Guardian "walked back the 'direct access' claim made in Greenwald’s original article"

[ProSense]

<...>

UPDATE: A new article posted at the Guardian by Charles Arthur and Dominic Rushe walked back the “direct access” claim made in Greenwald’s original article and confirmed the FTP/Dropbox theory.

The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.

Anyone who uses an FTP server knows that this is a far cry from “direct access” to the entire contents of a server. But now, to paraphrase a popular quotation, the hyperbolic misleading interpretation used by Greenwald has been around the world a few times now that the reality of the technology finally got its pants on. The question remains, however, whether Greenwald was deliberately vague, or whether he didn’t bother to attain more clarification on this point from his IT expert source.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/greenwald-sticks-with-his-story-in-spite-of-growing-questions/

The hyperbole got ahead of the technology.

Report: Snowden Stored Documents On Thumb Drive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023010060

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. "whether Greenwald was deliberately vague, or whether he didn’t bother to attain more.....

clarification on this point from his IT expert source." He didn't want "clarification", it wouldn't have packed quite the same punch.

[Aerows]

50. Word Salad

I think my grits have some lettuce in them.

[Aerows]

61. Wait

Now I think there is spinach and cauliflower in it.

[SidDithers]

94. Exactly...nt

Sid

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

2. so the "direct access to servers" claim is bogus. What else is bogus? n/t

[Monkie]

11. back in the real world people use FTP to directly access servers

or in this case the claim is SCP, or secure copy to and from a FTP server.
FTP is just a transfer protocol, a part of the internet, a server is a machine connected to the internet. you can argue semantics about what is or is not direct access if one wants to of course.
and we dont even know if google and the rest are telling the truth, or allowed to tell the truth, the laws snowdon broke surely apply to the collaborating companies?

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

21. back in my real world all FTP is SFTP and on a junk server

Anyone who creates an FTP directory on the same server with live secure data is inviting increased risk. Anyone who uses FTP at all is inviting risk. I won't use unsecure FTP at all, and my SFTP directories are on a separate box on a separate net with nothing of importance on it. I assume the confusion stems from non-tech writers trying to explain technical details.

What intrigued me about the original post in this thread was that two others from Guardian rewrote the original story and not the original author. It isn't often that major newspapers have others rewrite their headliners.

No, we don't know whether the internet giants are telling the truth, but it is interesting to note that the Guardian felt it necessary to walk back the original story to match that given by google et al.

[Monkie]

39. of course you are right in what you say, especially about non-tech writers

im sorry i didnt realise you actually understood the difference between FTP and SFTP, nobody with any sense would use FTP, the report i read on the subject mentioned them using SCP to transfer the data.
it does look like non-tech writers were involved. i must admit, and no shame in that from my pov, that i did not see or realise the original was also rewritten, from what i had read so far on the guardian the quote is that google claims that it is not direct access, this is not the same, in my view, as saying that it is not true. in cases involving companies and governments who dont want to reveal issues it is often the case that one has to parse semantic games to get to the heart of the matter.
i think its worthwhile noting that the UK has some of the strictest libel laws in the world, but i have no idea if that was a consideration in this case.
i dont mind repeating that i cant disagree with your post at all, even if i dont quite see what the big issue is here.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

85. I normally lurk and don't post often, but in this case the early sensationalizing (on many sides)

is from people without any technical knowledge.

Yes, evidently the reported powerpoint used the phrase "direct access" or something like that. It was not tech specs, not even close to technical. The masses reacted to that as proof of something. That kind of presentation is the same as using four slides to explain the fractional puts and calls of futures trading to me so I can become a multi-millionaire trader. Or the fractional over and under betting in a Vegas sports pit. After listening to experts in both, I still don't understand either of those well enough to make intelligent conversation. And certainly not well enough to play in either sandbox.

Years ago I was doing some consulting for a large multi-national corporation. Not my project but at the same time world-wide regional managers were demanding that they had to have real-time access to company data. There was quite a standoff between the MIS folks and the rest of upper management. When that project was finally implemented the regional managers finally got their "direct access" they were elated, everyone was happy, and the storm died down. The MIS admins were smiling - especially smiling to themselves.

What anyone outside the building really had access to was a constantly updated mirrored server on its own network which only mirrored the relevant sales data and no other corporate data. Not only that, but the mirrored hardware was two security corridors down from the "real" data and techs managing that system didn't even have access to the main system. A technician hooked to the world-wide network, unless he were told otherwise, could assume he was working with real company data.

I can only hope that many years having passed, the SAs at google, Verizon, facebook et al at a minimum are doing the same thing. I suspect that with today's diversified processing, to provide the data the government asks for, those companies are consolidating data from multiple server farms which aren't even in the same geographical regions.

Two things intrigued me enough about the original post to add my comment:

First that other writers were allowed to write and publish the walk-back from the well-known headliner. NOT a standard practice.

Second was the paragraph quoted from the walk-back:

"The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a "dropbox" system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system..."

The paragraph has to be looked at in the context of the entire original article which was not linked:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests

The article reviews their original breaking story and also presents the views of many of the corporate providers involved. But then at the very end the article comes to the authors' carefully worded conclusion quoted above. It does not say, "We learned this from google..." or "We learned this from microSoft..." or "We learned this from the NSA..." or "We learned this from our own IT department..."

How or from where the Guardian (now) understands is noticeably absent from the article.

Thanks for your responses to my comment.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Take it up with the NSA because it was their claim, not the Guardian's.

The Guardian correctly reported the words on the document and correctly reported the service provider's denials.

[The Magistrate]

3. Interesting, Ma'am

[Cooley Hurd]

4. What a slanted story...

"Glenn Greenwald’s reporting on the NSA story is tainted by his well-known agenda"

That's opinion and hyperbole. What you posted was an "opinion" piece and tried to disguise it as an actual news story.

Fail.

[Occulus]

6. It wasn't at all a fail.

PROpaganda makes SENSE, dontcha know?

I will not ever cease using that phrase, Prosense. Never. Your last reaction to its use cemented that forever.

[pintobean]

15. Want me to mail the jury results to you?

It went 3-3, but 4 jurors left negative comments about you personally.

[Occulus]

16. Oh NO! Negative comments from anonymous jurors!

What EVER shall I do?

I could not possibly care less.

[pintobean]

23. Yeah, I know you don't care.

But 4 of 6 random DUers have your number. That can't be a good sign. A new hobby might be a good idea.

[Occulus]

36. Instead of trying to needle me with sad little emo high-schooler one-liners, how about you

put up or shut up and just send the results my way so I can think on how awful a person I've become, and how I should just kill myself and save the rest of the world the misery?

You're being fucking childish about this, Pinto. Like I said, put up or shut up.

AND BY THE WAY: Doesn't only the alerter and the jurors get the results when the post is left standing?

[ProSense]

40. Looks like

"You're being fucking childish about this, Pinto. Like I said, put up or shut up. "

...your rude and idiotic bullshit (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3011777) is coming back to bite you in the ass, huh?

[pintobean]

42. That, after "I could not possibly care less"

[Occulus]

44. This is known as an attempt at public shaming.

It isn't working.

Try harder.

[pintobean]

53. No, this is public shaming:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=113894&sub=trans
That's done by the DU admin.

I didn't post the jury results, I asked if you wanted me to mail them to you. Posting them would be public shaming. You claimed you didn't care. Now you do. I'm taking you at your first word.

[Occulus]

69. Uh-huh

[ProSense]

71. .

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

89. rofl

[SidDithers]

96. Hahaha...

Sid

[Monkie]

43. in a discussion relating to secret interpretations of laws relating to the surveillance of millions

dont you find your own post just a little bit creepy???

[Occulus]

46. Here's the thing.

Pinto was either the alerter or one of the jurors. Those are the only people who get the results when a post is left standing. If Pinto was sent the results, that makes the behavior all the worse, and does in fact indicate we have a Swarm we should... deal with. It's alert abuse of a different kind at the very least.

I can't see a juror who voted to leave the post standing pulling crap like this. I can see Certain Parties who didn't like the results trying it, though.

I'm sure Skinner would be interested in knowing that Certain Parties are trying to take matters into their own hands via attempted public shaming when the jury results don't go their way.

As of this writing, I still don't have the jury results. And that says a lot all by itself.

[Monkie]

83. it just creeped me out, i dont even get the sidetrack in the discussion

nor do i understand some of the "internal" politics here, my comment was more due to my going wow, really?
i dont mind a "robust" discussion but i do like to pretend that at least some of it is to do with the actual topic

[pintobean]

91. I'm not on your jury blacklist?

As a star member, you get 15 slots, yet I didn't make the grade. One can't help but wonder.

[pintobean]

98. Also, please don't call me pinto

If you are going to trash me, have the decency not to use another DUer's username. Pinto is an excellent DUer, and shouldn't be associated with your insults.

[Agschmid]

97. I'll come out of the closet on this one...

Stalking another DUer is not needed... That' is all.

[one_voice]

48. To someone just reading through this thread...

First this:

I will not ever cease using that phrase, Prosense. Never. Your last reaction to its use cemented that forever.

Then this:

needle me with sad little emo high-schooler one-liners

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023011699#post36


pot meet kettle comes to mind.

[Rise Rebel Resist]

8. now you've asked for it

be ready for endless DU links

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Links full of strawmen...

I'm used to it.

[Cha]

20. That's not "tainted" that's an ugly fact.

Fail

[Cooley Hurd]

26. More conjecture...

Win!

[Cha]

32. Aren't you the good little greenwald soldier.

[Occulus]

37. I love it when "I can't believe it's not butter" tastes like butter!

[Cooley Hurd]

45. Aren't YOU the good little....

...Authoritarian.

[Cha]

52. Nothing Authoritarian about it. but, you knew that.

[Number23]

5. Both the Post and the Guardian walked back their initial reporting

The Post even posted a subsequent story saying the NSA revelations probably wouldn't hurt the president at all.

[Monkie]

7. do you know anything about technology?

it IS possible to set up a FTP server to give direct access to anything, across multiple machines if necessary, and correct me if im wrong, but the direct access claim was based on the PRISM slides themselves?
did you even read what you are quoting? you seem so busy trying to find excuses to go lalalala im wondering if you did?

That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.

this has allowed the companies to deny, this is NOT the same as proof? please consider the fact that if these companies are cooperating with the NSA and others, what makes you think the companies are allowed to be truthful, it would break the same laws you are so upset snowdon broke.
the guardian is reporting what the companies say, how is this the same as walked back? and even if they do correct a detail, what has that to do with the main point in all this?

obama has now admitted these programs exist.
there is bipartisan support for the fact there is over-reach
clapper has been caught out lying because of these leaks
and most recently mueller has been caught out lying.

but go ahead, keep grasping at straws, maybe you will find something that will convince you and stop the fear that seems to be driving you in your quest to deny anything is wrong.

[BenzoDia]

10. Good to see that the guardian has integrity. They had me worried for a bit.

[JaneyVee]

12. It's like night and day between what they reported and the facts.

[DesMoinesDem]

13. More lies from ProSense.

Maybe you should read the original Guardian article to see what was written. They wrote about what powers the government purports to have based on a nsa power point. They also printed that the companies denied that access. THAT IS ALL TRUE.

[ProSense]

19. More idiotic comments from morons. n/t

[Laelth]

14. If the NSA can get into the dropbox, they can get into the entire server.

They are highly, highly sophisticated.

More here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[ProSense]

17. Google claims data given to NSA via secure FTP, by hand

Google claims data given to NSA via secure FTP, by hand
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/12/google-nsa-servers-secure-ftp/2416181/

I realize that as the facts become clear, people will reject them.

The Guardian, as the OP quote shows, did walk back the claim.

[Laelth]

22. I am certain they claim that.

James Bamford, who has researched and reported on the NSA for a long time, has contacts that tell him that the NSA can get into nearly any system, as the article I cited shows.

You might want to read it when you get a chance: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

-Laelth

[ProSense]

28. The article

"James Bamford, who has researched and reported on the NSA for a long time, has contacts that tell him that the NSA can get into nearly any system, as the article I cited shows. "

...is about cyberwarfare. This is about NSA requests and how companies are providing the information.

[Occulus]

47. Some of us are unconvinced by links to birdcage liners

[ProSense]

51. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3012222

[galileoreloaded]

18. someone needs to explain a dropbox to you. nt

[Cha]

24. Someone needs to explain a political discussion board to you.

[ProSense]

25. Someone needs to explain facts to you. Still

"someone needs to explain a dropbox to you. "

....I realize that people are still fantasizing about direct access.

The CEOs of Google and Facebook denied that the government had a backdoor into their systems or that they provided the government with bulk data. Other companies identified as being part of the program denied participating in it as well.

In the wake of denials, the Post revised its story to say that instead of direct access to servers, the companies had installed special systems that stored data that NSA analysts could directly access from their desktops at Ft. Meade and elsewhere.

<...>

The New York Times then published a story describing the special equipment installed at company facilities as a kind of lockbox into which data was placed for the NSA to examine. The Times said that the Feds had discussed a plan with Google and Facebook to build a separate, secure portal, like a secure reading room for classified information, “in some instances on company servers.”

“Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said,” the Times reported.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-ftp-to-feds/

Direct access to the entire server is bullshit.

[bobduca]

54. Direct Access to all the data requested via remote scp/sftp

Oh you mean the NSA couldnt read the files on those servers they didnt care about? well that changes everything..

A meaningless distinction, but don't let the details slow you down! keep posting with such utter confidence about things you apparently know nothing about.

[galileoreloaded]

64. k now i have some time to educate.

I consulted extensively in humint for Electronic Medical Records policy about 3 years ago, who would bitch, privacy concerns, whole shebang. An eye opener was how healthcare providers (labs, imaging, pharmacy) uses electronic dropboxes.

Example:

Labcorp uses a drop box for all its client doctors. I say client doctors for a reason. Labcorp dumps all its records ALL ITS RECORDS into a server on a regular schedule.

The software terminal in your doctors iPad or whatever only looks for records with unique identifiers to that office and returns the output to the dr's office. BTW, your Dr gets a $5-7K "fee" for using that specific company BTW. fun fact.

yes, all the data is there, and it counts on the software terminal "filter" to not get it all, but it happens all the time. its a secure way to avoid corruption into the feeding server, but is inherently insecure as dropboxes aren't monitored nearly as much because its a data throughput point.

but you keep keeping on fighting the good fight. someday you should right a book. I'd buy it.

[ProSense]

73. Wow,

"Labcorp uses a drop box for all its client doctors. I say client doctors for a reason. Labcorp dumps all its records ALL ITS RECORDS into a server on a regular schedule."

...you schooled me. "Labcorp dumps"? You are still not describing a process in which the government has direct access to tap into a companies serve at will. You simply reiterated the process described here:

The CEOs of Google and Facebook denied that the government had a backdoor into their systems or that they provided the government with bulk data. Other companies identified as being part of the program denied participating in it as well.

In the wake of denials, the Post revised its story to say that instead of direct access to servers, the companies had installed special systems that stored data that NSA analysts could directly access from their desktops at Ft. Meade and elsewhere.

<...>

The New York Times then published a story describing the special equipment installed at company facilities as a kind of lockbox into which data was placed for the NSA to examine. The Times said that the Feds had discussed a plan with Google and Facebook to build a separate, secure portal, like a secure reading room for classified information, “in some instances on company servers.”

“Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said,” the Times reported.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-ftp-to-feds/

The claim that companies gave the government direct access to the entire server is bullshit. The reports were claiming that any time the Government wanted information, it simply tapped into the server. That's bullshit.

The Guardian and WaPo walked back the story for a reason.

[galileoreloaded]

80. sloppy technology reporting, yes. lack of understanding of how "sandboxing" data works

sure.

but suggesting that a reporter not understanding a system where:

-the full dataset is available
-no its not in the "original" server but a mirrored co-lo (who cares? they probably have 5 co-lo's but one that users can reach into)

is maybe ignorance, not a reason to discount a story with broad privacy concerns.

I get it, you are wayyyyyy over invested for your own reasons. But using a Clinton-esqe "the definition of is...is" argument is pretty Jr. High especially for you. Just saying.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Nope, they didn't. The original reporting was correct... from the same Guadian article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests

[div class="excerpt"]Internal NSA documents state that Prism involves "collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple".

The Guardian and Greenwald were reporting on what the documents said and they reported the service providers denials.

[ProSense]

30. That was the

Nope, they didn't. The original reporting was correct... from the same Guadian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/12/microsoft-twitter-rivals-nsa-requests

]Internal NSA documents state that Prism involves "collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple

".

The Guardian and Greenwald were reporting on what the documents said and they reported the service providers denials.

...the same thing WaPo reported after walking back, and then walking back even more its story.

Bottom line, the claim is inaccurate.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Then take it up with the NSA. And this is the organization that we are supposed to

trust to keep us from "terror". They can't even get the info correct in the own Power Point presentation.

[MjolnirTime]

58. you want Greenwald not to be a liar so damned bad. but you're going to be disappointed.

[Luminous Animal]

78. Take it up with the NSA.

[randome]

29. I think Greenwald's trip to Hong Kong was probably to ask Snowden, "What the hell?!"

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

[Whisp]

35. or to ask: Got room for me? n/t

[Major Hogwash]

87. ^Post of the Day^

That's it right there.
Snowden may defect to China, and that makes him a traitor.
That's the very definition of traitor.

If Greenwald aided and abetted Snowden, then he has real legal problems on his hands now.

[Whisp]

88. but that fake AP scandal will make that harder.

it will be: gobmint is going after another journalist! hide the kids!

Sometimes I think this is just one big play with a lot of actors and each knows their lines throughout the long performance of many acts.

[bvar22]

33. This reeks of desperation.

Are you really going to try to Poison-the-Well by quibbling over the semantic difference between "access" and "direct access"?

Would editing the word "direct" from the text, and having the sentence read,
"the NSA had access to the information stored on the servers" from Greenwald's article really change a damned thing?

This was already debunked last week when on of the usual crew breathless posted this from a minor blog Internet Blog as evidence of Greenwald "Lying".
It is nothing of the sort,
and changes NOTHING about the overall revelations of the NSA spying on Americans.
Beating this horse that died last week ain't gonna make any difference.

Pathetic clutching at nonexistent fantasy straws.

[ProSense]

34. Speaking of

"Are you really going to try to Poison-the-Well by quibbling over the semantic difference between 'access' and 'direct access'?"

...of "desperation," are you really trying to claim that fact versus fiction is a "semantic difference"?

[bobduca]

59. direct or indirect... its a semantic difference

Do you work with computers every day pushing data between data centers? no? (blue links from the wh press office don't count)
Is direct access vs indirect access to log files an issue for log analysis? Do you even have a vague notion of what is involved here?

Why would it be that direct access to the servers would be advantage for NSA? it wouldn't because with their indirect access of the logs they have what they need.

[ProSense]

60. Hey

direct or indirect... its a semantic difference

Do you work with computers every day pushing data between data centers? no? (blue links from the wh press office don't count)

Is direct access vs indirect access to log files an issue for log analysis? Do you even have a vague notion of what is involved here?

Why would it be that direct access to the servers would be advantage for NSA? it wouldn't because with their indirect access of the logs they have what they need.

...can you repeat that in English? I don't speak gibberish.

[bobduca]

62. It was english, but about Computers !

I don't see an option to translate it into obsequious toady. ( on edit obsequious is hard word to spell 1st time!)

[bvar22]

65. "translate it into "obsequious toady".

Appropriate.

[ProSense]

67. Speaking of "desperation," there you are. n/t

[bvar22]

72. "Desperate" is Making Stuff Up, and Posting it at DU.

I have never knowingly posted FALSE information at DU.

I have never fabricated FALSE quotes,
and then use these fabricated quotes to attack other members of DU.

Have YOU ever done something like that?

[ProSense]

76. Um

"Desperate" is Making Stuff Up, and Posting it at DU.

I have never knowingly posted FALSE information at DU.

I have never fabricated FALSE quotes,
and then use these fabricated quotes to attack other members of DU.

Have YOU ever done something like that?

...what the hell are you talking about?

[bvar22]

84. Gosh, Pro.

You are tap dancing faster than Gen Clapper at the Senate hearings last week.
People will begin to think you are evading answering a simple Yes or No question.

If you are going to post an OP quibbling over the semantic difference between "direct access" and "access",
and use THAT minute difference of opinion in a desperate, transparent attempt to somehow discount Greenwald's entire expose' about NSA spying,
then you shouldn't mind answering a simple Yes or No question about your credibility.

I don't have to hesitate for an instant.
I have never knowingly posted false information at DU,
and if I had done so accidentally, I would immediately retract that information.

Can you make the same claim?

[ProSense]

86. Gee,

You are tap dancing faster than Gen Clapper at the Senate hearings last week.
People will begin to think you are evading answering a simple Yes or No question.

If you are going to post an OP quibbling over the semantic difference between "direct access" and "access",
and use THAT minute difference of opinion in a desperate, transparent attempt to somehow discount Greenwald's entire expose' about NSA spying,
then you shouldn't mind answering a simple Yes or No question about your credibility.

I don't have to hesitate for an instant.
I have never knowingly posted false information at DU,
and if I had done so accidentally, I would immediately retract that information.

Can you make the same claim?

...bvar22, you seem more interested in playing little games than in discussing the issues. The fact that you think the above improves your "credibility" is to hilarious for words.


Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

[ProSense]

66. Oh my

"I don't see an option to translate it into obsequious toady"

...gibberish squared!

[ProSense]

74. No,

"I think you are lying about not understanding my post. Files on remote computers being sent to the NSA in no way makes this any better. "

...your post was gibberish, and your it's clear why you're in such denial about the fact that the Guardian walked back the story.

Computers!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3012625

[ProSense]

77. Oh, don't go away mad because your argument failed. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. So you're saying you don't know enough about computers to take part in this conversation

That's ironic, for an OP claiming that Greenwald has got technical details wrong.

[stupidicus]

63. yep

It's all part of a linguistic tango that's often performed when the cover is blown on a top-secret operation, Tien says. "The person could say 'That story is not true' and then say 'We have never done X,' pointing to the 5 percent that was in fact, inaccurate," he says. "A company could say "'We've never heard of the PRISM program.' Well, maybe the government didn't call it that. Or the company could say "'We don't allow backdoor access!' Well, maybe they allow front door access."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0609/Internet-spying-what-firms-denials-really-mean?nav=683357-csm_article-bottomRelated

[Progressive dog]

41. Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up

I know the government is illegally spying on me. One of 'em even posted pictures of my kitty with silly captions on one of them intertube places. I know it was mine cause of the colors. Must of picked the locks cause I can't find any windows or other stuff broke.
I also seen a thing on the inner tubes about how the NSA has a list of 8 millions of names. I think it was called infoe something or other and this Jones guy wrote down that Obama and those damn liberals are going to put these 8 million in camps after some disaster or other. A FEMA thing is gonna run the camps.

It's that Obama guys fault.

[randome]

92. Progressive 'dog' with a kitty? Yeah, we'll believe that. Tell us another one.

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

[Aerows]

55. well thank goodness we closed down meta

because this thread resembles it NOT AT ALL.

[OilemFirchen]

56. I know that Greenwald is a bit exorcised over journalistic malfeasance these days.

Perhaps he could write an article about this little fuckup?

[MjolnirTime]

57. The Truth was just not big enough news for Glen Greenwald. So he made it be.

[ProSense]

70. Leaker's Ties to China Probed

Leaker's Ties to China Probed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012190

[GoneFishin]

81. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how they transferred the information unless

they did it one name at a time with a warrant obtained according to the 4th amendment.

Direct access vs. a terabyte sized chunk of data makes no damned difference except to those who reek of desperation and are clawing to keep from sliding the rest of the way down the slope of lost credibility.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. Yes, that's a significant part of the question - how much data was transferred

to where the NSA or other government agencies can copy it or examine it at their leisure? The WP wrote:

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://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_1.html

if we assume that's the truth (and, remembering that James Clapper lied to Congress about this, any statement meant for public consumption by anyone should be held to be only possibly true), then that equipment, although at service provider locations, is controlled by the government. How much data is fed into it from the service providers, and what controls that - a FISA court ruling for each transfer of data, or a general 'approved process'? How big is that transfer of data - "everything that involves a user with a 51% or greater chance of being foreign", or just data that involves named userids on the service provider's system?

[ProSense]

82. Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?

Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

[Cha]

90. That's the Guardian and the WaPo walking back and Greenwald

is digging in his heels.