Science Fiction [Brunner] was sorting thru the morality of this in 1975.
“Is this an unforgivable invasion of privacy?” Haflinger asks the assembled media. “Invasion of privacy it is; unforgivable … Well, do you believe that justice shall not only be done but shall be seen to be done? The privacy my worm is designed to invade is that privacy under whose cover justice is not done and injustice is not seen.”
I haven't sorted this myself but it's powerful stuff. What does it mean when governments can't say or do anything in private? How does that reshape the world?
37
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Tue, Dec 28, 2010, 18:32
Govts do a LOT, which has yet to be revealed. God willing, it never will be.
Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week's series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.
He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.
As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world."
On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.
In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.
He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.
Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.
I wonder if he had consensual sex with anyone in Sweden?
In London, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, was forced to defend the UK's use of intelligence gathered by the US. Other European leaders also voiced concern.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is expected to grill Obama next week, during a much-awaited summit in Berlin. Peter Schaar, Germany's federal data protection commissioner, told the Guardian it was unacceptable for the US authorities to have access to EU citizens' data, and that the level of protection is lower than that guaranteed to US citizens.
And just so I'm clear: I hope they do. Run with Snowden, and shut down the pro-war GOP members who have been running the GOP's Foreign Policy desk for 20 years now.
And maybe this will even give courage to weak-kneed Democrats to do the right thing and shut this dammed thing down. Repeal the Patriot Act.
Bet my bottom dollar they will portray Snowden as a hero....you know, like they did with Assange and Ellsberg.
Seeing the likes of Dianne Feinstein defend the NSA wiretapping does make me shake my head. Wouldn't she probably have been all over Bush for the same thing?
This is a great opportunity to see who work for the people and who work for the power elite.
I watch Lindsey Graham and my blood just boils.
I've been thinking along those lines, too. This is a great "reach across the aisle" opportunity.
Bet my bottom dollar they will portray Snowden as a hero....you know, like they did with Assange and Ellsberg.
Ellsberg was giving aid and comfort to an enemy in wartime. I was very conflicted on Assange at first but came around 95% in support of him. I'm still thinking there were a few things released that didn't do the greater good. I'd help bail him out tho.
There's a Chinese recruiter working on Snowden with a strong arm. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns them down and he ends up shipped back home. I got a world of respect for that dude. Show me what harm he did?
Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
The problem as I see it is that the issue is NOT the 'somewhat' limited sort of general metadata they claim they track. The problem is that they have the keys to all the doors. There isn't anything they can't access and there isn't any way you could trust them to limit themselves.
But they will skate because they will claim the limited generalized data is useful. Which is a debatable position.
They will skate because we are in the post-Clinton era in which relentless shamelessness is invincible. Your backers will eventually wave the moveon.org flag longer than the media will stick to their putative mission. If you have absolutely no shame.
What people need to remember, especially those on the Right with little memory of actual events, is that the NSA actions are entirely legal. Under laws pushed through by the GOP, over the protests of leftist activists that they pilloried and called "naive."
Conservatives were sounding the alarm just as loudly as Rachel Maddow. Both sides need to sound the alarm and not stop sounding it until the threat has been subdued, culprits have been fired, jailed and thrown out of office.
The administration claims authority to sift through details of our private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law. [...]
...Technically, the administration’s actions were lawful insofar as they were done pursuant to an order from the Fisa court. But based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the Fisa court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended.
Congress intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations. How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?
This is well beyond what the Patriot Act allows.
When the author of the Patriot Act says 'this abuse must end' it's pretty obvious no one should allow partisan calculations, patriotism, inertia, inattention or fear to allow this business to continue.
I'm out of time atm, but check the Rassmussen poll. If I remember correctly their results flip flop the ones you quote. Perhaps the way you word this one makes a big diff.
I think there is big point that people are missing in this issue is that the data is not being deleted. Yeah fine they only chased terrorist but nothing is stopping them from going back through past data at there leisure looking for whatever they please. While combing through every call seems impossible today, 5 years from now when it is not you think the they are going to let there huge warehouses of data go untouched.
From what I've seen, they are requesting (and probably saving) the metadata from calls (to/from/length), but not the actual call itself. And it is within possibility that they are data mining that amount of information currently. I doubt that is more data then Google has and what they are analyzing.
Boikin, is your fear that the government will go back through the data and start trying to charge people with crimes based on the telephone usage patterns?
I doubt they convict anyone based on the data they are collecting but they could probably decide to ruin your day with the data. Also the data does not lose its value with time it actually gains value as it ages. when data first comes in is raw and is mostly analyzed using basic techniques but as data ages they will be able to connect it with more future data which will increasing power of the analysis. Secondly they have multiple types of data sources which google, yahoo, apple,... don't have independently the combination of meta data of multiples sources could lead who knows what kind of patterns.
I agree for the most part, I would say the main difference is that a) I willing agree to use those services and b) i sign a legal contract with them so I do at least to some extent have legal/civil recourse.
Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 18:24
They did not build those huge buildings to store meta data, meta data does not take up much space itself. They store EVERYTHING, the audio of the phone calls, the text of email. They admit to only viewing the meta data without a warrant, but if you become a suspect, they can get a warrant and go back and listen to every call, read every email. That was one of the new pieces of information that was contained in Snowden's leak.
So, PD, I think Sullivan is slightly off point. The feds are currently claiming to only study the meta data, but they have ALL of the data and will use it when they deem appropriate.
#65: That may be true. I genuinely don't know (and, really, none of us do). There is vast, vast, vast amounts of metadata, and analyzing just the metadata takes a lot of room as well.
And, as has been said elsewhere, the whole thing might, indeed, be a gross violation of power (I don't think we know enough to say so yet, but it has both the appearance and the opportunity to be such). None of it is illegal, however, and Snowden isn't a "whistleblower" in that sense. He's not pointing out criminal behavior so much as pointing out government actions with which he disagrees.
None of it is illegal, however, and Snowden isn't a "whistleblower" in that sense.
Considering that the author of the Patriot Act says it is being interpreted in a way they never dreamed the courts would countinence, he's still a whistleblower in the classic sense of the term. Who else was going to reveal it? The stakes are nothing less than the survival of America as we know it, and he faced the highest possible risk in doing this patriotic service for us all.
Reminds me of the southern state rep who was shocked! shocked! to find that her bill to help religious schools would also be used by Muslim religious schools.
March 2013 – Hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Oxymoron) Senator Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper: “No, sir.” James Clapper knowingly LIED to Congress because he never thought his lie would be revealed by Edward [...]
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."
“By standing up for Snowden, I also want to send a message that we need that kind of citizen in Hong Kong,” activist Chikwan Ho told ABC News. “Somebody who is watching our government to see if they are abusing power to control our lives.”
Also sending a message to their Beijing overlords who I would imagine are considerably less interested in public opinion than Obama is. Unless it damages the West and makes them look better in comparison if you don't think about it too carefully.
#75: It will be *very* interesting to see Obama's reaction to all this. This is a defining moment for this Administration, and the fact that the GOP will hate him no matter what he does should take them out of the equation.
And in 25 years after the great civil war, after American Holocaust is over, a brave new president will unplug the database, vow NEVER AGAIN — MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) May 13, 2013 - Drudge on Twitter
The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees. “The United States has made a considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare,” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in response to inquiries from The Post. Among the notable revelations in the budget summary:
•Spending by the CIA has surged past that of every other spy agency, with $14.7 billion in requested funding for 2013. The figure vastly exceeds outside estimates and is nearly 50 percent above that of the National Security Agency, which conducts eavesdropping operations and has long been considered the behemoth of the community.
•The CIA and NSA have launched aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as “offensive cyber operations.”
•The NSA planned to investigate at least 4,000 possible insider threats in 2013, cases in which the agency suspected sensitive information may have been compromised by one of its own. The budget documents show that the U.S. intelligence community worried long before Snowden’s leaks about “anomalous behavior” by personnel with access to highly classified material.
•U.S. intelligence officials take an active interest in foes as well as friends. Pakistan is described in detail as an “intractable target,” and counterintelligence operations “are strategically focused against [the] priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel.”
Since news reports in early August revealed that the United States intercepted messages between Ayman al-Zawahri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as the head of Al Qaeda, and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the head of the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, discussing an imminent terrorist attack, analysts have detected a sharp drop in the terrorists’ use of a major communications channel that the authorities were monitoring. Since August, senior American officials have been scrambling to find new ways to surveil the electronic messages and conversations of Al Qaeda’s leaders and operatives.
“The switches weren’t turned off, but there has been a real decrease in quality” of communications, said one United States official, who like others quoted spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence programs.
The drop in message traffic after the communication intercepts contrasts with what analysts describe as a far more muted impact on counterterrorism efforts from the disclosures by Mr. Snowden of the broad capabilities of N.S.A. surveillance programs. Instead of terrorists moving away from electronic communications after those disclosures, analysts have detected terrorists mainly talking about the information that Mr. Snowden has disclosed.