I don't understand this Snowden "controversy"

[Drale]

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Whether you think it's right or wrong that the government is tracking calls, its not groundbreaking news, anyone with a brain knows its been going on at least since Bush signed the Patriot Act. What Snowden "released", in my eyes, is the equivalent to releasing the information that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Everyone already knew that, what I think happened is that it dragged this whole thing back into the public sphere and people are thinking about it again. I don't understand why people are trying to attack this guy, who cares who he is or if he's a liar or not because everything he released was already either known or suspected at some higher level.

[dkf]

1. The Government is mad because he's given the documents that allow us to push back.

That is the significance of what he has done.

[Drale]

2. I understand why the governments mad but what I don't understand

is why there's people on DU trying to discredit the guy.

[reformist2]

4. Every popular messageboard eventually becomes a political battleground.

[dkf]

6. Because they reflexively defend Obama to protect him politically.

In their world any criticism is designed to hurt him, thus people like Snowden must be discredited.

[Quantess]

36. A rare moment where I completely agree with you.

[Aerows]

12. Because now the government can be sued for doing it

and defense contractors are going to be sued for it, and it's all about the money.

Follow the money trail, you will always find the seat of the argument.

[randome]

3. Snowden made allegations without evidence then fled to Hong Kong.

So I see no reason to trust what the man says at this point. If he had access to the world's emails, don't you think he might have shown one to us?

I mean, it's not like he cares about breaking laws in the first place.

Then there is Greenwald's claim that the NSA has 'direct access' to all the world's providers. That's been pretty conclusively shown to be false.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LondonReign2]

5. Its not.about.Snowden

That was the point of the OP. Nor is about Greenwald. Yet, once again, that is all you can focus on in an attempt to deflect.

Tiresome.

[randome]

8. It's about whether his claims are credible or not.

Just because someone makes an allegation doesn't mean it's true.

Forget Snowden, then. Is there any evidence that any NSA employee can spy on anyone in the world? Is there any evidence that the NSA has 'direct access' to all the planet's Internet providers?

There is not.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LondonReign2]

11. Is Thomas Drake credible?

http://www.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution

Wednesday 12 June 2013 07.00 EDT

Snowden saw what I saw: surveillance criminally subverting the constitution

So we refused to be part of the NSA's dark blanket. That is why whistleblowers pay the price for being the backstop of democracy

Thomas Drake

- snip -

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he's been following this for years: he's seen what's happened to other whistleblowers like me.

- snip -

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

I reached a point in early 2006 when I decided I would contact a reporter. I had the same level of security clearance as Snowden. If you look at the indictment from 2010, you can see that I was accused of causing "exceptionally grave damage to US national security". Despite allegations that I had tippy-top-secret documents, In fact, I had no classified information in my possession, and I disclosed none to the Baltimore Sun journalist during 2006 and 2007. But I got hammered: in November 2007, I was raided by a dozen armed FBI agents, when I was served with a search warrant. The nightmare had only just begun, including extensive physical and electronic surveillance.

In April 2008, in a secret meeting with the FBI, the chief prosecutor from the Department of Justice assigned to lead the prosecution said, "How would you like to spend the rest of your life in jail, Mr Drake?" – unless I co-operated with their multi-year, multimillion-dollar criminal leak investigation, launched in 2005 after the explosive New York Times article revealing for the first time the warrantless wiretapping operation. Two years later, they finally charged me with a ten felony count indictment, including five counts under the Espionage Act. I faced upwards of 35 years in prison.

MORE

Tip of the hat to Hissyspit

[randome]

13. I have not paid much attention to Drake but I'll take a look now.

It still doesn't affect Snowden's and Greenwald's claims. If Snowden had the access he claims, why didn't he get evidence? That would have convinced 99% of us.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[randome]

16. For one thing, Drake was fighting a Republican administration.

And it was the Obama administration that reduced his charges.

Sounds like he got the short end of the stick during the Bush years. But at least he offered testimony and evidence to support his claims. And he didn't make outrageous claims as Snowden and Greenwald have.

So yes, if Drake was making allegations now, I would be more inclined to believe and support him.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LondonReign2]

18. I see the problem here

You seem to think it matters what the political affiliation of the adminstration happens to be while the NSA spies on us.

So, when a Republican adminstration eventually takes over again, will you be against spying then?

[randome]

19. The problem is you call 'storing' information the same as 'spying'.

I understand the viewpoint but I disagree with it. If data is stored but cannot be looked at without a legal warrant, is that the same as 'snooping'?

If it is, then you may have a problem with GMail, Outlook, Hotmail, etc. Because all the companies that manage the back ends of these systems maintain backups of your data.

And corporations that manage the front ends keep backups, too. So all your email is likely stored somewhere on a corporate server.

Are all these companies 'snooping' when they keep backups? They sure don't need a legal warrant to delve into all your private communications.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LondonReign2]

25. LOL

You were perfectly OK with Drake "fighting a Republican administration". Drake says he saw the same things Snowden saw. Yet now, with Obama in charge, you are perfectly fine with it.

I give up, you are hopeless. Bye.

[randome]

27. Drake was fighting warrantless wire tapping as well as other things.

That's a noble fight during any administration.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. 1000+++++

that is what I have been trying to tell people ....it doesn't matter if the govt makes copies of the entire internet....it would be meaningless...the data is already stored...in multiple places...its all digital now. It's not like reams of actual paper.....Its stored already in perpetuity by the corporations that own it. The govt only needs the ability to access it and then to run SQL queries against it to make virtual tables of what they want to see based on whatever datapoints they used to form the query. Essentially....its like having doing a google search against all the data all these companies store!

[joeglow3]

76. But I agree to their terms when I use their product

This does not give the government the right to break in and steal all this data just to store it themselves.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. They don't believe they are stealing it because the Corporations believe they own that data not you!

[TorchTheWitch]

75. they aren't just storing it

If you've read anything at all about this and paid any attention at all to what is being said by the government you'd know that. They are USING this metadata as an attempt to FIND probable cause against individuals in order to get rubber-stamp warrants to further investigate Americans by listening to their phone conversations, physically surveil them and who the hell knows what. They're hardly just STORING it. They're actively sifting through all this metadata on everyone looking for "patterns", and who the hell knows how many degrees of separation they decide in finding all these "patterns" before listening in on calls and other surveillance.

Suppose my gynecologist's sister's friend's nephew is a suspected terrorist... is that enough degrees of separation for them to not listen in to my phone calls with my gynecologist or track me going to his office and then finding out personal private medical information about me that doesn't have jack shit to do with any terrorist? We don't know that. We don't even know if their deciding this nephew of the friend of my gynecologist's sister is a terrorist at all or why they suspect he is... how do we know if they decided he was a suspected terrorist because he talked to his brother's friend's neighbor's brother-in-law somewhere in the Middle East? We have no idea in the world what they're looking into with this metadata or how they're deciding what's "suspicious" or what "patterns" they're looking at, or how many degrees of separation between an individual and a "suspected terrorist" is good enough for no FURTHER scrutiny they'd need a rubber-stamp warrant for?

What we DO know is that their collecting the metadata of Americans' innocent communications and USING it however the hell they USE it to FIND probable cause against certain individuals that is SURVEILLANCE in and of itself. They are USING this metadata to SURVEIL everyone in order to find information to surveil them further by more intrusive means.

And metadata is MORE intrusive than listening to phone calls...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/verizon-nsa-metadata-surveillance-problem.html

The gist of the defense was that, in contrast to what took place under the Bush Administration, this form of secret domestic surveillance was legitimate because Congress had authorized it, and the judicial branch had ratified it, and the actual words spoken by one American to another were still private. So how bad could it be?

The answer, according to the mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau, whom I interviewed while reporting on the plight of the former N.S.A. whistleblower Thomas Drake and who is also the author of "Surveillance or Security?,' is that it’s worse than many might think.

"The public doesn't understand," she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. "It’s much more intrusive than content." She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying "who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happening - you don’t need the content."

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: "You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members." And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller's location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. "You can see the sources," she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

[LondonReign2]

81. Thank you Torch

Great information, much appreciated

[kenny blankenship]

33. LoL. The Obama Adm BROUGHT the charges in 2010. They didn't reduce the charges

First of all, there were no charges until after the Obama administration came in. He had been investigated under Bush. He had been interrogated, had his house and property searched, and he had been put under surveillance. But no charges had ever been filed. Skip forward to 2009, the Obama DoJ decided they wanted Thomas Drake to plead guilty after charging him with 10 crimes that could put him in jail for 35 years. Drake refused to play the plea bargaining game and insisted on going to trial. The case went all the way into preliminary hearings. Then - at the last second before the trial proper was to have begun- the government dropped every existing charge against him in exchange for Drake pleading to a misdemeanor charge of misusing the computer system.

The presiding Judge, Richard D. Bennett, had some harsh words for the federal prosecutor for bringing charges which apparently they knew were bogus and not provable in a court of law.

Why wouldn't the Judge praise the Obama administration for letting an innocent man go and dropping the 10 original charges? Because they're not supposed to bring a case against anyone unless they are sure of the evidence - let alone charges running into double digits. If they're unsure they're not supposed to bring the case. And if they had the evidence they were supposed to bring the case. In the preliminary hearing phase of a criminal case, the prosecutor shows the Judge that there is reason to believe that a crime was committed, and that the defendant is the one who committed it. It's not believable that they suddenly discovered, in presenting the outline of their case against Drake, that they were mistaken about the quality of their evidence on all ten counts. One or two - maybe. But not ten. They never really had the evidence that they told the court and Thomas Drake's defense that they had. The DoJ was simply trying to use the sheer volume of the charges and penalties to bludgeon Drake into bargaining his way into jail for a subset of those crap charges. Thomas Drake's exceptional nerve is the only reason he isn't a political prisoner of the Obama administration today.

Thomas Drake lost his livelihood and pension defending his innocence and your freedom, and the Judge handling his trial pronounced the behavior of the federal prosecutors - now get this -:

"UNCONSCIONABLE"

[randome]

38. I stand corrected.

The difference between Drake and Snowden, however, is that Snowden has made some outrageous claims without providing any evidence.

He says that he could hack into anyone's email at any time, including the President's.
He says the NSA has 'direct access' to all the Internet providers.

I don't need to see proof of any of these allegations, just some kind of evidence to corroborate what he says. So far, nothing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Cha]

59. If it's so "tiresome" then don't read anything related to the facts

on Snowden.

[Drale]

7. He fled to Hong Kong because he's a borderline tea bagger

who's paranoid and only released what he released because he thought it would hurt Obama and the government but the point of my post is that Snowden is not important and by trying to turn him into a "transparency hero" we are doing ourselves a disservice.

[randome]

10. Yeah, I agree.

But we only have 2 things to go on here: evidence and credibility. None of us knows Snowden personally so we like to look at the evidence first. There is none, which means everyone moves to the next square: credibility.

That is where people start taking sides, pro and con. So without evidence, it's inevitable that the character of Snowden gets dragged into the conversation.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HappyMe]

15. I agree.

Whether people like it or not, character does enter into this.

Why would 'character witnesses' be presented at trials if a person's character doesn't ever matter. The timing of this, China...a lot of things here cancel out credibility for me.

[randome]

21. There are more unknowns than knowns after the Snowden/Greenwald 'expose'.

I thought an expose was supposed to reveal things, not tantalize us with what might be happening somewhere, somehow.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[HappyMe]

23. Reminds me of trashy tabloid headlines.

"Lookie! Alien And Human Caught Mating!" When you look at the story inside, it turns out that a couple of people from a Halloween party were having sex in a car.



Plenty of flash, but no actual facts or info coming from Snowden or Greenwald.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. and what he has done with these thus far unsubstantiated claims

Right now we are facing down Moscow over Syria and Snowden just pissed off China at us.....Yeah they are going to be real eager to stand with us if we have to negotiate our way through this with the Russians.

[Luminous Animal]

41. He provided evidence and Greenwald made no such claim. The NSA did and Greenwald

reported the NSAs claim. And no, the NSA did not claim it had direct access to all the world's providers, only most of the USAs providers.

There are 3 errors of fact in your post. Thus, you have done precisely what you have erroneously accused Greenwald of doing.

[randome]

42. Who provided evidence? Snowden? I must have missed it.

It was Snowden who said he could access anybody's email at any time. It was Snowden who said the NSA has 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers.

Sure, Greenwald only reported it. But a reporter who doesn't verify his facts is second rate.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

44. Evidence published in the Guardian. The NSA documents claimed that they had direct access.

Snowden may have confirmed it verbally, but the NSA itself, in the PowerPoint presentation, claimed that they had direct access. The tech companies denied it and Greenwald and the Guardian reported that, too.

Did you even read the articles and look at the pdfs?

[randome]

49. The PowerPoint presentations may have been simply a marketing tool of some sort.

You'd think if he had the access he claims, he could have furnished something better than that. I doubt the NSA does high-level espionage planning with PowerPoint.

But even granting the possibility that it's an 'authentic' PowerPoint presentation, all the major companies say it isn't happening. And our DU experts on network administration say it's not possible.

The weight of evidence, despite the PowerPoint slides, still doesn't add up for me.

But that's just me.

On edit: actually, the latest thinking about the PowerPoint slides is that Snowden & Greenwald misinterpreted them. The 'servers' they assumed meant 'direct access' are simply a means for the companies to transfer data to the NSA when a warrant is received.

These companies deal with millions of customers on a daily basis. It makes sense they would have a means to comply with warrants in an efficient manner. As is pointed out in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813 , what does anyone expect them to do? Put the data on a CD and mail it?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

53. Yes. And that is why there is a world wide man hunt for Snowden and

calls for Greenwald to be investigated. All over some marketing tools?

I gotta ask, who do you imagine the NSA was marketing to?

[randome]

55. I updated my post with a new interpretation of the PowerPoint slides.

By 'marketing', I meant NSA internal training for different departments, vendors, etc. But it sounds more likely, to me, that Greenwald & Snowden simply misinterpreted something from the very start.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

57. Greenwald reported the exact words on the slides. Exact.

And reported the exact words of rebuttal from the tech companies.

[randome]

61. But he didn't investigate fully, did he?

And Snowden, being the 'genius' he thinks he is, didn't think to correct him.

Think of it: the entire Internet is being copied to servers and then retransmitted to the NSA. Does that make sense? Not in the slightest to me.

These larger companies deal with millions of customers. They probably get, let's say a handful of warrants on a daily basis. Have an efficient system in place to deal with them and get on about your business. That is a much more likely scenario than that the Internet is being duplicated at NSA headquarters.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Luminous Animal]

63. He went to the tech companies & reported their rebuttals. His report did what it was supposed to do

Open up investigations... open up a dialogue.

Seriously. You are making a lot of assumptions about how the NSA is collecting data or what kind of data they are collecting, WITH NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

You are accusing Greenwald of doing precisely what you are doing, taking the government at their word. (And Greenwald didn't do that.)

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. ding ding ding we have a winner

they have no need to copy the whole internet...what would be the point. All they need is access and tools to do searches against the data that is already being maintained and preserved and secured by these corporations who find who already spend lots of money to create tools to mine the data themselves because it is very valuable to them to use for marketing purposes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. That is exactly what it looks like to me...

like an inter-office presentation describing to the various non-tech geek members of the organization what they do but in a simplified manner so as not to get too technical.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. He could have made those Powerpoint Presentations himself for all we know...

They weren't exactly works of art...

[Ms. Toad]

46. You're forgetting that little court order thing. n/t

[randome]

50. The court order that confirmed what was already established fact.

Snowden's other claims: that he could get into anyone's email at any time, including the President's, and that the NSA has 'direct access' to all the Internet providers have not been supported by any evidence.

If Snowden wanted to have 99% of this country on his side, you'd think he would have furnished some evidence of those two outrageous claims. Not even proof, just evidence.

An email from the President, maybe.

So far, nothing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Ms. Toad]

56. Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of that.

It was apparently unaware of that when it ruled that "clients of the American Civil Liberties Union lack standing to challenge a broad surveillance law enacted by Congress in 2008 because they cannot prove that surveillance of their communications is 'certainly impending.'"

Since it is a matter of constitutional importance, and they must have ruled in error, I expect they would be eternally grateful for the information.

[KittyWampus]

9. Doesn't matter if it was "old news". If it was classified, he broke the law.

it isn't difficult to grasp. Why some can't see that is curious.

[shawn703]

14. Probably because some people laud him as a hero

For breaking the law? Not exactly the kind of role model we'd like our kids to emulate.

[frylock]

34. would you argue that law breakers like dr. king are not worthy of being deemed a role model?

[shawn703]

37. Are you seriously comparing Dr. King to Mr. Snowden?

Dr. King didn't try to escape justice for his actions. He faced consequences bravely to draw attention to how unjust the laws being used against him were.

I see no such courage from Mr. Snowden, nor do I believe that laws prohibiting delivering state secrets to our geopolitical rivals are unjust.

[frylock]

39. we're talking about the legality of specific activities..

i'm not talking about personalities, nor am I making any comparisons. you made a blanket statement and i'm trying to determine if you're principled enough to stand by that statement.

[shawn703]

40. Breaking the law doesn't make one a hero

Yes, I stand by that statement.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. ^^^ thank you....

Muhammed Ali had the courage of his convictions over the Viet Nam War and faced going to jail over them. Martin Luther King as well etc etc etc....Most people that are lauded as heroes....don't take a stand from a hotel room in Hong Kong do they?

[KharmaTrain]

17. Food For The Corporate Media Machine...

...just look at the calendar. We're 15 months from the next election...getting into the summer "doldrums". The 24/7 cables and hate radio need a bright shiny toy to chase and thus it's been one "scandal" after another. Here's a classic example of "rumors circling the globe while the truth is getting on its pants"...speculation is fed and the story goes viral as does the "outrage". Of course this is done with only the barest of facts available but it's built up to fit agendas. It was amazing to see how Edward Snowden went from an unknown on Friday to a hero/villain here on DU in less than 24 hours.

IMO Snowden is just another pawn in the games played for political gain...and time will tell if he broke laws and if he'll be tried...

Cheers...

[JoePhilly]

20. Agree.

The 24/7 media struggles during the summer.

Notice the shift in terms lately ... they started with "wiretapping" which wasn't true. And now they've jumped to "spying".

Which oddly is a move AWAY from the actual details not towards them. You'd expect the media to move TOWARDS more details, not away from them.

The only way to maintain the outrage, is to discuss the "spying" at a high level. And let people's imagination run wild with what that term actually refers to.

Suddenly, we are all Will Smith in "Enemy of the State".

[KharmaTrain]

24. The Merits Get Covered Up By The Noise...

...there are those with agendas who are latching onto whatever "scandal" they can to score political points or personal gain. There is a genuine need to investigate, and if possible, put curbs on the expanding security state...public AND private. Unfortunately joining forces with the likes of Paulbot Jr. and Alex Jones is not the way to do it. I'm also as concerned today as I was 6 years ago when FISA was being debated about how it can (and will) be abused by a rushpublican regime. It'd be nice to restore some of the privacy rights but with this dysfunctional Congress I don't see that happening. Thus this latest "scandal" (poutrage) will flame out and yet another one will somehow materialize. Just wait for it...

Cheers...

[JoePhilly]

26. Very true.

I've found around here, if you try to discuss the details, the outraged call you a sycophant in their first subject line.

And like you said, the noise blocks out all further discussion.

I keep asking why, if we live in a police state, the there were only about 1800 FISA warrants last year. I'd assume that if you had a rubber stamp court, a police state would use it WAY MORE than 1800 or so times. But asking such a question is a no no.

If you aren't running around with your hair-on-fire, you're defending spying.

And so good luck trying to have a rational discussion about how you might ensure all of the safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.

And yes, in a week or so, this outrage will pass, only to be replaced by something new.

[KharmaTrain]

30. I'm Thinking...

...of opening an online tin foil and straw concession for all the CTs that have been flying around here. I'm more concerned about the deep reach corporates have in our private lives...the NSA is just feeding off of what they've been mining for a long time. There's big time outrage that some dude in a hidden room will know you ordered a pizza last Saturday than the damage a company can do to someone's credit rating or an invasive check into one's finances and personal life as a condition to get or keep a job. You don't hear people getting outraged about that...and if they did, they'd find a way to blame it on President Obama.

Cheers...

[randome]

31. Don't forget to offer those RFD protective bags for cell phones!

I hear the FBI is turning on our cell phones and surreptitiously installing spyware!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KharmaTrain]

32. What's Old Is New Again...

...I remember them saying the CIA could listen in on any rotary phone...even if it was on the hook. Next was they could listen in on phones with speakerphones...webcams and now cellphones. When Sci-Fi nut meets Alex Jones nut it seems to always end up on here...

Cheers!

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. Hallelujah! Finally some voices of reason around here!

It has been nutty than anyone that calls into question the "bravery" of Snowden in this is somehow in support of the snooping into our private lives. They somehow seem to think that they are safe if they just stop the govt from being able to snoop on them....as if Corporate America that really has this gold mine known as all your information...and they ARE sharing it amongst themselves...and SELLING your data to each other...that somehow if they just stop the govt from using these databases of information they will have "privacy" on the Internet and in their mobile phones. Nevermind that cellphones now overwhelming provide access to the internet as well. Corporations are not going to store all that data for nothing...and if it is worth storing that much digital data...it means it is worth alot...a helluva lot to them. That's not exactly a benign situation for those the information is stored about.....

[TheKentuckian]

48. What in the world do they need 1,700 when just one covers everyone on a carrier

and that communicates with a carrier. At that pace, something closer to 100 might about cover not only every person but every form of electronic communication.

The nets are huge, Joe. You're rhetorically conflating our previous understanding of a warrant with all encompassing dragnets. Under the present paradigm, 1,700 will catch virtually everyone several times so there is no need for millions of warrants as they are probably on information overload as it is.

I think your "defense" is contextually pointless. Media consolidation is a reality, it doesn't take too many shots to catch it all when you can just say "everyone on Time-Warner", "everyone on AT&T", and so on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. How do we know that's the case?

that would be the FISA Court judges to determine whether they "could" do that or not...at that point it is the judges of that court that should be receiving the scrutiny and drawing the ire. So it seems we are going to get some evidence on Monday about just that...

[moondust]

22. It's easy to demagogue

because it's a closed system (for legitimate national security reasons) and the public can't see in. Thus it can be whatever you choose to believe it is depending on your level of paranoia, political leanings, etc. Anti-gummit kooks like Ron Paul can have a field day with this kind of stuff.

James Bamford was on Rachel last night saying the FISA court is useless. Perhaps it just seems that way because those applying for warrants have carefully done their homework. Whatever the case, that would probably be a good place to start a thorough reevaluation.

[markiv]

28. japanese attacking pearl harbor in 1942 is news to me

first i've heard that

[backscatter712]

29. Because the authoritarians don't want us to talk about Google for Tyrants.

They distract from the issue and take vengeance on he who broke National Security Omerta by orchestrating a McCarthyist smear campaign.

Didn't you know, I heard Snowden ate Elmer's Glue when he was in kindergarten!

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. So should anyone who works for NSA just decide their oath to keep Top Secrets Top Secret....is just

a quaint notion and just not big a deal and talk about any damn thing they please to any foriegn govt at all?

[backscatter712]

79. Keeping mountains of secrets about just about everything is one of the symptoms of a police state.

Just ask Bruce Schneier.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. This guy broke the law....and then he ran and hid in China where he exposed what he knows to them.

He's a coward and doesn't have the courage of his convictions....If he truly believes what he is saying...he would gladly face the consequences to expose what he knows here...but no...he ran

Muhammed Ali went to jail for his convictions. That what bravery is about....willing to face the consequences of his actions to make a stand. This guy at the very least has been found to be a pathological liar and at worse a traitor to his country. I am not impressed.

[Enrique]

35. me neither

but I don't even know what a cell phone is

[Avalux]

43. I think we 'knew' about it in an abstract way, now it's like a brick in the face.

What's mostly driving me nuts is the political insanity that's ensued. White is black, up is down.

[Ms. Toad]

45. Legally it is a really big deal.

The ACLU filed suit to have portions of the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional. It was dismissed becuase the ACLU (and I don't recall wheter there were other plaintiffs) lacked standing to sue because it was pure speculation that any of their data was gathered. That decision was released in March. That means the law is immune from being tested - because the secrecy means that no one can prove their data was gathered in order to test it.

The ACLU is a Verizon customer, and can now prove it was impacted by the Patriot Act. Before the leak, it could not. That is enormous. They filed suit again very shortly after the court order was leaked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Amnesty Int vs Tapper

That's the case. They are back. First three paras establish standing

[Ms. Toad]

52. That is why it is a big deal. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I know...submitted an article

Going through the history. Opened with the FISA orders, and closed with the lawsuit.

Gone through the whole thing...I think the first step is for people to understand where we came from.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Here's a good history (farther back)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hijacked+by+Fear%3A+%20The+War+on+Liberty&l=1 - the top link that comes up

(Not intended to be insulting - The host site won't let me search directly for the article , and the only link i can grab keeps coming up 404)

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. Good but they should also sue Verizon

these corporations also need to be reigned in on what they can do with data on us....they are the part of this that is being overlooked. The govt is just piggybacking on the datamining that these companies are already using on you and I.

[Ms. Toad]

74. No, not really.

First, all of that data is necessary to bill the calls (# called - in family/in network, time of day - discounts at certain times, length of call - many plans are still minute based).

Second, you can choose not to enter into a contract with Verizon. Yes, it would be difficult these days to avoid having a phone that can be tracked directly to you, but it is an option. But you cannot choose to opt out of the government sweep. (And Verizon cannot opt out, either - they are forbidden as part of the FISA act from revealing that they received the subpoena, as are banks and libraries to name a couple more (which is disturbing enough to some library staff that they deliberately do not capture data, or purge it regularly, in order to avoid what they believe is a violation of our civil righs).

And - if you believe Verizon is doing something that violates its agreement with you, sue them. You have that right. You don't have the right to sue the NSA, since (until the leak) it was only speculative that you were impacted so you had no standing to sue.

[allin99]

47. He brought it back into the spotlight...

and i for 1 am glad for it. Once it becomes the norm people accept it. I didn't like it in 2006 and i don't like it now. Heaven forbid we revisit the fact that our phone contact is tracked without our knowledge, anytime the U.S. Govt feels like it. Just because we couldn't win the fight then doesn't mean we should just let it be. Here's hoping someone "reminds us" every 4 years, or whenever, and the more controversy the better. The more details the better. The more people upset about it the better. Will it ever change anything? Dunno, we can only hope, and vote, and donate to the right groups, get more liberal judges, whatever it takes. If what he did was illegal, well that sucks for him doesn't it. If he lied about his salary, or if that includes his package, who care, neither here nor there. But i for 1 am glad that people are revisiting all things associated with privacy invasion legalized by Bush that continues today. I too cannot figure out why people are hating on the messgner. ACLU is taking another crack at it, i donated, heck, maybe we get 1 more liberal judge and we finally get somewhere. No negatives what-so-ever.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. Republicans with the help of the media are pushing this now with the hope of winning in 2014

The Republicans probably pay Snowden's salary?

I don't like all this surveillance though.

[ljm2002]

62. Sometimes things don't take hold...

...until a "perfect storm" of events coalesce to make a topic compelling.

I'd guess there are a few factors in play here. Certainly the dramatic nature of Snowden's release of information. Also the recent Boston Marathon bombing, that put terrorism front and center again. Also the fact that it is now a Democratic administration, and of course with a (gasp) black man as POTUS, has energized many of our political opponents on this issue when they were completely moribund on the topic back when GWB was in office.

Whatever the reasons, I'm happy we're starting the discussion at long last. The one thing I don't want is for everyone to go back to sleep on this issue.

[Th1onein]

78. Riiiiigggght! That's why he's a wanted man now.

Geez. Simple logic tells you that he leaked information that wasn't known previously.

I'm getting really tired of the "old news" meme.