Verizon Customer?

[johnnya24]

Obama Still Standing By His Man

If Clapper goes, what will the repercussion be ... or will he be Obama's fall guy? Fall on his sword for the good of the cause ...

As the Obama administration insists that Congress was fully informed about the National Security Agency's widespread surveillance on Americans' phone records, its intelligence chief is becoming a complication.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has now admitted he gave the "least untruthful" answer to a direct question in March about the extent of surveillance on US citizens. The admission sets up a critical test of Clapper's relationship with the congressional committees that oversee him – committees the Obama administration is relying on for its defense of the surveillance efforts.

The Obama team is expressing support for Clapper as criticism of him mounts. "The president has full faith in director Clapper and his leadership of the intelligence community," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told the Guardian on Wednesday.

At least one member of Congress is calling for Clapper's head. On his Facebook page, Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, wrote that Clapper "lied under oath" to Congress.

"It now appears clear that the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, lied under oath to Congress and the American people," Amash posted on Wednesday morning. "Members of Congress can't make informed decisions on intelligence issues when the head of the intelligence community wilfully makes false statements. Perjury is a serious crime. Mr Clapper should resign immediately."

The precise bizarre quote from Clapper:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘when are you going to … stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is … not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘No.’ ”

Note he was given advance knowledge of the question, and also given had the opportunity to revise the answer.

No = least untruthful ... as opposed to Yes being the most truthful?

Further evidence of the sheer arrogance and impunity with which these people act. They don't even try and hesitate about lying under oath. They just don't believe anyone can touch them.

... sadly, they may be right. More chance of them bunkering down, waiting for the furore to pass, then brushing it all under the carpet.

[bryanbutler]

Except that everyone is accepting that is the case, and no-one is denying it, least tof all the Obama Administration and the Intel Committees. I don't know how else I can explain that BB.

Seems to me that you, MJ and JB you are seeing what you want to see, and what best fits your worldviews and preconceptions. I can't really argue with or against that. The debate becomes as pointless and circular as an RJ religion thread

you said yourself that we don't know what the final procedure was that was adopted. it's clear the NSA had access to data. that's a bad thing in and of itself. but it does no one any good to go around claiming that it was worse than it was without knowing. i still claim they didn't have 24/7 direct access to servers. you claim they did (or do), based on a powerpoint slide. i call that fairly weak evidence.

[johnnya24]

you said yourself that we don't know what the final procedure was that was adopted. it's clear the NSA had access to data. that's a bad thing in and of itself. but it does no one any good to go around claiming that it was worse than it was without knowing. i still claim they didn't have 24/7 direct access to servers. you claim they did (or do), based on a powerpoint slide. i call that fairly weak evidence.

Again ... I don't know what I can say to reply to that. The powerpoint presentation was the evidence that shows what is going on. No-one in authority is denying it which is all the proof anyone should need. In fact we are seeing the opposite, they are just trying to justify the program and their actions. Only the tech companies who have been shown to be lying to us for a decade are denying it (Google's motto? "Don't be evil " ... ha).

If the powerpoint presentation was false, they would simply say it's false, and they would not be calling Snowden a traitor and demanding his head ... they'd be calling him a liar.

Your claim that they didn't have direct access is flying in the face of all the evidence and the responses from both sides. Seems more like denial from where I'm standing. I can empathize with you. I can see what a challenge these revelations must be to someone who believed wholeheartedly what these companies told us about the security and sanctity of our private data. All lies it turns out.

[johnnya24]

Cyberspace Hearing live

So we are supposed to give up our civil liberties so that the US government can become a massive anti-virus and anti-malware program.

The "all-of-Government" approach. The institutions of state closing up shop.

Every single on of them is talking about the "transparent", "partnership" and " active collaboration" with private industry. What could they possibly mean?

[The Feral Slasher]

Cyberspace Hearing live

How many times can they say "threats"

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country - Hermann Goering

[The Feral Slasher]

Obama Still Standing By His Man

If Clapper goes, what will the repercussion be ... or will he be Obama's fall guy? Fall on his sword for the good of the cause ...


The precise bizarre quote from Clapper:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘when are you going to … stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is … not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘No.’ ”

Note he was given advance knowledge of the question, and also given had the opportunity to revise the answer.

No = least untruthful ... as opposed to Yes being the most truthful?

Further evidence of the sheer arrogance and impunity with which these people act. They don't even try and hesitate about lying under oath. They just don't believe anyone can touch them.

... sadly, they may be right. More chance of them bunkering down, waiting for the furore to pass, then brushing it all under the carpet.

I loved this part:

Currently, the White House is standing behind Clapper. Obama "certainly believes that Clapper has been straight and direct in the answers that he's given, and has actively engaged in an effort to provide more information about the programs that have been revealed through the leak of classified information," press secretary Jay Carney said on Tuesday, calling Clapper "aggressive in providing as much information as possible to the American people".

Seriously they can't have it both ways. If it is classified he shouldn't be talking about it or I'm going to call him a traitor.

[johnnya24]

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country - Hermann Goering

It's an appropriations committee meeting, and not one of them made a statement that specifically related to appropriations. They all just made statements about threats and public and private partnerships. Talk about white wash. What was that about transparency?

Is this the first Appropriations committee that has every started with the statement "Is this enough?" ... you sure you don't want more money? Is this how the oversight committees and sub-committees work?

[JudeBaldo]

Except that everyone is accepting that is the case, and no-one is denying it, least tof all the Obama Administration and the Intel Committees. I don't know how else I can explain that BB.

Seems to me that you, MJ and JB you are seeing what you want to see, and what best fits your worldviews and preconceptions. I can't really argue with or against that. The debate becomes as pointless and circular as an RJ religion thread

BB and MJ can speak for themselves. Isn't it also quite possible that you want to see giants where there might only be windmills? First all of all, I'm in almost complete agreement with Robert Reich's position. So lets get that out of the way. My position on Snowden is TBD.

But as for my position regarding "direct" access to the servers of the most powerful Internet companies in world, that stems mostly from my understanding of their business practices. The whole idea of having a dropbox, whether true or not is so that they can appear to maintain a layer between themselves and the NSA. They are after all, a rational, profit motivated entity. Furthermore, these Internet companies have their own trade secrets and proprietary technologies they wish to closely safeguard. Providing direct access to their servers endangers their economic viability. This is not to say that these companies don't work with law enforcement agencies. In fact, they do, especially when either is threatened by foreign entities. Additionally, this isn't to say that the NSA is incapable of building a backdoor into the servers of these companies. But I want to further investigate what's really going on with access vis-a-vis the servers of these Internet companies because it pertains to the issues of privacy and the 4th Amendment that I am interested in.

[JudeBaldo]

... and the fact that PRISM means that data mining is taking place without any requests or denials?

I will gladly switch my opinions 180 degrees if the evidence is provided to support that switch. I do not have any vested interest in US politics or the Democratic Party or Obama's administration. I just interpret what I see.

When the initial PRISM claims were released, I was just as gobsmacked as BB. But I've long since passed through the denial phase on matters such as these.

Really? You surely have at least a personal interest.

[johnnya24]

Really? You surely have at least a personal interest.

That's why I said vested not personal.

I absolutely have a personal interest.

[nullnor]

and the alex jones and infowars cult just seems to keep growing.

look at who your arguing with? a cult memeber that believes everything and another one that that hates the us government and thinks the moon landing was fake.

they impeached themselves long ago.

[OaklandA's]

But as for my position regarding "direct" access to the servers of the most powerful Internet companies in world, that stems mostly from my understanding of their business practices. The whole idea of having a dropbox, whether true or not is so that they can appear to maintain a layer between themselves and the NSA. They are after all, a rational, profit motivated entity. Furthermore, these Internet companies have their own trade secrets and proprietary technologies they wish to closely safeguard. Providing direct access to their servers endangers their economic viability.

Jude is correct here. People are mis-interpreting the Powerpoint slide that says "Collection directly from servers" into meaning the NSA has direct access to the servers. The NSA has access to servers at the Tech companies, but the data they can access is what is given to them by the tech companies. That slide is clearly not a technical slide; it looks more like a marketing one, and the technical jargon is imprecise.

[johnnya24]

So as if we didn't know the phone orders (215) and the PRISM type programs (702) work together.

Telephone records and metadata:

Gen Keith Alexander wants all the data, continuously, all the time, all locations, so they can go back and mine it and find out anything about anyone should they ever need it. We just have to take their word that they will only use it for the evil doers.

He calls this a "reasonable" approach.

[bryanbutler]

Again ... I don't know what I can say to reply to that. The powerpoint presentation was the evidence that shows what is going on. No-one in authority is denying it which is all the proof anyone should need. In fact we are seeing the opposite, they are just trying to justify the program and their actions. Only the tech companies who have been shown to be lying to us for a decade are denying it (Google's motto? "Don't be evil " ... ha).

If the powerpoint presentation was false, they would simply say it's false, and they would not be calling Snowden a traitor and demanding his head ... they'd be calling him a liar.

Your claim that they didn't have direct access is flying in the face of all the evidence and the responses from both sides. Seems more like denial from where I'm standing. I can empathize with you. I can see what a challenge these revelations must be to someone who believed wholeheartedly what these companies told us about the security and sanctity of our private data. All lies it turns out.

i have already stipulated that the powerpoint slide is accepted, i'm not claiming it's false. however, your claim that that powerpoint slide directly states that the NSA has full, unmonitored, 24/7 access just makes me shake my head. if it were a full-blown system diagram showing all the steps in the process, then, sure, believe it. that slide, as with most powerpoint slides, is a summary which doesn't show any detail - certainly not enough to jump to the conclusion that there is full, direct, unmonitored, 24/7 access. and if it's true that there is any sort of "dropbox" system (however implemented), then you are flat out wrong. just admit it already, instead of grasping on to the thin thread of a powerpoint slide.

and please leave the patronizing tone at the door.

[chancellor]

The whole idea of having a dropbox, whether true or not is so that they can appear to maintain a layer between themselves and the NSA. They are after al,l a rational, profit motivated entity. Furthermore, these Internet companies have their own trade secrets and proprietary technologies they wish to closely safeguard. Providing direct access to their servers endangers their economic viability. This is not to say that these companies don't work with law enforcement agencies. In fact, they do, especially when either is threatened by foreign entities. Additionally, this isn't to say that the NSA is incapable of building a backdoor into the servers of these companies. But I want to further investigate what's really going on with access vis-a-vis the servers of these Internet companiesbecause it pertains to the issues of privacy and the 4th Amendment that I am interested in.

I agree with Jude's points here. I have no reason to disbelieve that the Internet companies would provide a dropbox and give the NSA whatever they want, and I do believe they'd want to keep them seemingly at arm's length for business reasons.

Jude's point about the NSA directly hacking into their systems is a good one. I'd hardly be surprised at this point if it were found they did.