Verizon Customer?

[Frank]

Pretty sure MJ jumped into the thread calling Snowden a traitor and surmising that his goal in the whole episode was to get a movie made about him. Hey, I guess that passes for thoughtful dialog...

Well......I'm comfortable with suggesting the specific MJ post your choosing to employ as exhibit A is a personal opinion is not less thoughtful than the recycled drivel and insults you and a couple of your caped crusader twins are tossing out there........ I also believe Snowden's actions along with his enablers are traitorous and hopefully will be dealt with accordingly.

[The Feral Slasher]

Well......I'm comfortable with suggesting the specific MJ post your choosing to employ as exhibit A is a personal opinion is not less thoughtful than the recycled drivel and insults you and a couple of your caped crusader twins are tossing out there........ I also believe Snowden's actions along with his enablers are traitorous and hopefully will be dealt with accordingly.

I have no problem with letting the legal system deal with Snowden, that is really a minor point in all this. Curious that it's ok for Clapper to lie to congress and for the American people to have no say or visibility about what the laws are. So do you think Snowden wants a movie ? Is he gay ? Does he eat too many avocadoes ? Is Greenwald too grumpy ? I hear he's an asshole. He shouldn't be a journalist if he doesn't want Peter King to throw him in jail. That's the type of crap I'm referring to, if you think that is all important than I'm sure you appreciated MJ's input.

[The Feral Slasher]

Well......I'm comfortable with suggesting the specific MJ post your choosing to employ as exhibit A is a personal opinion is not less thoughtful than the recycled drivel and insults you and a couple of your caped crusader twins are tossing out there........ I also believe Snowden's actions along with his enablers are traitorous and hopefully will be dealt with accordingly.

So would you consider Greenwald to be one of his enabler's ?

[PaleoMan]

It appears that the NSA has vaildated Snowden's story by admitting to improprieties. The only rules are that there aren't any:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

So much for the calculated assault against Snowden's credibility by the MSM.

[johnnya24]

... and most of those analysts work for private contractors. Up to 500,000 people who work for private firms with NSA contracts could have some degree of Intelligence clearance. That's astonishing. One person is too much with it comes to National Security Intelligence.

Booz Allen, the firm Snowden worked for, were contracted for almost $6bn from the NSA and other Agencies last year.

6 BILLION DOLLARS!!

Booz Allen, based in McLean, Va., provides consulting services, technology support and analysis to U.S. government agencies and departments. Last year, 98 percent of the company's $5.9 billion in revenue came from U.S. government contracts. Three-fourths of its 25,000 employees hold government security clearances. Half the employees have top secret clearances.

Won't pay for a universal health service. Will pay $6bn to a private companies to conduct top secret intelligence gather and analysis.

[chancellor]

... and most of those analysts work for private contractors. Up to 500,000 people who work for private firms with NSA contracts could have some degree of Intelligence clearance. That's astonishing. One person is too much with it comes to National Security Intelligence.

Uh, no if I understand what you're saying here. Private contractors are certainly not worse than government employees in matters of security. We all thought eliminating all private contractors in favor of direct hired government employees would improve airport security, and we've been given the ghoul known as the TSA. Abu Gharib wasn't run by contractors.

Do contractors fail? Yup. IMO, the failure is driven by inexcusable oversight in most cases.

[johnnya24]

Uh, no if I understand what you're saying here. Private contractors are certainly not worse than government employees in matters of security. We all thought eliminating all private contractors in favor of direct hired government employees would improve airport security, and we've been given the ghoul known as the TSA. Abu Gharib wasn't run by contractors.

Do contractors fail? Yup. IMO, the failure is driven by inexcusable oversight in most cases.

Private companies should have no part in top level intelligence. None. The profit motivation should be nowhere near the intelligence community. It is far too important.

For private companies, profit will always comes before national security.

There is no incentive for any of these companies for the national security situation to improve. Imagine how that can impact the reports they are delivering, even unintentionally or unconsciously. Peace is bad for this kind of private enterprise.

[Hornsby]

Uh, no if I understand what you're saying here. Private contractors are certainly not worse than government employees in matters of security. We all thought eliminating all private contractors in favor of direct hired government employees would improve airport security, and we've been given the ghoul known as the TSA. Abu Gharib wasn't run by contractors.

Do contractors fail? Yup. IMO, the failure is driven by inexcusable oversight in most cases.

One word for you Chance...Blackwater, or as it's known now, XE, oh wait, they changed it again. It's now Academi...sounds so much more serious and thoughtful, doesn't it?

You're correct about lack of oversight, but that's not likely to change anytime soon...independent contractors have a much greater chance of going rogue than a government agency, IMO.

[chancellor]

One word for you Chance...Blackwater, or as it's known now, XE, oh wait, they changed it again. It's now Academi...sounds so much more serious and thoughtful, doesn't it?

You're correct about lack of oversight, but that's not likely to change anytime soon...independent contractors have a much greater chance of going rogue than a government agency, IMO.

Agreed about Blackwater - that's exactly the oversight failure I was bringing up. But worse than the TSA without oversight in Iraq? Well, maybe. Maybe not.

[PaleoMan]

"The Espionage Act had only been used three times in its history to try government officials accused of leaking classified information — until the Obama administration came along."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/6-brave-govt-whistleblowers-charged-under-espionage-act-obamas-administration

The Espionage Act, enacted during the first World War to punish Americans who aided the enemy, had only been used three times in its history to try government officials accused of leaking classified information — until the Obama administration. Since 2009, the administration has used the act to prosecute six government officials.

[johnnya24]

More lying means more leaks. There's a simple solutions to that.

[johnnya24]

The Guardian's gone grey again ... this time Obama can breath easy ... but David Cameron will have a few awkward encounters tomorrow at the G8:

GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits

Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic.

The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week.

The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

This stuff I don't really have a problem with. This was what you expect spy agencies to be doing ... it's a shame they can't fking stick to it.

[Hornsby]

Set up internet cafes where the Brits could read the emails? Pshaw...mere amature hour. Over here in the US we intercept virtually all, if not all, email traffic that leaves the country. Now THAT'S the way to keep an eye on folks...

But interviews with more than a dozen current and former government and technology officials and outside experts show that, while Prism has attracted the recent attention, the program actually is a relatively small part of a much more expansive and intrusive eavesdropping effort.

Americans who disapprove of the government reading their emails have more to worry about from a different and larger NSA effort that snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet's backbone. That program, which has been known for years, copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/211670141.html

[johnnya24]

Edward Snowden, Live Q&A online at 11 EST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

[The Feral Slasher]

This interview with 3 NSA veterans touches on a lots of topics, particularly the way whistleblowers are treated.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand.

Jesselyn Radack: Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle.

-----------------------------------------------------

Q: Is there a way to collect this data that is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

Binney: Two basic principles you have to use. ... One is what I call the two-degree principle. If you have a terrorist talking to somebody in the United States — that's the first degree away from the terrorist. And that could apply to any country in the world. And then the second degree would be who that person in the United States talked to. So that becomes your zone of suspicion.

And the other one (principle) is you watch all the jihadi sites on the Web and who's visiting those jihadi sites, who has an interest in the philosophy being expressed there. And then you add those to your zone of suspicion.

Everybody else is innocent — I mean, you know, of terrorism, anyway.

Wiebe: Until they're somehow connected to this activity.

Binney: You pull in all the contents involving (that) zone of suspicion and you throw all the rest of it away. You can keep the attributes of all the communicants in the other parts of the world, the rest of the 7 billion people, right? And you can then encrypt it so that nobody can interrogate that base randomly.

That's the way of preventing this kind of random access by a contractor or by the FBI or any other DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or any other department of government. They couldn't go in and find anybody. You couldn't target your next-door neighbor. If you went in with his attributes, they're encrypted. ... So unless they are in the zone of suspicion, you won't see any content on anybody and you won't see any attributes in the clear. ...

It's all within our capabilities.

Drake: It's been within our capabilities for well over 12 years.

Wiebe: Bill and I worked on a government contract for a contractor not too far from here. And when we showed him the concept of how this privacy mechanism that Bill just described to you — the two degrees, the encryption and hiding of identities of innocent people — he said, "Nobody cares about that." I said, "What do you mean?"

This man was in a position to know a lot of government people in the contracting and buying of capabilities. He said. "Nobody cares about that."