Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Don't look now, but Greenwald says there's more information on even more invasive programs on the way:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[telling tiger 156]

Don't look now, but Greenwald says there's more information on even more invasive programs on the way:

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

I hope we get all the available information that does not jeopardize our national security. From the date this started back in 1978 with the birth of the FISA courts, this has been a needed national conversation. As technology has expanded ,so has the "(un) natural" reach of the potential uses and abuses of this court. I HOPE people are intelligent enough to not make it a partisan issue. I have my doubts, it is now the nature of the forum/online beast. Sad.

[cptau 169]

His former employeer confirms his salary. It's interesting that the guy worked there less than 3 months. That could be because the work he was doing moved from one contractor to another and he move with the work.

http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/statement-reports-leaked-information-060913

Booz Allen Statement on Reports of Leaked Information

June 11, 2013

(Updated Information Underlined)

Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. Snowden, who had a salary at the rate of $122,000, was terminated June 10, 2013 for violations of the firm’s code of ethics and firm policy. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the argument? I mean my argument makes the democratic system less important because the government does these things in a way that either goes over the average citizen's head, or like this program, is just kept secret for as long as possible. Then the two sides argue whose fault it is and eventually the people vote for the same guy they normally do anyway. So in these cases no, not really.

I mean Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy, Sharpton, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle are complete clowns and yet they stay elected.

[autigeremt 6,970]

What irony it is seeing some now point to the NYT , WAPO and Maddow as sudden full fledged members of the press, funny as hell. Lamestream to prescient in 1000mph, lol.

Even the they have a run of Libertarian in them when it comes to individual freedom. They know what happens when we lose it.

[telling tiger 156]

Lol. Particularly liberal social folks are just as outraged over this as any libertarian could possibly be. They understand the cries of defense of LIBERTY, also include the instant and unavoidable byproduct of freedom, even of those socially and politically they may not agree with. You are free to enjoy the humor or not, not too long ago people who were cursing these very media sources because they did not give the local preferred hyper-conservative narrative, are suddenly saying these are quite functional media outlets. Your participation isn't necessary for it to remain humorous on the personal level.

[MDM4AU 337]

Do you find it just as humorous when the left-leaning posters choose to post a "Faux News" article when it backs up their point of view. Just curious...

[telling tiger 156]

As strange as it may seem to you, yes I do. Not everyone is a partisan buffoon. Where has all this partisanship been since 1978 when the FISA courts were formed? We kill each other over labels, while DC is burning. The technological conversation is long overdue, the culture is in no way ready to understand the capability of it, so it breaks down to the instant, them vs us, BS. The laws or the knowledge in any way POSSIBLE, haven't kept up with the tech. Do you disagree with that? Just curious.

[homersapien 11,812]

Obama got it right. 1) Gee, we are all sssooo surprised you would say that...NOT!

There will always be trade offs between security and privacy. That is why process is so important. And if that process is violated, there should be serious repercussions. 2) Cant believe you actually said that one. So far, you are the only member on this board blindly and i mean BLINDLY supporting the Administration in every bit of this.

But doing away completely with this sort of program, no matter the civil safeguards, in the name of privacy is a very poor trade off IMO.

3) HS, what the hell are you talking about? NO ONE, i mean NO ONE wants to "do completely away with this sort of program." I have read and read about this stuff, i have yet to hear one soul that wants them to go away. We just want them to be run by grownups and leave the law abiding citizens alone.

1. Do you know exactly what statements I am referring to? If so, do you disagree?

2. I am not "blindly" supporting anything, What I support has been well documented. There may be things that come to light that I would not support, but I am willing to wait for them before I get crazy.

You are blindly making accusation which have not been supported with any evidence. You are thinking with your "fast" brain and I am thinking with my "slow" brain. (It comes with age)

3. Good. Seems we agree. Care to point out exactly what you would change?

Good job not answering...

I have already asked for the statements, if you had any, you would have provided them...

What you support is not documented at all. You are blindly buying EVERYTHING the WH says without challenge.

You overlook the NYT, the Wapo, Maddow, etc and take the word of some random bloggers?

Who is responsible for all this? No one at the WH. Its amazing watching as we find out that they are not responsible for anything, anywhere, any time.

And you buy it all hook line and sinker...

What do you mean non-answer. I even numbered them.

I have already asked for the statements, if you had any, you would have provided them...

I have no idea what you are talking about. What statements? I was referring to Obama's comments about there always being trade-offs between security and privacy. I think that is an accurate statement that reflects a rational approach.

And the process that I support has been "documented", or at least described. I agree with what the NSA has been doing regarding the cell phone meta data acquisition and subsequent analysis when warranted.

Maybe we are talking past each other. Can you describe what process you think I am talking about when I say I agree with it? Can you state my argument in your own words?

[MDM4AU 337]

I do agree with that.

[homersapien 11,812]

Don't look now, but Greenwald says there's more information on even more invasive programs on the way:

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

I hope we get all the available information that does not jeopardize our national security. From the date this started back in 1978 with the birth of the FISA courts, this has been a needed national conversation. As technology has expanded ,so has the "(un) natural" reach of the potential uses and abuses of this court. I HOPE people are intelligent enough to not make it a partisan issue. I have my doubts, it is now the nature of the forum/online beast. Sad.

Too late. (Obviously)

[homersapien 11,812]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the argument? I mean my argument makes the democratic system less important because the government does these things in a way that either goes over the average citizen's head, or like this program, is just kept secret for as long as possible. Then the two sides argue whose fault it is and eventually the people vote for the same guy they normally do anyway. So in these cases no, not really.

I mean Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy, Sharpton, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle are complete clowns and yet they stay elected.

The tendency you describe is part of the human condition and is common to all organizations, private or public. We are fortunate to have a democratic government so that when/if things go "too far" we can stop them and reorganize the effort.

And calling people "complete clowns" doesn't really add to the effort to effect necessary changes.

And the secrecy of this program was appropriate. It is necessary for the government to have secrecy in some activities if they are to be effective in thwarting terrorism (for example). The important question to ask is are the essential checks and balances (through the other branches of government) in place?

Again, what I hear on this forum is a lot of emotional (fast brain) thinking, which is OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough regarding a rational assessment of the situation. IMO of course.

[telling tiger 156]

The NSA program isn't just mining info from one side or the other, the intelligence community is static, it doesn't change drastically from one admin to the next, sure various positions are filled by appointment, but they laugh at the partisanship. Simply a false dynamic in their world, a world where they, the world over, use any and every available thing to their advantage. Some of this crap is too silly to be believed.

[homersapien 11,812]

Do you find it just as humorous when the left-leaning posters choose to post a "Faux News" article when it backs up their point of view. Just curious...

Personally, I don't care nearly as much about the source as the content. Fox is openly biased but that doesn't mean they are incapable of presenting facts. I actually like Chris Wallace, who has limits to how much BS he will accept from either side.

But then, like TT said, this is not really - or it shouldn't be - a partisan issue.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the argument? I mean my argument makes the democratic system less important because the government does these things in a way that either goes over the average citizen's head, or like this program, is just kept secret for as long as possible. Then the two sides argue whose fault it is and eventually the people vote for the same guy they normally do anyway. So in these cases no, not really.

I mean Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy, Sharpton, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle are complete clowns and yet they stay elected.

The tendency you describe is part of the human condition and is common to all organizations, private or public. We are fortunate to have a democratic government so that when/if things go "too far" we can stop them and reorganize the effort.

And calling people "complete clowns" doesn't really add to the effort to effect necessary changes.

And the secrecy of this program was appropriate. It is necessary for the government to have secrecy in some activities if they are to be effective in thwarting terrorism (for example). The important question to ask is are the essential checks and balances (through the other branches of government) in place?

Again, what I hear on this forum is a lot of emotional (fast brain) thinking, which is OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough regarding a rational assessment of the situation. IMO of course.

How is my calling people complete clowns on this forum going to in any way effect the needed change or outcomes?

And I understand secrecy. If you have an ongoing terror operation, then keep it secret. If you just decide that the concept of terror means you should start getting access to whatever you want under the guise of analyzing it when you have something, then I just can't get behind that. The fear of terrorism has been used as an excuse too many times by this administration and the last to justify things that simply should not be options.

[telling tiger 156]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the argument? I mean my argument makes the democratic system less important because the government does these things in a way that either goes over the average citizen's head, or like this program, is just kept secret for as long as possible. Then the two sides argue whose fault it is and eventually the people vote for the same guy they normally do anyway. So in these cases no, not really.

I mean Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy, Sharpton, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle are complete clowns and yet they stay elected.

The tendency you describe is part of the human condition and is common to all organizations, private or public. We are fortunate to have a democratic government so that when/if things go "too far" we can stop them and reorganize the effort.

And calling people "complete clowns" doesn't really add to the effort to effect necessary changes.

And the secrecy of this program was appropriate. It is necessary for the government to have secrecy in some activities if they are to be effective in thwarting terrorism (for example). The important question to ask is are the essential checks and balances (through the other branches of government) in place?

Again, what I hear on this forum is a lot of emotional (fast brain) thinking, which is OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough regarding a rational assessment of the situation. IMO of course.

How is my calling people complete clowns on this forum going to in any way effect the needed change or outcomes?

And I understand secrecy. If you have an ongoing terror operation, then keep it secret. If you just decide that the concept of terror means you should start getting access to whatever you want under the guise of analyzing it when you have something, then I just can't get behind that. The fear of terrorism has been used as an excuse too many times by this administration and the last to justify things that simply should not be options.

,

The sheer volume of collected info, even if reviewed by programs, of one type or another, will still at some point have to have a human review. No way can this volume of info be adequately managed. No way. The manpower does not exist. The need doesn't exist either.

[homersapien 11,812]

I think the reason most people worry is because anyone who watches the government operate knows the drill. They start in small increments and move up and up letting everyone get comfortable with something before moving on again. This may not be a huge blow, but then everyone gets placated by it. Then the next thing comes up and people say, well we've already got this or that so whats wrong with this new thing.

Damn.

Well it's good that we have a (more or less) democratic system, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the argument? I mean my argument makes the democratic system less important because the government does these things in a way that either goes over the average citizen's head, or like this program, is just kept secret for as long as possible. Then the two sides argue whose fault it is and eventually the people vote for the same guy they normally do anyway. So in these cases no, not really.

I mean Feinstein, Reid, Kennedy, Sharpton, and a host of others on both sides of the aisle are complete clowns and yet they stay elected.

The tendency you describe is part of the human condition and is common to all organizations, private or public. We are fortunate to have a democratic government so that when/if things go "too far" we can stop them and reorganize the effort.

And calling people "complete clowns" doesn't really add to the effort to effect necessary changes.

And the secrecy of this program was appropriate. It is necessary for the government to have secrecy in some activities if they are to be effective in thwarting terrorism (for example). The important question to ask is are the essential checks and balances (through the other branches of government) in place?

Again, what I hear on this forum is a lot of emotional (fast brain) thinking, which is OK as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough regarding a rational assessment of the situation. IMO of course.

1) How is my calling people complete clowns on this forum going to in any way effect the needed change or outcomes?

And I understand secrecy. If you have an ongoing terror operation, then keep it secret. If you just decide that the concept of terror means 2) you should start getting access to whatever you want under the guise of analyzing it when you have something, then I just can't get behind that.

3) The fear of terrorism has been used as an excuse too many times by this administration and the last to justify things that simply should not be options.

1) It doesn't reflect the desire to have a serious debate.

2) The NSA doesn't have "access" to "whatever they want". They do have access to meta data on cell phone calls which they can analyze with a warrant for probable cause. In other words, their legal power to access and analyze this data hasn't really changed. They are simply cutting out the "middleman" (commercial companies who are accumulating the same data.) Nothing from a privacy rights standpoint has changed.

3) Actually, this administration has proposed that we "dial-back" our response to terrorism by ceasing to respond to it as "war". War implies by definition that the government may exercise extraordinary powers (vs peacetime). Obama wants to pull back on that philosophy.

[telling tiger 156]

Homer, I disagree to an extent. The FISA court has rarely denied ANY request for permission or warrant to do anything. . Lack of oversight of that bothers me, greatly.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Homer, I disagree to an extent. The FISA court has rarely denied ANY request for permission or warrant to do anything. . Lack of oversight of that bothers me, greatly.

Rarely to the point of being effectually non-existent. There are only about 10-11 denials vs 20,000 or more approvals of such requests....that we know of. That's a rubber stamp. Not to mention, since it's in secret, the companies in question don't even have the opportunity to present to the judge why the request is unreasonable. And if they do deny the request, guess who the only part able to appeal the ruling is? The same government agency that requested it.

[homersapien 11,812]

Homer, I disagree to an extent. The FISA court has rarely denied ANY request for permission or warrant to do anything. . Lack of oversight of that bothers me, greatly.

Would you be less bothered if the FISA court was rejecting most of the requests for a warrant?

I understand what you are saying, but that could just as easily be a result of the reasonableness of the warrants or the nature of the information being sought. For example, a request to obtain the network of contacts for a given number is in itself not very intrusive.

But to your point, I don't know what the level of "oversight" is to the warrant process. Presumably this is where Congressional intelligence committees would be involved. But I will admit I don't know.

Ask Titan. He seems to be sure of his understanding. :-\

[telling tiger 156]

I would not be bothered if they were rejecting most, to me, that would mean there was some actual deliberative thought given to the process. In the same way the lack of rejections indicates to me they damn near green light everything. No investigative team in the world is that effective. I do not want to put our country at risk of attack, from inside or outside. They answer to no one. Recipe for disaster.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I would not be bothered if they were rejecting most, to me, that would mean there was some actual deliberative thought given to the process. In the same way the lack of rejections indicates to me they damn near green light everything. No investigative team in the world is that effective. I do not want to put our country at risk of attack, from inside or outside. They answer to no one. Recipe for disaster.

This. No law enforcement agency in the country gets 99.9995% of their warrant requests granted. No one is that good.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

So you're asking me to believe that an agency designed 100% to spy and intercept messages, which has a history of warrantless wiretapping, is only collecting tons of metadata for future analytical purposes?

I mean the government doesn't exactly have a history of actually having the people's best interests in mind. It has ITS best interests in mind. Sometimes those are the same, and sometimes they're not.

[telling tiger 156]

So you're asking me to believe that an agency designed 100% to spy and intercept messages, which has a history of warrantless wiretapping, is only collecting tons of metadata for future analytical purposes?

I mean the government doesn't exactly have a history of actually having the people's best interests in mind. It has ITS best interests in mind. Sometimes those are the same, and sometimes they're not.

Is this @ Homer?

[telling tiger 156]

Interesting, to say the least. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program