Both supporters and opponents of Snowden's actions can agree on one thing

[CreekDog]

The NSA surveillance activities are so vast and involve so many people, including so many outside the government, that there is no way to keep the program secret and if the success of such a large program involving so many people requires its secrecy, then the program is fatally flawed because it is compromised by its own scale.

[Recursion]

1. How many people do you think are involved? (nt)

[bemildred]

2. I saw 850,000 "analysts", many privatized, wading through the data in the UK press.

I want that refuted or somebodies ass in a sling.

[Recursion]

3. What "data"? All of it? I call BS on that.

850,000 people do not have access to everything. Period. There may well be 850,000 people with "analyst" in their job title and a security clearance.

[bemildred]

4. Here:

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/21/brit-spies-gchq-harvest-all-un.html

Just google Tempora and you will gets lots of stuff, mostly sourced from Guardian.

I'm not going to argue about it, I don't claim to know the facts, but I read a lot, and that's what it says, and I can guarantee you it better not be true.

[Recursion]

5. UK has never had a 4th amendment or anything like it

That said, if the NSA is in fact using GCHQ to get around the domestic surveillance restrictions, that is a huge problem.

[bemildred]

7. Yes, it is different, and I don't claim to know much about that, but

the government there is not acting at all like ours here.

[rhett o rick]

8. You call BS? Maybe the figure is wrong. Maybe it's only 849,000 people. You dont know. PERIOD!!

You act as if you know for sure. Dead certainty is not a good trait and especially for a "politically liberal" person. PERIOD!!

Besides you are arguing about a number and not the point. We will have to guess at your point. You appear to think that information about our spy programs is secure. It would certainly be nice if that were true. But since Snowden expose, it is obvious that there are some major problems. I bet lots of people have access to the facts that we have spy programs. In fact Booz Allen is helping the Arab Emirates duplicate our programs. They probably have a brochure.

The breach of security by Snowden proves that our secrets are not secure. Where was his supervisor? Why arent we questioning him/her? Are you so certain that someone hasnt gotten the information that Snowden obtained and quietly provided it to other countries?

The 1% want to keep the government spying under wraps, the Corp-Media wants to keep the government spying secret, the REpublicans want to keep the spying secret, and some that post here in DU also want to persecute Snowden and distract from the illegal spying. Strange bedfellows.

[sabrina 1]

9. And since most of it is now handled by Private Security Corporations, we have no idea how much

of this 'data collection on Americans' has been outsourced.

The real reason why they are so desperate is that they have been cashing in on Terror, justifying the billions of dollars they are pouring into these Private Security Corporations by claiming it's for 'our National Security'. What is becoming more and more clear now is that it was all about money for these Private Security Corporations.

The fear of the public learning that none of this was about terror, that it was a way for them to get their hands on more tax dollars, is what is causing the desperation to hide it from the public.

See how the CEOs of these Private Security Corps walk through the revolving door in and out of our government. We have been punked, for over a decade now.

[bemildred]

11. Well yeah, there are some other issues like that too.

Quite a few, actually. Copyright, theft, privacy laws, you don't know where to start. Pigs will fly before we sell the idea that we somehow have a right to do this overseas. These guys are used to waving the magic wand: "national security", and avoiding scrutiny, but that won't work overseas.

[uponit7771]

6. I can I agree I don't like the implementation of the program, it's a waste IMHO. That's it...

....it's

It's not a scandal, nothing was covered up
No laws were broken even if I don't like it but will fight to change it through LEGAL and effective means
Snowden is sounding like a jerk using HIS OWN WORDS (not the M$M or govns)

[marions ghost]

12. Good gwad

"nothing was covered up"

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[uponit7771]

13. link and quote please

[marions ghost]

15. Been enough of those to sink the

Where have u been?

[uponit7771]

18. I don't live on DU, do you have a link and quote of this ? regards

[marions ghost]

20. You may need to do some research

if you think "nothing was covered up"

Here, read the latest--did you know about Evil Olive? I didn't:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3110981

[treestar]

10. Why are we required to agree on that?

We know little about it. The metadata on phone calls is all that we know of that is new; before that we didn't have anyone complaining that it was that vast and right now we don't have any facts about how many people are involved in it. Of course the program was secret, that was the whole basis of the outrage. We only know of it because of someone who broke the law. No one was even worried about it before: what if the government has access to a phone company's records?

There was never any worry about the NSA and what it might do during the Bush Administration.

[Chan790]

14. This I would agree with.

I live in DC. I meet people constantly that I wouldn't trust to babysit a taxidermied dog and think gossip is a sport that have clearances that make me think What the fuck? Are they even vetting these people?

I'm convinced with $10K in cash to spend on car service, chatty prostitutes and fancy dinners with which to weedle information out of people, I could acquire the nuclear launch codes. Regardless of the justification, opposition or support of Snowden...there's no reason he should have had the clearance he had. He was clearly someone who should have failed vetting based on what they knew or should have known long before he went to BAH. The problem isn't what Snowden did...it's that there are 1000 guys just like him with equally-questionable qualifications working in confidential areas of national security.

[marions ghost]

16. Yeah we just need more Bots

with no conscience at all.

[Chan790]

17. I'm not talking about his conscience or bots.

If you went back and read what I wrote...what I actually accused him of is being just like his peers, many of whom would sell state secrets for a $40 steak, some cash and an afternoon with a high-rent call-girl. Someone with substantially less conscience than you're giving him credit for.

I'm arguing he's the exact kind of conscience-less bot we already have too many of...most aren't disclosing NSA spying programs, they're gossiping about their confidential work at Madam's Organ in order to impress and fuck a Georgetown undergrad.

It's happening because we're not sufficiently vetting applicants for clearances...he embellished his qualifications and resume. That alone should have come out in even the most-perfunctory vetting and permanently-barred him.

He's not special or unique...he's par for the course and higher-profile.

[marions ghost]

19. So do some personality tests

and hire mindless trons who believe in America Uber Alles. People who will shut up no matter what they see. People who bow down to their corporate masters and lick their boots. People who couldn't care less about ethics, humanity, or the constitution. Those trons are out there. Sufficiently vet them. Weed out people who think outside the box once in awhile, people who don't like to see mass surveillance, people who don't want to be owned by a tragically compromised American corporatocracy.

If that's the America you'd like to see, we're on opposite teams.

[Chan790]

21. You scare me.

I'd gladly be on the opposite team from you since I get to be on the side of competency and reading-comprehension.

[marions ghost]

22. If you think the problem here is better "vetting"--

you may have competency and reading comprehension but you do not have wisdom.