I think they have always had the ability to access my data, I have never thought otherwise. A thing as big and powerful as our government has always had it's ways.
Sen. Feinstein calls Snowden's NSA leaks an 'act of treason'
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
I think they have always had the ability to access my data, I have never thought otherwise. A thing as big and powerful as our government has always had it's ways.
Bull. During the interim they've added a bit to it, including 'bits and pieces' requested by our current CIC, and you know it. Quit dismissing his, or the current Congress and Senate's, actions as "Bush did it too!" This is worse than it was during the first iteration, by a long mile. Nor do I believe that even with the tiny bits that are apparently "unclear" to you, that you cannot come up with an opinion on whether this is still worse than listening into phone conversations between a citizen and somebody in another nation then getting a warrant later.
I don't believe you are that disingenuous.
What you are not interested in, is in participating honestly in the discussion.
What you and I first agreed on "Warrantless wiretapping is bad."
What you can't figure out to be worse: Every call you make is, at the very least, reported as to the recipient and duration of the call along with metadata from the cell company as to where the call took place, and according to Snowden they are all taped and accessible when they feel they "need" to access them.
One big DVR, with all our calls, in the Utah desert at a facility they created with HUGE databases that can actually store at least another half-century of calls...
Now, tell me again, what is "the same thing"... but I know that I'd prefer to still be agreeing with you that warrantless wiretapping where one side of a conversation is a US citizen is bad rather than hearing you try to explain how it is the "same thing" and pretending you can't offer an opinion without total and complete clarity.
If even the "best case" scenario is true, then at the very least every call you make, its length, and where it was made from are recorded into a database, along with any communication over the internet at all, all while the warrantless wiretapping we originally agreed was "bad" is still happening.
A couple of points. First, the Verizon court order was entered under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which hasn't been modified since 2005. I can assure you that the Bush Administration took advantage of this provision of the Patriot Act. It's just a shame that no one leaked any Court orders when Bush was President. I guess we were all too busy being concerned about the illegal and warrantless wiretapping to access the content of communications of American citizens to bother with the legal and less invasive stuff.
Second, "according to Snowden" is doing a lot of work there. PRISM, what Snowden was talking about, is an different thing from the Verizon thing. You just got done saying that PRISM was internet only yet here you are saying it includes taped cell phone calls. Which is it? (Also, too, as a practical matter it would be impossible for the govenment to tape every single cell phone call, so if Snowden said that (which I doubt), I'd really question his veracity. It cannot possibly be true).
Third, what PRISM actually does is not at all clear as I've tried to explain to you. Snowden claims one thing, everyone else says another, and the publicly released slides from the Power Point presentation don't conclusively support one story or the other.
The facility you are referring to is still under construction.
It's all the same thing. PRISM was started in 2007 as the follow on from the TSP which was the follow on from the TIA and OIA. The difference now is that its all been approved by Congress and the FISA Court (whereas Bush did it illegally under the TSP) and more companies are participating. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is what it has been since 2005.
You can try to make partisan hay about this being somehow different and worse, but it isn't. It's the same and as bad as it ever wa
The bold is exactly the thing that is unclear. You should probably read a bit more about it rather than pretending that Snowden's claims are self-evidently true. They may not be. I don't know.
And, also, all of this stuff is done pursuant to court orders. They don't need to do the warrantless wiretapping anymore. They can just get warrants.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You are an odd cove and mighty baffling to boot!!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I would said, given your previous posting record, that you would be dead against what is going with the NSA and PRISM.
Last edited:
Oh, lest there be any confusion on that point, I am dead against it. I'm just trying to get a better sense of what the government is actually doing, because there is conflicting reporting on what it's doing (particularly on PRISM, which is being conflated with the separate, but related phone metadata collection).
I'm also somewhat exhasuted by Damo's continued insistance the government doing the same things now that it did in 2008 is "worse" because he really really hates Obama and feels guilty about his support for Bush.
Again, as I stated before, if even the "best case" is true, it is still worse than what we originally agreed was "bad". Whether it is because of the "time and scope" or not, it is worse than what we originally agreed was "bad" back in the day. That you can't even get yourself to just own up to that and are willing to try to excuse it as "more of the same" makes me believe that to you too, like Howey, the jersey of whomever is in the WH is all that matters.
"More of" a bad thing is worse than "less of" a bad thing, DH. It always will be. Even if your dismissive "more of the same" were all that were true, it is still worse than before.
You can respond to my actual substantive posts and explain where you think I'm wrong if you want, but I'm not going to respond to the above horseshit.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -Mark Twain
Your "substantive" posts?
I quoted and responded to the posts you actually made. That you "forced" me to respond to horse dung doesn't change that I responded to your post. That you get upset and call your own inane "yer partisan" posts substantive gives me hope that you have some shame and a capability to understand that even if your fondest hope is true, what is happening now, with the blessings of the people in your party as well as mine, is worse than what we originally agreed was "bad".
Now that we can get there by following a simple Dora the Explorer straight line map, I then responded to your "substantive" posts by simply pointing out that you really had only half of the story, the internet portion. And that already is worse than what we thought back in the day was "bad". That at the very least, and this isn't only from Snowden as the President has said it; who you call, the duration of the call, and where you are when you call from a cell phone are recorded, if all you believe is what they will admit to at a presser and believe it is all of the truth then that is what is actually happening, hand in hand with the same old "warrantless wiretapping" that we agreed long ago was bad. Not the calls of suspected terrorists, shoot not even "suspected" anything other than a strong suspicion you are alive, gives them the power to track who you call and how long you talk to them...
So, can you stop desperately trying to find some way to be the good little Obama Apologist and actually talk about what is happening, since he himself admits to at least this much, or has it become such a habit to defend at all costs that even when the President actually says something is happening you still have to pretend that you just don't know enough to put forward a slice of opinion and that everybody else is just "partisan". If only the information that isn't "unclear" about PRISM and the phone calls are true, yes, we already are at "worse" than before.
And you damn well know that I would be saying this, as I did back with George W. Bush, regardless of what jersey the President wore.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
unless you're making up your own facts, neither did the government......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I wonder, can I have cloud access to that storage.....that could save a bundle......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I find it amusing that some people still think that actually happened.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
shucks....they would only need about six trillion terabytes.....one trillion for pizza carryout orders alone......
tekkychick
New member
So as I've been pondering this and hearing more, I have to say - based on what we know now - I am against what Snowden did. And here's why.
First, he was the IT person. Now in the old days - and I assume it's the same today - the ethics were that, in return for enhanced access, the IT people didn't snoop. Or if they did, they didn't talk about what they found. The company trusts you with their data; you uphold that trust.
He was a contractor IT person. He had no idea what this data really means or what the program was or whether it was authorized or anything. He also had no idea what leaking it would do. When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush administration - I was pissed. This guy is leaking with no idea of the consequences.
He also did nothing else BUT leak. To my mind, a true "whistleblower" not only understands the consequences of the stuff they are leaking - they also have tried, internally, to get the company or organization to change its ways. He didn't talk to his supervisor at NSA. He didn't talk to his supervisor at Booz-Allen. He didn't talk to his Senator or Congressional representative. He took data - which he had no idea how it would impact the country - and took it straight to the newspaper.
At least the Washington Post showed some ethics - they checked it out first with the NSA; waited two weeks to publish it; and only did 4 of the 14 slides. (Snowden was pushing them to publish in 72 hours and to do all the slides - http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-the-washington-post-whistleblowers/ )
So in my mind this guy isn't an hero. He's perhaps not a traitor, although leaking state secrets usually qualifies to be a traitor. He is an IT guy with no sense of ethics. And he is most definitely a twit.
This doesn't mean I agree with PRISM or the collection of the phone records. But do you know what? *I* don't know enough about the purposes of the programs either. But this wasn't a program hatched up in a dark alley and run by a few rogue CIA agents. We spent billions of dollars on this program. It was run through official channels Elected representatives on both sides of the aisle knew about it. The programs were under some kind of court oversight.
This idiot young man decided he knew better than the whole NSA what should be done with the programs. With no double-checking, with no knowledge of the background, with no understanding ... he dumped it out in public. Twit. Definitely a twit.
First, he was the IT person. Now in the old days - and I assume it's the same today - the ethics were that, in return for enhanced access, the IT people didn't snoop. Or if they did, they didn't talk about what they found. The company trusts you with their data; you uphold that trust.
He was a contractor IT person. He had no idea what this data really means or what the program was or whether it was authorized or anything. He also had no idea what leaking it would do. When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush administration - I was pissed. This guy is leaking with no idea of the consequences.
He also did nothing else BUT leak. To my mind, a true "whistleblower" not only understands the consequences of the stuff they are leaking - they also have tried, internally, to get the company or organization to change its ways. He didn't talk to his supervisor at NSA. He didn't talk to his supervisor at Booz-Allen. He didn't talk to his Senator or Congressional representative. He took data - which he had no idea how it would impact the country - and took it straight to the newspaper.
At least the Washington Post showed some ethics - they checked it out first with the NSA; waited two weeks to publish it; and only did 4 of the 14 slides. (Snowden was pushing them to publish in 72 hours and to do all the slides - http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-the-washington-post-whistleblowers/ )
So in my mind this guy isn't an hero. He's perhaps not a traitor, although leaking state secrets usually qualifies to be a traitor. He is an IT guy with no sense of ethics. And he is most definitely a twit.
This doesn't mean I agree with PRISM or the collection of the phone records. But do you know what? *I* don't know enough about the purposes of the programs either. But this wasn't a program hatched up in a dark alley and run by a few rogue CIA agents. We spent billions of dollars on this program. It was run through official channels Elected representatives on both sides of the aisle knew about it. The programs were under some kind of court oversight.
This idiot young man decided he knew better than the whole NSA what should be done with the programs. With no double-checking, with no knowledge of the background, with no understanding ... he dumped it out in public. Twit. Definitely a twit.