WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed

[kpete]

The real story in the NSA scandal is the collapse of journalism
Summary: A bombshell story published in the Washington Post this week alleged that the NSA had enlisted nine tech giants, including Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple, in a massive program of online spying. Now the story is unraveling, and the Post has quietly changed key details. What went wrong?

......................

So what went wrong with the Post?

The biggest problem was that the Post took a leaked PowerPoint presentation from a single anonymous source and leaped to conclusions without supporting evidence. McCullagh quotes one of his named (not anonymous) sources, former general counsel of the NSA Stewart Baker, as saying the slides look “flaky”:

"The PowerPoint is suffused with a kind of hype that makes it sound more like a marketing pitch than a briefing -- we don't know what its provenance is and we don't know the full context," Baker said. He added, referring to the Post's coverage: "It looks rushed and it looks wrong."

“Rushed” would indeed be the best way to describe why the Post story changed so dramatically in a 24-hour period. Normally, an investigative piece like this would be reported thoroughly before being published. Instead, it looks like the Post rushed to publish, perhaps fearing that the slide deck had been leaked to another publication that would beat them to the punch.

............................

Declan McCullagh of CNET examined the Washington Post story independently and concluded that the Post story was wrong.

Those reports are incorrect and appear to be based on a misreading of a leaked Powerpoint document, according to a former government official who is intimately familiar with this process of data acquisition and spoke today on condition of anonymity.

"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/


.................


And then a funny thing happened the next morning. If you followed the link to that story, you found a completely different story, nearly twice as long, with a slightly different headline:
much more INCLUDING WAPO's before and after versions.
http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

[phleshdef]

1. I could be wrong, but I bet this thread turns into crickets....

...too much water for the fire here.

[FarCenter]

3. Crickets?

[MADem]

88. Well, foot stomping and pout-ragin' is so much more fun, doncha know!

EVIL gubmint!! Bad President!!!

Never mind Congress!!! Don't hold them accountable!!! Pay no attention that Greenwald didn't get his facts right, either!

Hot-breathed anger is just so much more ... dramatic!

Some days, this place feels like so:

[caseymoz]

95. Ah, but Greenwald got his facts right.

This article doesn't refute those.

The only argument people have against them is a Rush-Limbaugh-like attack on his character. That should be beneath Democrats, but sadly, it isn't.

[MADem]

97. No he did not get his facts right--he got most of them horribly WRONG. He created a kerfluffle

with shitty, sloppy, lazy journalism.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

Read the whole thing--key facts turned out to be INACCURATE.

Ooops.

[Number23]

100. That was one hell of a read

But with new contravening information emerging since the original stories were posted by Greenwald and the Washington Post, it’s clear that the reporting by each news outlet was filled with possibly agenda-driven speculation and key inaccuracies.

Glenn Greenwald having an ulterior motiveor an agenda??! Pshaw, I say! PSHAW

[MADem]

117. Then get a load of Maureen "Do you think I'm sexy" Dowd calling POTUS "Barry" in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeping-president-obama.html

Another loudmouth who doesn't understand that Congress makes law...

I'll say there's an agenda going around...it's geared to 2014....!

[caseymoz]

105. That article is full of doublespeak.

Besides again, a lot of name calling against Greenwald, it depends on the semantical difference between the phrase "collected directly from servers" and "direct access" to servers. This wasn't the part of Greenwald's article where the fact was presented. This was the editorial side of it.

Then it also depends on the companies' own ambiguous "denials" about the program which could be read either way. Apple denying that they knew about PRISM? Given how secretive the NSA is known to be, Apple could have conformed with PRISM without ever being given the name. That much is certain.

One of the things he doesn't attack is the broad warrant the NSA obtained to gather this information, in violation of the 4th amendment. That's the fact Greenwald provided. Everything is just prevaricating, evasion and distraction.

And in case you missed the half-dozen times JDPriestley has put it up, here's the link to that court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

To bolster this weak rebuttal, Bob Cesca then engages in ad hominum attack through three fourths of the article. Take that away, and he hardly has a rebuttal, much less a refutation.

You want me to begin to break it down?

1st paragraph says the reporting was bad. Doesn't give details

2nd paragraph is an agreement in principle with limiting the government-- irrelevant.

3rd graph says the reporting was agenda driven. Doesn't give details.

4th graph quotes Greenwald about having a debate . . . leading to . . .

5th graph says bad reporting is not the way to start debate (Okay but why's the reporting bad? I'm waiting. Get to the point.)

6th graph says we an have a debate without misinformation (irrelevant. Why was Greenwald's reporting bad?)

7th graph he gives a general account of greenwald's article, with the phrases PRISM and "direct access" specified.

8th graph some idiot sarcasm about "heads exploding" that have nothing to do with Greenwald's reporting. (Which Cesca's so proud of, the repeats several more times.)

9th graph makes a rebuttal, finally, based on the meaning of "direct access" and the word "PRISM," and it uses Google as an example of the denials by companies. It doesn't say if Google was typical, and it doesn't try to reconcile the details of PRISM with Google's statement. Finally, though, he's gotten to a few facts.

10th graph Finally! Cesca mentions the warrant. He doesn't try to reconcile what the warrant says with the companies' denials. He does compare the court order to the companies denials, and says we should believe the companies' denials. Why? Then he mischaracterizes Greenwald's argument. "Regardless, it seems as if Greenwald’s entire story hinges on a semantic interpretation of the PRISM language." No no no! That's a deliberate distraction. It hinges on that warrant. And Cesca hasn't and can't explain that away.

11th graph another irrelevancy about people's response to the news.

12th graph He "refutes" the whistleblower Greenwald depended on for information about server access. This is the guy who designed PRISM; a guy faces prison for talking to the press. Cesca says because the companies deny there's any direct access to the server, why it must be true, and whistleblower must be full of shit. This does not rebut the court order, which seems to conform to the broad capabilities the whistleblower has said PRISM has.

13th & 14th graphs: Cesca say WaPo had all but backed off of their claim, and since it did, that stubborn, headstrong Greenwald should too. An ad hominum attack, pure and simple.

You know, it's getting late. I'll just tell you, the rest of this article continues in the vein. You think that it has disproved Greenwald's fact. Actually, no. It's a weak a rebuttal that's filled with hot air and ad hominum attacks just like the sort you yourself make against Greenwald. It's as bad as anything on Fox News, and like Fox, all it does is give you permission to hate on the Goldstein of the moment, while providing the weakest of rebuttals necessary. It definitely doesn't prove Greenwald's facts were wrong, it just gives enough ad hominum attacks to where you think Cesca must have done it. He didn't. And if you don't think so, what did Cesca say that convinces you Greenwald must be dead wrong?

Your source is so badly written. So many paragraphs I was thinking, "Come on. Get to the point!" It was all double plus duckspeaking.

Sorry. It says little more than your previous post on this branch said. And you said it in fewer words.

Really, are you going be guided by Fox-News-type tactics to bolster your support for Obama? I'm really getting tired of this. I'm about ready to leave the Democratic Underground and the Democratic Party. And I'm not the only one. I'm tired of eating sh*t about this.

[Babel_17]

109. Thank you for putting in the time and effort to make such a salient rebuttal (nt)

[MADem]

116. Sorry. Greenwald isn't just a putzy blogger, he is a lawyer.

Lawyers, more than anyone, know that WORDS have meanings.

He was sloppy at best, inaccurate at worst. He also misspoke about the quality of the product.

There aren't any "attacks" in the article, "ad hominem" or otherwise. It's a simple refutation of sloppy work.

[sweetloukillbot]

122. He may be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean he isn't a putzy blogger n/t

[caseymoz]

139. Oh, is that where you're sticking?

As it turns out from Greenwald's now revealed source, that Greenwald was completely accurate. You're right. He knows words mean things.The only thing he did was say more than he could prove immediately, and I'm qualifying that until I've read his article a few more times.

And for proving him wrong, your statement that "Lawyers know words mean things" is pretty weak. How does it disprove the warrant he presents? A distraction followed by an ad hominum that he was "sloppy at best," an ad hominum phrase copied directly from the article.

You apparently don't know exactly what an ad hominum is. It's not just calling somebody a bad name. It could be using loosely defined, negative, value-laden phrases like "sloppy" to attack the person. Anything used to undercut the person, impugn his or her character or motive, rather than illustrate why the fact he presents is incorrect is an ad hominum, otherwise known as argumentum ad hominum, an officially recognized fallacy.

You've Xeroxed Cesca's ad hominum attack without recognizing it for what it is. Which is exactly why an article like his is written.

That's not to say you can't talk about motive and question somebody's character. But you do it after you've refuted the facts if you can. Not before.

[MADem]

140. Greenwald is a lawyer, and, FYI, I posted the link to the Guardian article on the source of his

story shortly after it was posted. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022976974#post23

I don't see any "completely accurate" support for what GG said in his comments. The guy makes some claims, but he spends most of the time talking about how he's right and everyone else is wrong. He plays the "I don't want to live in a world where...." card, and I have to wonder if he's either a double agent or thinking this will produce an international version of "suicide by cop." He's self-destructing, when he didn't have to go that way. He could have gone to the chair/ranking at either one of the Intel Committees, and aired his gripes. If there were any surprises, his concerns would have been addressed.

Since when is suggesting that lawyers make a living out of being careful and accurate with words an attack? Greenwald is a lawyer, he wants to be regarded as a journalist--he has an obligation to be careful and accurate when he writes something.

And since when is it an "attack" to note that someone who WAS sloppy with their words was indeed sloppy with their words? What? Should I call him precise with his terms when he wasn't, to not hurt his--or your--feelings?

That's like saying I insult the sky if I call it grey on a rainy day, and I should lie about it, and call it blue, so as not to be accused of "attacking" or "undercutting" it.

By his sloppy words we know him--and that's not an insult, that's just fact.

[caseymoz]

150. I give up.

I don't see any "completely accurate" support for what GG said in his comments. The guy makes some claims, but he spends most of the time talking about how he's right and everyone else is wrong.

Not seeing might just mean you should look closer. Really, 99% of people who were faced with the same constant level of idiotic, lowdown attacks by total hypocrites, would sound just like he does, but not everyone would provide the devastating information that proves he's right. He talks about how he's right because he's been right since at least 2006. He keeps talking about it because it's been clear as pure water, and he sounds like he has a persecution complex because he's received the most vicious attacks from the people he should have been supporting him but who turned into hypocrites when Obama was elected. He has to the complete, total right to fight back against it and to never stop reminding people of this, and never stop pointing it out until he's not under attack anymore.

He plays the "I don't want to live in a world where...." card, and I have to wonder if he's either a double agent or thinking this will produce an international version of "suicide by cop."

Now I'm losing minimal respect for you. He's not self-destructing. Your "suicide by cop" is the stupidest Orwellian doublespeak excuse for the intelligence establishment and it's duped cadres of useful idiots that I've ever seen anybody on this board give. Then you said this,

"He's self-destructing, when he didn't have to go that way. He could have gone to the chair/ranking at either one of the Intel Committees, and aired his gripes. If there were any surprises, his concerns would have been addressed."

Here are your assumptions: 1) They would speak to him? 2) They would tell him the truth? 3) They would do anything? 4) They wouldn't put him on a watch list? 5) They would not make him disappear now or later as the President has claimed the right to do?

You don't understand the basics of what's going on here. Our government is violating the Bill of Rights, the supreme law of the land. Anybody in Congress can see what's written in the 4th Amendment. If they are going to ignore the clear words written there, they are not going to listen to anybody's "gripes." We're beyond where complaints made politely and properly are going to persuade anybody in power.

His articles have all been about this: the system's broken; it's not working. You suggest that Greenwald must pretend that it's working until it does? Your computer's broken, do you pretend that it works until it does?

Now I know why you despise Greenwald. You have the opposite mental illness as paranoia. Absolutely nothing alerts you, and you hate being warned.Paranoia might be in mental illness, but in nature, a paranoid person would survive much longer than you would.

I have taken your source apart; your response is to level more attacks against Greenwald, and I'm sorry to say, they just sound stupider. All they've done is cause me to lose the minimal respect for you. Since that means I can only insult you, I think our discussion is closed. Please satisfy any further need you feel to continue it by rereading what I've written.

[zeemike]

125. If you go, victory will be declared.

Cause there are some that want to hear no decent at all....the authoritarians.
And that is contrary to what the Underground part of DU is about.

I am not going anywhere and I will not shut up.

And thank you for the work you did on this...

[Generic Other]

134. Scream at Greenwald while the cockroaches scurry to hide their actions

What a sorry bunch of government enablers the press is. And way too many Americans are willing to play too.

All the outrage targeting the messenger, nothing for the message. Strange!

Thank you so much for breaking it down.

[snagglepuss]

147. What a rebuttal. Please consider posting this as a separate thread.

[Skittles]

137. looks like you are definitely wrong

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Mark Twain said it best:

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

The WAPO knew what it was doing. Bombard Obama with as many fake scandals as possible.

These same assholes served as stenographers for Bush as they were cheerleading the Iraq war.

[okaawhatever]

16. The co-author of the WaPo story was Laura Poitras. She is getting ready to release the final install

ment of her trilogy on gov't security/spying etc. From Wikipedia:

The third part will focus on how the War on Terror increasingly focuses on Americans through surveillance, covert activities and attacks on whistleblowers. Poitras says her work has been hampered by constant harassment by border agents during more than three dozen border crossings into and out of the United States. She has been detained for hours and interrogated and agents have seized her computer, cell phone and reporters notes and not returned them for weeks. Once she was threatened with being refused entry back into the United States.[5] In response to a Glenn Greenwald article about this, a group of film directors started a petition to protest the government's actions against her.[6] In April 2012 Poitras was interviewed about surveillance on Democracy Now and called elected leaders behavior "shameful."

On August 22, 2012 The NYT published an Op-doc that was produced by Laura Poitras and entitled, The Program.[8] It is preliminary work that will be included in a documentary planned for release in 2013 as the final part of the trilogy. The documentary is based on interviews with William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the NSA, who became a whistleblower and described the details of the Stellar Wind project that he helped to design. He states that the program he worked on had been designed for foreign espionage, but was converted in 2001 to spying on citizens in the United States, prompting concerns by him and others that the actions were illegal and unconstitutional and that led to their disclosures. The subject implies that the facility being built at Bluffdale, Utah is a facility that is part of that domestic surveillance, intended for storage of massive amounts of data collected from a broad range of communications that may be mined readily for intelligence without warrants. Poitras reports that on Oct 29, 2012 the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the amendments to FISA that were used to authorize the creation of such facilities and justify such actions. (SCOTUS found them legal)

She's buddies with Greenwald, she had an experienced NSA person to ask if the slides looked legit, and she isn't a fan of the gov't.

[DallasNE]

47. Precisely, There Was No Fall-Out For Jonathan Karl

For reporting with doctored emails so this just follows in his footsteps.

Journalism needs to find a way to clean up its act because it is really in the sewer right now. Everything is misinformation and I mean everything. The only one of these "scandals" with any legs at all is the IRS thing where we only know the partial truth. The skunks are out in full force.

[Iliyah]

40. So did the New York Times

cheer-leading for the Iraqi war and couldn't stop writing about those WMDs. Were they around when in 2006 when the shit hit the fan about the NSA and spying on Americans? Did they take into question about Bush's creditability?

[xtraxritical]

83. Judith Miller published, in the NYT, whatever the Bush WH gave her to publish.

Then the Bush WH would quote her piece as "factual" information.

[freshwest]

59. Yup... Same technique as Nixon's ratfucking crew used. They've never stopped using it, either.

They destroyed a lot of good Democratic candidates with it. So many, so fast, that they can hardly be answered. And even if they are debunked, it leaves a bad taste in the public mind. This is exactly what was done in 2010 so we know what this is about.

[JDPriestly]

69. Read this court order and then make excuses for Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

The court order is pretty clear. They got both domestic and domestic/foreign communications from Verizon. The court's order sure looks pretty all-encompassing to me.

[Cali_Democrat]

142. This court order is for the phone records

The OP is about PRISM

[JDPriestly]

144. I take it you have changed your opinion since the whistleblower

came forward today. Sorry. But if they are grabbing all the phone records, they are stopping at nothing. This is total communications control, total social control.

It is incompatible with democracy. It cannot be tolerated. Dianne Feinstein should be called to task about this.

[JDPriestly]

70. Here is the court order. Read it for yourself if you think the

first Washington Post article was erroneous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

That is a very, very broad order. All-encompassing would be the accurate word.

[thucythucy]

148. I just now took your suggestion

and re-read the court order.

This phrase sticks out: "Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. reg. 25100 (8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."

And the order has a limited lifespan, expiring next month.

So, to my mind, "all encompassing" would not be an accurate description. "Broad," perhaps, but certainly not "all encompassing." The NSA, under this order, evidently can't directly listen in or acquire the details of a single phone conversation.

And I read the other links the OP provided. The WP has indeed changed its story, including what seem to be some pretty significant details, and without offering any explanation thus far as to why the changes were needed. I find this troubling.

I'm keeping my powder dry on this one. If the story has legs, it'll travel, given the media's inclination to give coverage to anything that looks bad for Democrats. If, on the other hand, it turns out to another bogus or overinflated anti-Obama/anti-Democratic hack job, like ACORN, "death panels" the IRS "scandal," Benghazi, etc. etc., I expect in two months it'll go away and all that will be left are the GOP attack ads using the decredited info to discredit Democrats, and a lot of chagrined progressives wondering how so much bad shit happened in Congress and in the states without us noticing.

It seems to me the best thing to do is to wait to see how the story develops, one way or the other.

[JDPriestly]

149. This story is does not make Democrats look any worse thatn

Republicans. It mostly makes our security apparatus look careless, overpriced and too intrusive.

If they have lists of all the phone calls and e-mails you send and receive, that is too much. If you are really a suspect then they can get that information. But very few of us are. Very few of us have anything to do with anyone who is in touch with a terrorist. The whole effort is exaggerated. It just makes a lot of money for the private contractors who get the contracts for the snooping.

If they have lists of all the phone calls and e-mails you send and receive, they know all too much about you.

[thucythucy]

151. "If you really are a suspect

then they can get the information."

I think the whole point of meta-data analysis is to identify suspects to begin with, and then seek further warrants for increased scrutiny. If, for instance, a particular person makes calls to a certain number in Yemen, let's say, then that person gets tagged by the meta-analysis program, and the analyists take a closer look. At least that's my impression of how it's supposed to work.

And while it may or may not make Democrats look worse, it's certainly being used against President Obama by the left and the right, re: the New York Times for instance saying he'd lost all credibility, etc. I can certainly see the Teabagger ads that will come out of this in 2014, ads that will say Obama is Hitler 2.0, and we need Republicans in Congress to "check" his "grab for power." A strategy progressives are playing right into, with all this immediate and frantic commentary over a story that is still developing and may yet turn out to be dramatically overblown.

The story is also sucking all the oxygen away from other issues that will have an actual, as opposed to theoretical, impact on the lives of millions of Americans, for instance the effort in the House to cut Food Stamps, which will literally take the food out of the mouths of the poorest and most vulnerable in our nation, particularly children. Meanwhile, the governor of Florida vetoes the state version of the Dream Act, the governor and GOP legislature in Wisconsin shut down the investigative journalism project at the University of Wisconsin, and nary a peep from progressives too busy being outraged at stuff we know (or should have known) has been happening for at least the last twelve years.

Personally, I'd like to see the Patriot Act repealed. I'd like there to be a top to bottom review of our need for all this augmented "security"--and perhaps the one good thing to come out of this story will be just this sort of discussion. But I'm not holding my breath. Republicans love the national security state, and despite using this to bash Obama will not lift a finger to change it. And no Democratic administration wants to face the charge, if there is another attack on the scale of 9-11 or even close, that it somehow enabled the attack to happen by cutting back on the NSA. Shit, look at all the flak Obama took over the Boston bombing, with the GOP calling for investigations into why the bombers weren't apprehended before their attack. Think of what the response would be if, instead of four deaths, there were four hundred or four thousand. Democrats would be stuck with the "soft on terrorism" label from now until 2050. It's "soft on communism" all over again--which at least in part cost Democrats the presidency in 1952, 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988--a string of defeats from the beginning of the Cold War right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So like I say, I'm going to wait and see how this all develops.

The next few weeks should be very interesting.

[jazzimov]

4. Kick n Rec!

:kick:

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...

This'll be a good thread to keep kicked.

Sid

[HiPointDem]

6. or wapo got pressure to back down. who knows? it wouldn't be the first time, e.g. sf mercury &

gary webb. though his reporting was pretty unimpeachable.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Where's your proof they were pressured to back down?

Link?

[HiPointDem]

12. as i didn't make any claim to be offering anything but speculation ("who knows?"), i don't need to

offer a proof.

back off, perry mason

[Cali_Democrat]

13. So you're just engaging in wild speculation with no evidence to back up your claim.

Got it.

Thanks for the clarification.

[HiPointDem]

14. no more than the person who wrote the OP.

[sigmasix]

32. isnt that what the entire OP is?

So-called journalists becoming increasingly obvious as partisan hit squads. We haven't had a journalist to defend in America since before the inception of 24 hr "news" for profit. Now the owners/operatives that call themselves "journalists" have no fealty to reporting the truth (thank you SCOTUS), but every incentive to cause mass manufactured outrage through out-right lies like this Wapo garbage, or more delicate hyperbolic whispers and half truths.
Remember: manufactured outrage is great for profit statements of the stations and rags owned by the criminal wealthy. Plus there's the added bonus of tearing America down in the proccess.

[JDPriestly]

67. Read the documents that Greenwald attached to his

Guardian article. Then talk about "manufactured outrage." There is nothing manufactured about it.

The newspapers are just being frightened from telling the true story which doesn't look good for the Obama administration.

Here is the court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[caseymoz]

90. Thank you.

And I'm thinking The Guardian is sticking with their story, since it-- like-- has the evidence right there. Not a misread Powerpoint presentation.

I like how Greenwald's personality and motives are questioned, but I've never seen anybody rebut his facts. Never. It's all argumentum ad hominum. One name, innuendo or smear after another. A tactic of the Tea Party, BTW, and one Democrats should be ashamed of.

There was nothing in the OP article that refuted any fact Greenwald put forward. But suddenly his original article is lumped in with the WaPo retraction as though they were both working from the same information.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you JD, I think the Obama administration discovered that the President's charm and eloquence alone wasn't going to get him out of this one. So, now they're pressuring the press to "retract" with bullshit stories. It looks like WaPo has done this reluctantly, since they apparently didn't announce it as a retraction.

[Fuddnik]

124. I think Greenwald met Jane Hamsher one time.

If that doesn't completely destroy his credibility, what does it take?

[Cheviteau]

146. Thank You.

I was beginning to think I was the only person on the planet who noticed this.

[GoneFishin]

50. I'll admit to speculating based on the fact that the companies were all getting heat

from several directions but would have been under a gag order. This would have caused some scrambling to avoid punishing the companies stockholders' for the companies cooporation with the government. This change in the story takes some heat off the companies for being involved in the spying.

The story hasn't really changed much. The companies already have acknowledged it.

Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program

“The U.S. government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers,” Google’s chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. “We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.”

Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction.

But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?pagewanted=1&hp&pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[JDPriestly]

73. If you have any doubt, here is the text of the court order.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Pretty damning in my view.

[caseymoz]

98. You know, that contradicts the OP's source.

However, the company's statements could be characterized either way. It depends on what you make of " . . . only in accordance with the law."

[JDPriestly]

66. Have you read the court papers that Greenwald published?

There is no need to speculate. Those documents tell the story, and is not a pretty one for the Obama administration.

Check the original Greenwald article and the documents attached to it and let me know if you think they are frauds.

[ProSense]

18. Why on earth

"or wapo got pressure to back down. who knows?"

...would a major paper like WaPo "back down"? Did the NYT back down when it exposed Bush's illegal wiretapping?

Face it, the story was less than credible and made some bizarre claims.

WaPo "hedged its stunning claim" about companies giving "Government direct access to their servers"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022967870

[OnyxCollie]

31. "Did the NYT back down when it exposed Bush's illegal wiretapping?"

Yes.

The End of the Bill Keller Era
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-end-of-the-bill-keller-era/

Keller’s first major misstep was his handling of George W. Bush’s illegal wiretapping program. The Times had knowledge prior to the 2004 elections that the U.S. government was secretly monitoring communications between Americans without a warrant; the program was an unambiguous violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which makes each instance of such monitoring a felony.

But the paper, under the urging of the Bush administration, withheld this vital information until December 2005, more than a year after the 2004 election, denying Americans the chance to factor this abuse of power into their vote (FAIR Action Alert, 1/11/06). (Bush received 50.7 percent of the popular vote; a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have cost him the election.) The Times’ article on the program admitted and explained the paper’s decision to sit on the story, nine paragraphs into its blockbuster front-page article (12/16/05):

The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Keller expressed no regret about his decision to enable a massive crime to continue for more than a year without public scrutiny. In fact, his statements revealed a jarring lack of skepticism toward the government: “Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions,” he said in a statement (CNN, 12/16/05). “As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.”

So much for that talking point. Next!

[ProSense]

35. What silliness. n/t

[ProSense]

48. No,

"Yeah, your ridiculous attempts to cover"

...your silliness in trying to claim that after the paper ran the story it backed down.

From the piece you posted:

But the paper, under the urging of the Bush administration, withheld this vital information until December 2005, more than a year after the 2004 election, denying Americans the chance to factor this abuse of power into their vote (FAIR Action Alert, 1/11/06).

They held it. Everyone knows about the media's complicity during the Bush administration. They ran in December 2005, and they did not back down after it ran.

Your point is utterly silly.

[Number23]

102. That poster should be shown the door for that post. That two jurors excused that is unreal

[JDPriestly]

78. Here is the court order in question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[JDPriestly]

76. Read the court order. This isn't about a "story." Here are

the facts. This included surveillance within the US. And the amount of surveillance may be questioned but this order looks very broad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It would be hard to forge that document.

[caseymoz]

91. I don't know. Why are companies going after Julian Assange?

It seems to me if the Administration can get the MSM and Banks and Finance on the same team to crucify Assange, then you can do it to get the WaPo to give a tepid and very half-hearted retraction to a story.

Read JDPriestly's post above and follow the links and the links to the links. Read that companies involved have all admitted to this data-mining.

Choose whatever metaphor suits you: the cow's already left; toothpaste is out of the tube. The WaPo article doesn't challenge the facts that are already known from different sources. The criticism of Obama still stands.

It's best that Obama supporters stop trying to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible. Instead, persuade the President to change this policy before the 2014 elections get too close or face possible disaster.

[Mojorabbit]

26. That was my first thought also. More will come out and we hopefully will see what is what. nt

[a2liberal]

34. +1000000

How dare you report the truth? comply with the party line or we'll take action against you

Has happened before, I very much believe that's what happened here

[cheapdate]

51. There doesn't seem to be a compelling need

to explore extraordinary explanations for the Washington Post's backing off from their earlier claims. The "pressure" would seem to be the editor's legitimate concern over the accuracy of their published journalism.

I don't really see much in common with investigative journalist Gary Webb's series on the crack-cocaine epidemic that ran in the San Jose Mercury news -- if that's what you're referring to. His important three-part series was the culmination of his long and detailed investigation into the link between the Nicaraguan Contras, the CIA, and crack-cocaine in the United States. There's no doubt that the importance of his series was under-appreciated by his editors and Webb quit the paper shortly after the series was published. But I'm not aware of any serious allegations that the lack of support from his editors was anything other than just poor judgement on their part.

[BenzoDia]

8. The original reporting was way too sensational to be believable.

[madamesilverspurs]

9. Beyond sad.

Journalism has flushed itself down the toilet the last twenty years or so. And yes, I'm among those who see the Greenwald byline and stop reading at that point. As far as I'm concerned, he's in the same club as James O'Keefe, just wears a different costume.

[FarCenter]

11. One of the WaPo "reporters" is actually a film producer -- doesn't even work for the Washington Post

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. What does this have to do with Glen Greenwald?

[Marr]

75. Major misdirection here.

I'm seeing a concerted effort to conflate the Greenwald story with this Washington Post thing. It's pathetic, and reeks of desperation.

[caseymoz]

92. ^^This +1,000^^

[jaysunb]

52. Amen....+1 n/t

[mimi85]

62. If Glenn Greenwald

was involved, you can almost bet it was bullshit.

[caseymoz]

93. Oh? Which fact of his is bullshit?

This is all I see from people who oppose Greenwald. They attack his personality. They attack his motives. They never argue against his facts. Ever. I've never seen you do it.

This is known as argumentum ad hominum, or ad hominum attack. An official fallacy. Don't argue against the facts. Attack the person.

Why? Because you can't argue against his facts, but you hate him so much for pointing them out, that you have to give people a reason to tune him out.

Why are you and other Obama supporters acting like Teabillies? This is one of their favorite tactics.

It doesn't matter how derelict or hell bent Greenwald is if all his facts are correct.

[JDPriestly]

81. Would you like to read the original court order?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

It isn't Greenwald or the Washington Post or the Guardian or the NYT. It's the real thing: the order of the court.

[caseymoz]

96. Apparently, nobody does! Mere facts. nt

[brett_jv]

129. For my part, I'm not denying Greenwald's story

I just thought from word 'go' that the WaPo story was probably not accurate.

The Greenwald story seems to have it's fact more or less 'right', even if it's clearly written with the bent of making it sound like Obama is as evil as possible.

However, I have serious issues w/another recent Guardian article, the one that's floating around that tries its best to imply that the State Secrets Act is being invoked in the Verizon 'case', shutting down investigations ... just because it's being used in a couple of old Bush-Era court cases that involve NSA spying.

That story pretty much showed me that the Guardian is willing to stretch the truth to try to make Obama look as bad as possible.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. +1000. I only wish DU gave us the ability to block certain names. GG would be my first.

[GeorgeGist]

108. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash

[caseymoz]

94. No he's not.

Not even close. Here's the difference. It's easy to refute O'Keefe's facts, because he makes them up or mixes fact with fiction.

I've seen seen anybody refute or even effectively rebut Greenwald. No matter how much they hate him, the only rebuttal you and anyone else has is argumentum ad hominum. You don't rebut and refute the facts; you attack the person.

And that's a bonafide fallacy. Who his is and what agenda he has is irrelevant if you can't rebut his facts. It doesn't matter if it's Rush Limbaugh if the facts are correct. With Limbaugh, however, he simply manufactures them and then engages in much the same ad hominum attacks as people like yourself do with Greenwald.

If you would refute his facts first, and then attack his character, that would be different.

[uponit7771]

10. Our M$M is never ever sloppy, half assed, rushed or lead by bright and shinning things so this

...op is wrong in some way /sarcasm

[ohheckyeah]

54. And our government never lies,

spins, and pressures anybody to back down, either. History never gets changed, cover-ups never happen.

[uponit7771]

65. You have a good point, with both of them being off or imcompetent I'd rather vote for a good congres

[ohheckyeah]

72. That would be nice...

but we don't really decide who runs against whom.

[uponit7771]

74. we could

[ohheckyeah]

80. I admire your enthusiasm and

positivity. I think I've been though too much, seen too much, and know more about the government (I worked in federal government) than I wish to, to have much positivity or enthusiasm.

I hope to live to fight another day, but right now I'm just weary and sad.

[woo me with science]

15. "Directly" is the weasel word here.

We will hear every excuse in the book to try to stave off a much needed investigation into how far the police state in this country has actually progressed.

The spinners are already lining up here trying to say "All done. Let's move along...."

[ProSense]

19. Maybe everyone should run with the bullshit story, right?

[woo me with science]

24. Prosense: "There is...no spying program"!

You forgot the picture you have been attaching. I thought it was an *excellent* addition to your posts. It drives home the credibility of jaw-dropping pronouncements you've made, like the one I just put in the header of this post: "There is no spying program!"

Here you go:

The chocolate ration has been increased!
We have always been at war with Eastasia!
There is no spying program!

[ProSense]

25. You forgot

the links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2974163
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2973653

[woo me with science]

30. No, no. I told you you need the picture

at least for truth in advertising.

Nobody follows your blue links, Prosense. That's what happens when you continually post links that say the opposite of what you claim they say, or have no relevance to the conversation.

Seriously, your comment denying even the existence of a spying policy was outrageous and insulting to everyone at DU. If I were you, I would be honestly concerned that your disingenuousness here has become so chronic and brazen that there are now routine comments on the boards making fun of your tactics and asking when the spin patrol is due.

I reposted your mocking clown for humor and to make a point, but none of this is funny at all, really. We are talking about a government spying on its own citizens. That's deadly serious, and the shameless, disingenuous, manipulative defense of it is really about as low as anyone can go.

[ProSense]

37. You

"Nobody follows your blue links, Prosense. That's what happens when you continually post links that say the opposite of what you claim they say, or have no relevance to the conversation."

...speak for everybody? I mean, what about the people who ask me for links? (Oh, I forgot you're talking about "blue links.&quot

[Iliyah]

44. Sweetie they are already doing it

same with running with the altered memos regarding BENGGGHAAZZIIIII. ABC never apologized and will we ever learned who leaked him to Jon Karl.

[phleshdef]

143. "Weasel word" is itself "weasel words".

[JaneyVee]

17. Our media is a joke.

[Cha]

20. If you can't trust the WaPo who can you trust?!

Leffffft wing bloggers?

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Greenwald's recycled stories from 2006

[freshwest]

58. You don't think they're in financial distress, do you?

Well it could be worse. Could have been recycling like this guy:



Feds Bust Man Who Returned Used Enemas

...The used enemas, reshelved by CVS workers, were subsequently sold to unsuspecting customers. The federal indictment charges that Robinson acted with “reckless disregard” and placed others “in danger of death or bodily injury...”

The pharmacy worker, Dustin McDonald, said that the customer claimed that he purchased the enemas for his mother, but “she no longer needed them,” according to a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office report.

When the suspicious McDonald decided to “check the box of enemas to be sure that they were not tampered with,” he “observed that all the enemas were used.” The worker also noticed that, “the unknown white male…re-glued the bottom of the box so that it appeared that it had not been opened.”

...Robinson faces a maximum of ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Robinson, who is currently on state probation, has a lengthy rap sheet that includes arrests for burglary, battery, passing bad checks, damage to property, and criminal mischief.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/returned-used-enemas-indictment-576341

That was my post on that thread. The full thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=501225

[freshwest]

33. Arianna and Andrew, sitting in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g.

The stupid saga of Andrew Breitbart and the Huffington Post
By Alex Pareene Mar 24, 2011

The "liberal" news site promotes a notorious right-wing propagandist -- until he insults one of Arianna's friends

So! Arianna Huffington — recently put in charge of all the “content” at AOL following the dial-up ISP’s acquisition of her former “liberal Drudge” Internet newspaper — gave a blog to her old friend Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart helped build the HuffPo, back when he was just another loudmouth Hollywood conservative and not the even louder-mouthed full-tilt culture warrior he is today (thanks in part to training at places like the Claremont Institute). Hundreds of people — many of them idiots, frauds, and liars — have blogs at the HuffPo. But the HuffPo actually promoted Breitbart’s writing on the front page of the site.

Now, Mr. Breitbart is not just a conservative pundit. He is a crusading propagandist who publishes a wide variety of untruths and smears across his “Big” websites. He is not guilty of having the wrong opinions, he is guilty of being a shameless, race-baiting bully.

So various whiny liberals complained, like always, and the Huffington Post bravely promised to continue promoting the stupid nonsense from Arianna’s old friend, in the name of democracy and the free exchange of ideas. (“Ideas” like “NPR and the White House are collaborating to spread the false idea that the Tea Parties are racist” and “the White House is lying about its visitor logs and specifically including the names of famous people in order to embarrass Andrew Breitbart.”) ColorOfChange.org organized a petition, the HuffPo dismissed its complaints.

Complaining about the Huffington Post publishing awful, offensive garbage seldom works, because some of that garbage is profitable and some of it is just stuff that Arianna herself seems to like. And Huffington herself is too busy spending big bucks bringing big names to AOL/HuffPo while shuttering dozens of existing titles and letting various less impressive content-providers go to care if a bunch of liberals are mad at her site.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/huffpo_breitbart/



Sometimes your friends are not as they seem.

[Cha]

39. It's all for Profit.. they couldn't care less if they have any facts.

OT, fresh.. a tweet I just saw on TOD..

KSK(africa) @lawalazu

In the age of Obama, leaking classified info &MSM outrage is in vogue. Under GWB , not so much. Then, Cheerleading a war was all the rage.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/08/night-owls-white-house-performances-music-for-the-soul/#comments

Or maybe it isn't so far off topic.

[freshwest]

53. Just found these.. Yes, all about the money...

The Summer Of Fakery Begins

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/irs-scandal-hearings-060413

THE WEEK IN GREED #4: Risk-Free Ratfucking



http://therumpus.net/2012/04/the-week-in-greed-4-risk-free-ratfucking/

Both worth the read, especially the second one, goes straight from Donald Segretti of Nixon's Plumbers through KKKarl Rove, etc.

[Cha]

55. Exactly, fresh! "Risk Free Ratfucking"! 'Cause

who's going to hold them Accountable?!

Anyone remember Jon Karl being held responsible for his ratfucking?

thanks for the links!

[FarCenter]

21. U.S., company officials: Internet surveillance does not indiscriminately mine data

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.

Crucial aspects about the mechanisms of data transfer remain publicly unknown. Several industry officials told The Post that the system pushes requested data from company servers to classified computers at FBI facilities at Quantico. The information is then shared with the NSA or other authorized intelligence agencies.

According to slides describing the mechanics of the system, PRISM works as follows: NSA employees engage the system by typing queries from their desks. For queries involving stored communications, the queries pass first through the FBI’s electronic communications surveillance unit, which reviews the search terms to ensure there are no U.S. citizens named as targets.

That unit then sends the query to the FBI’s data intercept technology unit, which connects to equipment at the Internet company and passes the results to the NSA.

WaPo still sounds confused.

[limpyhobbler]

22. My understanding is that the government has access to our data stored with these companies,

Probably they are getting the info using warrants similar to the one that was leaked re:Verizon.

Nothing I've seen here contradicts that, or changes my perception of that.

I think this is a little bit nitpicking about words. Is the government getting the data through the front door, or the back door?

Are they "tapping directly into the central servers".

Doesn't matter. Actually the phrase is meaningless.
Sounds like they are dancing around words. Like I did not have sexual relations with that central server system. I just sucked down the personal data of 100s of millions of Americans via an indirect connection to a different server.

What matters is they are doing downloads of innocent people's data. Whether they are "tapped directly in" is irrelevant.

We can guess what their court orders are - an order for mass amounts of data that they renew on a regular time interval. Similar to what we saw in the Verizon situation.

The important question is "are we ok with that?"

[wandy]

27. Here we go again. Somebody stirs up the crock and when it starts smelling...

bad enough they want a new spoon.

Oh well, you know how it goes...
Their could be not one word of truth to it but still.....
Another scandal does it's job.

[dkf]

29. Acquiring 97 billion pieces of info in one month doesn't seem like a limited and targeted program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining?CMP=twt_gu

Well now I know why they released this data.

[FarCenter]

36. Of which 54 billion came from these 5 countries

Iran was the country where the largest amount of intelligence was gathered, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by 13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth with 6.3bn

.

[dkf]

38. Still that seems like its sucking in something.

[FarCenter]

41. It is reporting that foreign intelligence is being collected

It is a management reporting tool, and does no collection on its own.

I bet 3M has a system that reports how many PostIT Notes they make each day.

[dkf]

43. Yes...probably the entire pool of data is larger. This is what is being culled?

[FarCenter]

45. Boundless Informant is a management reporting tool

It produces statistical reports that say how many pieces of intelligence of what kinds were produced on each country by each means of collection, etc. Sort of like a manufactureing company would track how many units of each product were made each week at each plant.

So many bars of Dove at these plants, so many cans of Pringles at this plant, etc.

[Andy823]

42. Seems to be a pattern going on

Looks like the media keeps jumping on every BS thing can get their hands on, without really checking out the facts, and then goes on the attack trying to blame the president and his administration for some "scandal"! Then the right wing trolls come on and stir up the pot, and sadly many here jump on the right wing band wagon because they too do not want to hear any "facts", they are just to ready to help the trolls spread their BS! Hell there is even one thread talking about the "government" taking out Greenwald! It's just plain crazy. It's all about the right wing trying to get democrats divided to take the heat off them, and to try and keep democrats pissed off so they won't vote in 2014.

The sad thing is so many here want to believe the worst of our president instead of waiting to see what the actual "FACTS" really are. I am sure we will be hearing all kinds of "apologies", right?

[jaysunb]

56. Good post. n/t

[Cha]

57. They're always laying in

wait. If it weren't so tragic it would be comical.

[BenzoDia]

63. Media is in such a hurry to get the scoop first that they're willing to sacrifice their integrity.

And all the chicken littles are desperate to be trolled so they latch onto anything.

[uponit7771]

68. +1

[DirkGently]

49. Uh huh. So the vast, secretive spying on innocent Americans

is being conducted via a whosits, not a whatsis.

What a relief! It's so much more 4th Amendmenty with a secret "Dropbox" than some other way.

And geeze, they were juuuust about to tell us all this.

And now, they're probably going to make the process public so we can ensure probable cause is being scrupulously observed.

So puuuut on the party hats, ever thin's just fine!

Uh huh.

[MotherPetrie]

60. Cnet - the web site that includes spyware in its sofware installer.

Yeah, I'll take anything IT says about this seriously.

[cantbeserious]

61. Might One Be Interested In Some Land In Florida - Government Agents Guarantee It Is Good

eom

[shireen]

64. Rachel Maddow was hinting that something was amiss on Friday

She caught on early that there was something not right. Smart lady!

[JDPriestly]

71. Let's link to the original court order. That leaves no doubt

that the first Washington Post article was pretty accurate about the broad scope of this program.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

[brett_jv]

131. Dude, how many times are you going to post this?

No offense, bud ... but, yeah, we get it!

The Verizon order is the real-deal Holyfield. Although Greenwald's story is written in a highly sensationalist way, meant to make Obama look as EVIL as possible, the general 'gist' of the 'facts' ... are accurate. We all (most of us anyway) 'get' that.

The WaPo story, however, is about something DIFFERENT than the Verizon story (as I'm sure you well know), and it's looking like it was rushed and contained numerous inaccuracies.

[SCVDem]

77. I await the day

When Al Jazeera is the most trusted name in news.

[LovingA2andMI]

79. Hey Cheerleaders!!

Stop the high-fives, back slaps and "Oh, we saved our fearless leader B.O." battle cries....

Back to the story that originally LEAD to Glenn Greenwald Groundbreaking Article

By the way....the article is from MARCH 15, 2012. Good luck with your efforts to defend this one.

Maybe CNET Reporter Declan McCullagh -- needs to do a BIT more research:



"Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.

But “this is more than just a data center,” says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial, because much of the data that the center will handle—financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications—will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

And the story goes on....

[mn9driver]

84. The NSA is much more upfront and detailed than Wired:

http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

It's legal. They've been doing it for nearly a dozen years. And they're going to continue to do it. And they don't care if we know.

I'm not cheerleading, I'm pointing out facts.

[LovingA2andMI]

86. And....

President Obama's administration had NO INTENT of informing the public about the NSA's new "data-mining" facility in Utah, build with our tax dollars, spying on our information. Especially after in 2007, he said this:

His statement in the last 10-15 sections of this video, is the most chilling in retrospect. Just pointing out the facts!

Listen to it now as this video will be scrubbed off the internet by Monday Morning.....

[countmyvote4real]

82. Sounds like just that more spin to me.

Who do we trust anymore for honest reporting?

[Fire Walk With Me]

87. Then why oh why is the Obama administration threatening legal action against the whistle-blower?

[LovingA2andMI]

89. More than threatening...

They are taking charges against the Whistleblower(s)....

"By Timothy Gardner and Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. intelligence agency requested a criminal probe on Saturday into the leak of highly classified information about secret surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency, a spokesman for the intelligence chief's office said.

Confirmation that the NSA filed a "crimes report" came a few hours after the nation's spy chief, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched an aggressive defense of a secret government data collection program.

Clapper blasted what he called "reckless disclosures" of a highly classified spy agency project code-named PRISM.

It was not known how broad a leaks investigation was requested by the super-secret NSA, but Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Clapper's office, said a "crimes report has been filed."

The report goes to the Justice Department, which has established procedures for determining whether an investigation is warranted. Prosecutors do not accept all requests, but they have brought a series of high-profile leak investigations under President Barack Obama. U.S. officials said the NSA leaks were so astonishing they expected the Justice Department to take the case.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.

In a statement earlier on Saturday, Clapper acknowledged PRISM's existence by name for the first time and said it had been mischaracterized by the media."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/nsa-leaks-investigation_n_3409590.html

Notice above I highlighted in BOLD PRINT that Clapper "Acknowledge PRISM's existence by name for the first time". Thus, making this "report" by CNET's - Declan McCullagh -- straight BS propaganda spin.

And the Band Plays On....

[brett_jv]

135. Because the 'WaPo story being inaccurate', and 'Prism being Real' are not mutually exclusive.

Do you 'follow', or should I spell out the details on what I mean?

[BenzoDia]

110. Because leaking those documents is illegal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. Greenwald = Drudge.

[Th1onein]

101. kpete, they are not directly on the servers, BUT they have the ability to "TASK" the servers.

It's a technicality only. They might as well be plugged directly into the servers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

[dkf]

103. They are playing word games really.

Here is the corrected WAPO version:

From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff.

According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

Here is my laymans version:

So...there is govt owned equipment on all these companies premises that has stored what the company has stored. Thus when the govt retrieves the data it does so from the govt owned equipment, not directly from the company owned servers.

All your data is on government equipment. But they are supposed to use warrants to get the data from their equipment.

So the big scandal is that they said the government gets data from the company's servers. No they get it from a mirror of the companies servers. Big whoops.

[Th1onein]

104. So, Obama didn't LIE exactly. But he has misled us big time.

I'm sick to my stomach.

[dkf]

106. The prism part is the retrieval side of it which is under court supervision

But he failed to make it clear that our data is on government owned equipment.

Yeah I find it Clintonesque...

It is depressing.

[temmer]

107. Thanks - best posting in this thread here /nT

[Babel_17]

111. Thanks! So, we're now at the point of this story where selected facts can mask the truth (nt)

[sweetloukillbot]

119. They aren't saying the installed equipment are server mirrors!

They are means to access the data on the company servers. The government isn't plugged directly into the servers - it has to go through another device - described as a locked mailbox in an older version of the WAPO story - to get the information. The article also says that it is illegal for the government to access American's data...

[dkf]

120. If there is no direct access to the servers how would it know what to add to the drop box?

That tells me it must be a mirror but of course specific clarifying info would be nice.

[sweetloukillbot]

121. There could be a series of filters that the query has to go through

These would determine whether it is a legit target that meets the requirements of the law. That wouldn't be direct access.

[dkf]

123. Programmed by who? The companies?

The government? What kind of cooperation would that entail and doesn't that get stickier when we see what these corporations are claiming?

I would LOVE to know exactly what is being put on these boxes and how they got there.

[ucrdem]

112. I'm sure it was all a BIG misunderstanding.

Even seasoned professionals sometimes sandbag the US president and undermine his bargaining position during crucial international conferences. Why, even Wikileaks did it, during the 2010 Copenhagen climate change conference, and we know they're on the up an up.


By accident of course.

[dennis4868]

113. There is so much Obama hate here

That this article will nothing to the haters. Facts mean nothing to them. They will call this "spin."

[ProSense]

114. It's not "hate," it's "constructive criticism"

I mean, why else would the facts be dismissed as they come out. WaPo story wrong, pfft! Senate briefings, pfft! Declassified information, pftt!

Obama is worse than Bush because people are disappointed or refuse to accept the facts.

I even saw a post with the "miss me yet" image.

[kpete]

115. Simon’s followup: he says the debate in the comments on his previous post changed his mind on a few

Simon’s followup in which he says the debate in the comments on his previous post changed his mind on a few things.

For my part, I remain convinced that the Verizon call data should be used as a viable data base for counter-terror investigations and that its misuse should be greeted with the hyperbole that currently adorns the present moment. On the other hand, the arguments of others convinced me that while I still believe the differences between call data and a wiretap are profound, and that the standard for obtaining call data has been and should remain far more modest for law enforcement, the same basic privacy protections don’t yet exist for internet communication. There, the very nature of the communication means that once it is harvested, the content itself is obtained. And the law has few of the protections accorded telephonic communication, and so privacy and civil liberties are, at this moment in time, more vulnerable to legal governmental overreach. That’s a legislative matter, but it needs to be addressed. In this day and age, E-communication between individuals, if not public posts on public sites, should have the same measure of legal protection as telephonic communication. So that has shifted for me. This is not to say, of course, that I believe there aren’t legitimate and plausible reasons for law enforcement to sift the internet, or that a PRISM-like monitoring of the internet doesn’t have relevant counter-terror value, but that the acquistion of actual content — at least in the manner of interpersonal communications — should be subject to legal prerequisites comparable to telephonic surveillance. Thanks to those who made clear that PRISM and the telephone call data harvesting are proceeding under different standards.


MORE:
http://davidsimon.com/nsa-and-fisa-commentary-calling-it/

[Coyotl]

118. The Washington Post can be just a political tool, inflicting harm on the Obama administration

So what if the story isn't true in American politics if you can propagandize the electorate. How is this any different than what Faux News does everyday?

[emulatorloo]

126. Kick and Rec. Apparently this falsehood is "conventional wisdom" at DU now.

Lot of things I question about journalistic approach here.

[brett_jv]

127. I'm saying: "I told you So"

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

... As soon as Google, et al came out and quickly denied that the original Gellman story was true ...

I immediately said (in the DU thread we had on this article, when the denials appeared) ... I bet THEY (these companies) are telling the truth. Go back and look at the thread and you'll see.

My reasoning was: It makes NO sense for these companies to lie about this. If the story was true, they'd keep their mouth shut, not deny it.

I also made note of the fact that Gellman's story was AWFULLY short on citation and sources and, well, PROOF of any sort.

So suffice to say, I'm not AT ALL surprised to see it unraveling, at least to some degree.

Also not surprised to see so many people on this thread trying to deny the fact that they were wrong when they uncritically and 100% 'believed in' this story in the first place, and that they'd now try to spin it as 'oh, RIGHT ... Obama is forcing them to change their story'.

Suffice to say, I think many people are overly emotionally invested in their anti-Obama rhetoric and hyperbole at this point in the proceedings. But that's just me

[libodem]

128. Yes the 4th estate

Needs a trip to the wood shed and then back to school! There used to be laws!

[img][/img]

[Rex]

130. CNN BREAKING: Leaked memo recounts encounter with 12 foot chicken.

nt.

[blkmusclmachine]

132. .

.

[Safetykitten]

133. So there is no spying, cultivating, harvesting, meta-ing, none? Great!

[brett_jv]

136. No, there is ...

It's just that there's no direct government hookup to Google's servers, which was what the Gellman article originally said.

Bottom-line, government still has ACCESS to whatever electronic communications it wants ... however, by all accounts I've seen, any such gathering is all being done in accordance with 'the Law'.

IOW, if we really want this sort of thing to stop, we're going to have to get the Laws changed, or at least get a Higher Court to set a precedent.

Sad fact is ... presently, electronic communications aren't legally afforded the same protections as telephone calls (let alone our homes, papers, and effects) are. We want full privacy rights with our emails, we're probably going to have to WORK together for it.

Who knows, fighting the status quo on this matter could be a grand opportunity for Americans on both 'sides' of political spectrum to 'come together' for once.

[cantbeserious]

141. Hmm ... - Ok, Is That Law Right?

eom

[caseymoz]

138. Looks like events have undercut this disinformation.

Good try.

[WCGreen]

145. Where is Lou Grant when we need him...