a sovereign nation, not one being run by outside interests of those that amount to be a batch of asshole closet case communist pedophiles that were responsible for
Re: (Score:1)
Correction, not closet communists, closet case thieving Nazi's. This does not implicate Russia, they were US allies during WWII.
Re: (Score:1)
see the problem is if you dont make a responsible avenue for disclosure, this is what happens. Causes far more damage to hide all the gov't wrong doing, than to provide whitsleblower provisions. Because we do not have them, it encourages people like snowden to go to Russia and China and disclose,
so it would be prudent to protect snowden and people like him against the abuses of government. Unfortunately the gov't ass is stuck so far up its ass (notice no brains just ass) that they would rather silen
Re: Lack of protection (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
To expand on this: Every government hacks into other governments; only the Chinese use it for the financial benefit of their own corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Links? Proof? I have never heard of a single instance.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick google search turned up this. [theintercept.com]
And by Glenn Greewald, no less.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. Have you been paying attention to what's going on with governments across the world for the past decade or so? It's not a rosy picture. In fact, it's downright horrific what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, responded to the Petrobras revelations by claiming: âoeIt is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial mattersâ¦. What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf ofâ"or give intelligence we collect toâ"U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.â
But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapperâ(TM)s own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Reviewâ"provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdenâ"is a fascinating window into the mindset of Americaâ(TM)s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response. It anticipates a series of potential scenarios the U.S. may face in 2025, from a âoeChina/Russia/India/Iran centered bloc [that] challenges U.S. supremacyâ to a world in which âoeidentity-based groups supplant nation-states,â and games out how the U.S. intelligence community should operate in those alternative futuresâ"the idea being to assess âoethe most challenging issues [the U.S.] could face beyond the standard planning cycle.â
or here [theregister.co.uk]:
According to a 2002 "Information Need" spying order [PDF], the NSA was tasked with collecting economic data from the French government, including details of business contracts, information on the state's macroeconomic policy, it's relationships with international lenders, and any dirt on "questionable trade activities."
A 2012 memo [PDF] is more explicit. It specifies that all economic deals or financing rounds worth more than $200m are to be investigated, with particular emphasis on activity relating to the IT and telecommunications industries, oil and gas production, environmental technologies, healthcare developments, and biotechnology.
This information was not just for the use of the US, the documents note, but would be shared with the other four of the "Five Eyes" nations: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The new release will be a massive embarrassment to the US government, since it has long maintained that the only reason the NSA exists is to spy on evildoers online â" terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and the like. That the agency was specifically tasked to go after the economic interests of an ally will cause red faces all round.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, no it is not always justifiable (Score:2)
Depending on the methods used and the foreign government there may be times where it is not justified.
For Example, hacking the phone of the head of state for a friendly nation was BS and was not justifiable for US Intelligence to do.
Re:Lack of protection (Score:4, Insightful)
Your expectation is that if you discover wrongdoing, you should be the one to do prison time rather than those responsible?
There is clear evidence (both claimed by Snowden and confirmed by the NSA) that he did report his concerns to management only to be shot down, unfortunately that was the only path available to him at the time and so the inevitable happened. I for one am grateful that this information was leaked.
For the record, Snowden has said he would be willing to go to court and face jail time for this IF he could get a fair hearing. It's obvious he would never get this in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
There is clear evidence (both claimed by Snowden and confirmed by the NSA) that he did report his concerns to management only to be shot down, unfortunately that was the only path available to him at the time and so the inevitable happened. I for one am grateful that this information was leaked.
Bull Shit.
There is clear evidence that Snowden DID NOT report any concerns.
https://news.vice.com/article/... [vice.com]
The government published all the emails they could find and only one of them was a question, and it was about procedural questions having to do with a training class about the authorities the NSA works under.
Re: (Score:3)
This just in: Person with proof of massive government wrongdoing smeared by government!
Re: (Score:2)
This just in, nothing will make Shadow of Eternity happy until everything burns.
They released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.
Coren22 proven a TROLL (NSA/GCHQ?) (Score:1)
See subject - OR didn't you say:
"Maybe I should change my signature again just to rile him up some more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:07AM (#50855451) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
behind my back (I can't see sigs) & KGIII noted it:
"In an earlier thread, I saw that APK quoted your signature" - by KGIII (973947) on Monday November 02, 2015 @10:22PM (#50852845) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Which I SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
---
* You're a disgusting LIAR & burying yourself!
---
DEFENSE INDUSTRY? Coren22 from http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
"Theory" here - you working fo
Re: (Score:2)
hey released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.
There's no evidence the NSA did any such thing. After all, it's a natural claim to make whether or not Snowden did report the host of problems he discovered. And we have Snowden's statement to the contrary that he did try to go through proper channels, and then decided on the current, successful approach after seeing what happened to past whistleblowers.
The obvious problem with unprovable claims from the NSA is that they have already lied about this subject in their favor. Thus, there is no reason to exp
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a group of people proven to be blatantly violating almost every law we have and the constitution. You really think they wouldn't just lie about this too?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's play a little game:
Department A: We haven't broken any laws. No illegal spying.
Whistleblower B: Department A spied on the American public. I reported this to Department A, but nothing changed.
Department A: Ok, that spying stuff is true, but Whistleblower B didn't report it to us. Here are the records that we control that show no reports from Whistleblower B.
Which of those is more credible?
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to try, I am still waiting for anything you have said to be proven. Where has anyone followed the procedures from my link that Eric Holder went over, and been prosecuted?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
Re: (Score:1)
Proper protection would be oversight from a non-military agency with suitable experience in handling secret and top-secret issues. The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.
You don't. The issue isn't civilian vs. military or government. The issue is that regardless of an individual's security clearance level, access is based on being "read in" to the program in question AND upon having an established need-to-know. I have personally worked on a number of classified programs, but I only had access to information that was pertinent to doing my job.
Re: (Score:1)
You're expecting him to trust people that can't be trusted.
Re:Lack of protection (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a lack of protection. If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time. You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence. A legitimate whistleblower protection for reporting to someone in the chain of command (e.g. someone working for Congress on that specific issue) would have been appropriate.
Except the chain command has no interest in trouble-making whistle blowers. What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information. The boosting of the IG's power in this case better include subpoena and arrest power (or however these things work in New Zealand) or I don't see how it will help.
As to your first point, fuck that. Someone should be willing to have their life ruined in order to expose wrongdoing? That's exactly why more people don't come forward to begin with. I'll agree that is would be chaotic to have everyone deciding whether something should be secret or not. But "national security" and classification have been so abused and used to hide criminality, those who cite it have lost credibility. The speed and altitude capabilities of our newest spy plane? Sure, national security secret. The positions of our troops and battle plans? Absolutely, national security. The fact that the NSA is illegally spying on everyone in contravention of the Constitution? Nope, not national security.
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.
Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.
If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.
I work in a classified environment. You are right that people are concerned with what is legal. But people like Thomas Drake and William Binney might take issue with the idea they are concerned about civil rights. Oh sure, the rank and file are. But we are talking about the top brass here. You know, the guys who lie to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
An AC demanding proof of authenticity... that's rich.
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.
Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.
If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.
Bullshit, I have personally experienced the willingness to twist/interpret something to make it appear legal, not something I was involved with but think about Abu Ghraib Prison and the US Army classifying the events. The laws regarding classification specifically state that classification cannot be used to hide embarrassing information so the classification authority used the tortured logic that if this EMBARRASSING information became public it would endanger US troops (absolutely true) but the real reas
Re: (Score:2)
If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time. You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence.
Looks to me like Snowden found a better way than your approach.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence.
That includes NSA. Just because you are working for a government agency you can't just say that anything is a national security secret and decide to not make it public.
The good thing is that you don't need to.
All that is needed is that government agencies stops doing anything illegal and/or unethical. Then it won't be necessary employees to make the public aware of said events and a simple NDA would be sufficient to keep secrets.
TL;DR; If you have legitimate secrets, make sure that you don't commit crimes,
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th and 5th kind of state that a criminal can, indeed, have secrets. Well, for some definition of secret. Not sure where I'm going with this but, yeah, criminals get to have secrets too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence.
You're not talking about Hillary Clinton are you? You probably should. Those Damn eMails.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a lack of protection. If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time.
He shouldn't have to. That's why we need protection.
Re: (Score:3)
When the chain of command is ignoring the law, there is no fucking point in reporting to the chain of command ... they're the problem, which pretty much means they can't be part of the solution.
The problem with this is that they all knew damned well they were operating well beyond what they were allowed to, and weren't going to do anything about it -- other than keeping doing it.
The the agencies are deciding what is legal and what isn't with no consequence, it's time to stop trusting the agencies with decid
Re: Lack of protection (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Except even if he was fully protected, guaranteed his job if he only went through 'proper channels', the other side is that EXACTLY NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED with what he reported. Everyone above him was fine with what they were doing.
The only way anything would have changed is by going public, and they will NEVER offer any kind of protection for doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Aaron Swartz? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
What about Michael Brown? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?
It's easy for you to say that these remarkable men should just "do the time", but the reality is a very different matter.
OK, that's the first time I've seen anyone group Michael Brown with people like Aaron Schwartz or Edward Snowden. What was it, again, that you consider "remarkable" about him?. Anyway, according to Baretta, willingness to do the time expresses willingness to do the time.
Re:Lack of protection (Score:5, Insightful)
These organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life... every person and boss at every level is doing his best to follow all applicable laws, the constitution, and the bill of rights.
So, don't take this the wrong way, but: Do you actually know any people? Have you ever had a job?
Because none of that is how being an employee works. If there's no accountability, people just surf the internet all day. If there is some kind of accountability, people do their best to keep their immediate supervisor happy, so that they don't get fired. If the accountability system is measurement-based, and most are, that means maximizing your "performance", which means maximizing some statistic about how you do your job. If any part of your job can't be measured, you can't be held accountable for it.
In most fields, the employee is under no pressure to break laws, because the laws are irrelevant. If you're writing software, for instance, it's pretty hard to accidentally break a law by typing a semicolon in the wrong place. So the laws don't interfere with you maximizing your measured performance.
But when you work for law enforcement? There are hundreds of laws designed specifically to get in your way. You have to work around them constantly. Law officers resent these laws, much as a computer programmer might resent bugs in the underlying operating system. So the natural inclination is to work around them. And they do, because there's often no reason not to.
Because how do you measure the statistic "laws adhered to, in spirit and in letter"? It's hard. Usually you can't. So nobody measures it. So people aren't held accountable for it. But the employee is still under pressure to maximize some other stats, and these laws prevent them from doing that. That is, following the laws lowers their measured performance, which has a negative effect on their employment. Breaking the laws, on the other hand, has no effect on their employment.
So laws get broken. It happens every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I work in civilian intelligence, and I worked in military intelligence for years before that.
So you don't have any relevant experience with the parts of the NSA that are alleged to be out of control.
Anybody who has worked in government intelligence can tell you their internal accountability system is strong
They can also tell me that it is weak. Snowden incidentally told me that.
they are very strict about following all applicable laws and the constitution in any situation where U.S. citizens could be collected on.
An assertion which seems to be at odds with actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
In actuality, these organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life, and aren't going to violate these principles.
Sorry, we aren't dupes. If these organizations want to be treated with respect, then they should stop violating laws and subverting the constitution, stop with the secret courts, the universal spying, the undermining of the US high tech industry, and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
then they should stop violating laws and subverting the constitution
It has not been ruled that they did. The justification that was published had to do with pen registers. Also, getting a warrant satisfies the constitution, it doesn't matter which court is used for that warrant.
stop with the secret courts
Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?
the universal spying
the undermining of the US high tech industry
So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.
and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.
No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and
Re: (Score:2)
Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?
Myself, for starters. If it can't be revealed to the public at all, it's not a legal warrant in my view.
So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.
Of course. Stop the job and maybe put a few people in prison after a public trial, of course.
No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and top secret information to foreign governments is not whistleblowing, it is treason. Snowden chose not to blow the whistle and instead commit treason, he is being charged with the crimes he committed.
Fuck you. This lie [reason.com] keeps going. You don't like how Snowden treated the NSA, then don't let the NSA treat whistleblowers like traitors.
If Snowden wanted to be a whistleblower, he should have taken his concerns to congress, not foreign governments.
His way worked. Your way didn't.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out
Re: (Score:2)
Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out against the government. Yeah, he is real heroic, running to the people who are so much worse than what he is running from.
Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.
Why would ANYONE go to jail for spying? What do you think spy agencies are for? This is literally what we formed the NSA and CIA to do. The NSA also is tasked with securing the US Governments communications, but they are primarily a foreign intelligence agency. Their entire job is to spy on other governments to prevent them doing harm to the US.
I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.
So, according to you, we should compromise Top Secret information in order to get permission to stop a plot to hurt people/destroy shit in the US? I am so glad that you have no power, because you have no idea how this works or how it should work. Sources and methods are not meant to be revealed to the general public, as once they are revealed, they are useless in the future. You would have the predicessor of the NSA telling the world that the Enigma was broken in order to get permission to use the information, what kind of freaking moron makes that argument? If Germany found out that the Allies broke Enigma, World War 2 likely would have gone their way.
I think you're bluffing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.
How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.
I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.
I assume that is the constit
Re: (Score:2)
How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.
Government doesn't get innocent until proven guilty.
I assume that is the constitution you claim they violated. Considering that they had authorization from a federal court (FISA), that could count as a warrant, it was after all a judge ruling that the collection was reasonable, which also satisfies the constitution. Since it has been authorized numerous times since, and has been ruled both constitutional and unconstitutional, how can you say they have done anything against the constitution? The ruling that ruled it unconstitutional has even been overturned.
FISA is not constitutional due to its secrecy (it does more than merely issue questionable warrants which never see the light of day). That violates the 5th and 6th amendments as well.
How did anyone commit treason other than Snowden?
First, you haven't shown that Snowden committed treason. The worst I've read here is the usual accusation that he had the potential to help China or Russia, but no actual evidence of credible harm to the US or benefit to these countries has been shown as a result of his actio
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lie to say he ran to China and Russia. Rather he fled the US and accidentally found himself in China and Russia. Neither of which particularly wanted him, and neither of which he particularly wanted to be in.
Re: (Score:1)
In November 2005, Drake contacted Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun newspaper, sending her emails through Hushmail and discussing various topics.
Thomas Drake leaked classified information to a journalist because he didn't like how the investigation was going.
William Binney was never charged, just investigated...you know like the police/FBI are supposed to do by law?
He later admitted that he was one of the sources for the 2005 New York Times reporting on the wiretapping activities.
So, Russ Tice also went to a journalist rather than the proper channels.
Mark Klein went to journalists, and as far as I can tell never was charged or investigated
Did you mean: tim clement
The page "Tim Clemente" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
And finally, Bradley Manning leaked a huge amount of diplomatic cables, where was the whistleblowing in that? He committed t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is actually quoting me from the article yesterday about Autism Spectrum Disorders in STEM, I admitted to being diagnosed as Asperger's Syndrome when I was in Middle/High school. He seems to think calling it brain damage will reduce me in everyone's eyes, but the funny thing is that probably around 50% of the people on Slashdot are also Autism Spectrum, so he is really alienating many of the people here, and likely insulting himself too.
It doesn't bother me, because I frankly don't see it as all that big
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, lets go through this thread so I can show you where you lost your argument.
Up here, I link the exact method that is legally allowed for Whistleblowers in the intelligence community.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
You then reply with a bunch of people, ONE of which actually used that procedure (then went on to leak to a journalist), many of which BROKE THE LAW. You then wonder why they are being persecuted. Maybe because they didn't follow the procedures that are allowed to them, and instead went to j
Re: (Score:2)
Thomas Drake followed procedure bullshit.
Then, when the procedure didn't proceed exactly like he wanted, he committed a crime and revealed the information to a journalist. When you choose to ignore proper procedures and break the law, do you often get surprised when you get arrested?
APK, as others have said, no one thinks this isn't you, we all know it is you posting supporting yourself. Stop deluding yourself that you are winning some kind of argument here, you have failed to make a point, and keep harping on it somehow missing the response. N
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and also,
You don't dare respond to apk's other posts which show you're nothing but a weak trolling jerk
No, I don't respond to your other posts because I already have addressed every one of them, you just don't care and will continue to post the same crap over and over to try and prove yourself right rather than actually responding to the points I made.
Plus, if you actually wanted a response to any of them, you would stop the needless ad hominem, the trollish repetition and lack of actual points. When you want to discuss these things without all the attacks and bullshit, I will be here waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't hold to your word.
My word to not respond to his trolling garbage? Yup, keeping it pretty well.
You don't dare respond to apk's other posts which show you're nothing but a weak trolling jerk.
Yea, the ones I said I wouldn't respond to because it is a ton of trolling garbage I already responded to, but keep shouting it, I'm sure reality will change to make you correct any time now.
Coren22 Thomas Drake followed procedure bullshit.
If he had stayed with that, he wouldn't have been charged, he decided to break the law instead of waiting for the investigation to finish.
That's why all the others don't trust the system and don't use it.
Because no one has used it, we can't trust it...I see...
It's only a matter of time before search engines pick up on his posts and then you'll get a dose of your own medicine and you won't be able to do anything about the truth about you.
That would require the posts to not be less than 1
Re: (Score:2)
Making shit up now?
Drake was prosecuted when he decided to stop following procedure, not for following procedure. When you follow the procedures, you won't get prosecuted, when you throw a temper tantrum and report everything to journalists, you get prosecuted for breaking the law.
Quit shilling for your bosses in government that you've admitted you do work for which I read in your posting history here on slashdot.
Did I? Where?
Re: (Score:2)
You are hilarious. I am moving the goalposts to point out that you re complaining about the treatment he got for following the procedure, when he got the harsh treatment for breaking the law?
I bought a candy bar, then I robbed the register, I shouldn't be punished, I followed the legal procedure!
Re: (Score:2)
He passed information on to China while there to buy asylum. I can only presume he did the same in Russia, but they are pretty tight lipped about what he has passed onto them.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news... [vanityfair.com]
I do read, do you?
Tell it to the Marines, Junior (Score:3)
Got any idea how many cops have been decertified and/or imprisoned in the US lately? Police work, like the intel services, ATTRACT PEOPLE WHO ARE UTTER DOUCHEBAGS. Maybe MOST people are just average Americans, with a tendency to defend freedom - but you've also got a bunch of douchebags.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article... [ap.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'll bite - I AM a former employee of the NSA, and I can tell you this:
During our training there was an awful lot of winking taking place. Like, "It is against the law for us to copy American targets, so if we end up accidentally copying something from an American it is our responsibility to stop immediately and move on. "
Of course, this was back in the pre-internet days, so surely they've gotten MORE (and not less) responsible, right?
Not only that but a quick google search will show you that you are defi
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The sheer volume of what Snowden leaked is proof that you are a naive fool.
Revealing details of the metadata program that collected phone numbers from domestic carriers? You can make a whistleblowing claim here. I supported Snowden during the first 1-2 weeks after he revealed himself, because I want to protect the constitution and values we live by here in the U.S.
But what else has Snowden revealed as time went on? The whistleblowing material dried up very quickly... Snowden revealed detailed information beyond just generalities on the following topics:
That the U.S. government int
Re:Lack of protection (Score:5, Informative)
Something was rotten in the state of denmark.
Snowden's revelations caused a huge shakeup in the intelligence community. Such as a federal judge ruling that the NSAs blanket collection was unconstitutional. If things were right beforehand, none of this would have happened
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has ever made that argument, every country spies, it is only China that spies for economic purposes, this is why the US criticizes them for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Australia was caught spying recently over negotiations over northern oil fields.
Re: (Score:2)
So where exactly does it say that the NSA then turned around and provided that information to Exxon?
Spying for economic purposes includes passing the secrets on to companies that can use the data, not just checking up on companies.