posted June 06, 2013 09:39 PM            

The uber-secret program began in 2007, and PRISM data has grown to become a vital part of the daily intelligence briefing given to the president, say the papers, which both obtained a secret 41-slide PowerPoint described by the Guardian as an intelligence training document.
The Post reports that the slides present PRISM as the NSA's "leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports." Write Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras, "That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications."
"The PRISM program is not a dragnet, exactly," they continue. "From inside a company’s data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all." The focus is on foreign communication, but even "with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content."
The Guardian adds that it "opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants."
Both papers say the program is run with the permission of the Internet companies, though the Guardian got denials from spokespeople it contacted, including ones at Google and Apple.
http://www.newser.com/story/169130/nsa-has-access-to-servers-of-internet-firms-repo rts.html

---

This (read: this sort of thing), by the way, + the raw processing power that make this possible, is why I don't trust that the collection of genetic information/profiles will/would stay strictly kosher.

Because it wouldn't.

Ever.

Information is power.

The power to process and analyze that information is damn near omnipotence.

posted June 09, 2013 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
I wonder if the rest of the world is like this too...

---

Seems more than a few are in cahoots.

U.S. surveillance row washes up on Pacific allies' shores

By Rob Taylor and Naomi Tajitsu

CANBERRA/WELLINGTON (Reuters) - Unease over a clandestine U.S. data collection program has rippled across the Pacific to two of Washington's major allies, Australia and New Zealand, raising concerns about whether they have cooperated with secret electronic data mining

Both countries are members of the so-called ‘five eyes' collective of major Western powers collecting and sharing signals intelligence, set up in the post-war 1940s. http://news.yahoo.com/u-surveillance-row-washes-pacific-allies-shores-091836731.html[/URL]

I~m sure there is more info on the horizon.

posted June 10, 2013 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by doommlord:
I wonder if they spy on israel....more than israel spies on itself XD

---

posted June 10, 2013 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Funny how all of the Internet companies denied it as a false rumor, and then the NSA chief admitted it was true! Busted!

---

Very scary and then yesterday I had a weird thing happen with one Google e account. they would not let me use it unless I gave a phone number, so I let it go. It disappeared. Maybe, it was nothing but mow we truly are not free due to this horrible Clown in Chief.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 13, 2013 09:02 AM            

It`s being reported he gave up info that the U.S. is cyber hacking China and other countries.

posted June 13, 2013 09:13 AM            

Note the date: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

posted June 13, 2013 01:20 PM            

Published: Tuesday, 11 Jun 2013 | 4:24 PM ET

Three of the largest Internet companies called on the U.S. government to provide greater transparency on national security requests on Tuesday, as they sought to distance themselves from reports that portrayed the companies as willing partners in supplying mass data to security agencies.

In similarly worded statements released within hours on Tuesday, Google, Microsoft and Facebook all asked the U.S. government for permission to make public the number and scope of data requests each receives from security agencies.

Each of the companies, and several others, have come under scrutiny following disclosures in The Guardian and Washington Post newspapers of their role in a National Security Agency data collection program named Prism.

Google was the first to go public, releasing an open letter asking the U.S. Department of Justice Tuesday for permission to publish the total number of government requests for national security information, arguing the figures would show the company does not give the government "unfettered access" to its users' data.

"Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users' data are simply untrue," Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller that was published on Google's public policy blog Tuesday.

Google's current transparency reports—which show the number of data requests it receives from authorities—do not include requests under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Microsoft issued a similar request soon after.

"Permitting greater transparency on the aggregate volume and scope of national security requests, including FISA orders, would help the community understand and debate these important issues," Microsoft said in an emailed statement.

Leading social network Facebook followed within minutes.

"We would welcome the opportunity to provide a transparency report that allows us to share with those who use Facebook around the world a complete picture of the government requests we receive, and how we respond," said Ted Ullyot, Facebook's general counsel, in an emailed statement. "We urge the United States government to help make that possible by allowing companies to include information about the size and scope of national security requests we receive, and look forward to publishing a report that includes that information."

Although President Barack Obama and senior U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed the existence of Prism, Google and other tech firms have vigorously denied that they give government agencies direct access to their servers or that it complies with overly broad requests for user data. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100807358

posted June 14, 2013 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
Hello Obama! how you doin? hi to michelle, too!

---

posted June 14, 2013 01:31 PM            

POLITICS (WSJ)
Updated June 14, 2013, 11:21 a.m. ET

By DANNY YADRON and EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency's controversial data program, which seeks to stockpile records on all calls made in the U.S., doesn't collect information directly from T-Mobile USA and Verizon Wireless, in part because of their foreign ownership ties, people familiar with the matter said.

The blind spot for U.S. intelligence is relatively small, according to a U.S. official. Officials believe they can still capture information, or metadata, on 99% of U.S. phone traffic because nearly all calls eventually travel over networks owned by U.S. companies that work with the NSA.

Nonetheless, the decision to exclude companies with overseas ties could present future challenges for the U.S. government as long as such investors continue to play a large role in operating the country's telecom infrastructure. The nation's other two nationwide wireless carriers, AT&T Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp., have long cooperated with the government, people familiar with the matter said.

T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless don't participate in their own collection programs because of legal complications stemming, in part, from their foreign ownership. Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG owns 74% of T-Mobile. Verizon Wireless is a joint-venture of Verizon Communications Inc. with the U.K.'s Vodafone Group PLC, which owns a 45% stake.

Japan's SoftBank Corp. is pushing to complete an acquisition of Sprint by July. In order for the company to engage in other classified activities with the U.S., it is expected to create a separate U.S. subsidiary. It would also create a new board-level position of security director, set to be filled by retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The exclusion of T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless from the sprawling domestic surveillance program underscores the deep ties the U.S. telecom industry maintains with the U.S. intelligence world.

The NSA program, which requires a warrant granted by a secret court, permits the agency to record numbers, length and location of every call from the participating carriers. President Barack Obama has said that the NSA doesn't monitor conversations.

Legal, practical and political obstacles are all possible reasons why the two firms are excluded from the NSA program. But current and former U.S. officials say the likely reasons are tied to their overseas ownership. Government requests for data, through special court orders sanctioned by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are classified "top secret" and "noforn," spy-talk for "no foreign." That would prohibit some T-Mobile and Verizon owners from being aware of the programs.

Unlike Sprint and AT&T, the two wireless firms also don't perform classified work for the government. Such contracts require secure facilities that make cooperating with NSA programs simpler, people familiar with the matter said.

Much of the U.S.'s telecom backbone is owned by two companies: AT&T and Verizon Business Network Services Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Verizon Communications that it views as a separate network from its mobile business. It was the Verizon subsidiary that was named in the FISA warrant leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden to the Guardian newspaper and revealed last week.

When a T-Mobile or Verizon Wireless call is made, it often must travel over one of these networks, requiring the carrier to pay the cable owner. The information related to that transaction—such as the phone numbers involved and length of call—is recorded and can then be passed to the NSA through its existing relationships. Additionally, T-Mobile relies on other wireless companies to fill holes in its infrastructure. That shared equipment could allow the government to collect the data.

The NSA has standing court orders with AT&T and Sprint for information on all calls over their networks within, into and out of the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter.

U.S. companies, including Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile, are required to comply with warrants and court orders relating to standard criminal probes. In 2011, Verizon Wireless received 260,000 requests for customer data, according to a letter it sent last year to Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.). The company said about half were in the form of warrants or court orders.

posted June 14, 2013 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
[b]T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless Shielded from NSA Sweep

POLITICS (WSJ)
Updated June 14, 2013, 11:21 a.m. ET

By DANNY YADRON and EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency's controversial data program, which seeks to stockpile records on all calls made in the U.S., doesn't collect information directly from T-Mobile USA and Verizon Wireless, in part because of their foreign ownership ties, people familiar with the matter said.

The blind spot for U.S. intelligence is relatively small, according to a U.S. official. Officials believe they can still capture information, or metadata, on 99% of U.S. phone traffic because nearly all calls eventually travel over networks owned by U.S. companies that work with the NSA.

---

Damage control for Verizon?

all ppl everywhere, specially ally countries have the exact same thing going...

posted June 16, 2013 01:10 PM            

Why I'm Not Losing Sleep over PRISM:

It is as though all those Americans running out to buy copies of 1984 forgot that 9/11 ever happened, and I agree with Friedman, who writes, “If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: ‘Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.’ That is what I fear most.” In short, if we maintain a constant witch hunt against even the legitimate actions of our national security forces, we risk bringing about conditions that would foster real, rather than theoretical, threats to civil liberty.

So, watching friends and colleagues use Facebook and Twitter to share their fears about the government listening to our calls and reading our emails is satire that ought to be self-explanatory. Or as humorist Andy Borowitz put it: “Man with 9,000 photos on Facebook angry over government spying.” In all seriousness, I do wonder if the indignation over Prism is not only overwrought but functionally obsolete since we chose to give up privacy at least a decade ago. Moreover, if you might agree that universal distrust in “government” implies a distrust in one another, then how do we reconcile the dichotomy of social media? Why do I trust that none of my 400+ “Friends” will not use the information I share to cause me harm, and by the same token, why should I assume that my friend at the FBI will misuse someone’s information thus? To be blunt, if everyone is really worried, why don’t we see a mass abandonment of social media?

Don’t get me wrong. I assume my life is a potentially open book in the digital age, but when considering my personal level of concern vis a vis government abuse, the calculus goes something like this: take the information we already share voluntarily, which is considerable; add (if you want) the information we believe to be private; divide that total by the vast but still limited analytic capacity of intelligence services; then factor for the reality that most analysts really are looking for specific needles in the haystack; and the answer is probably such a small increase in actual surveillance of concern that I wonder if we have measurably tipped the scale away from the value of liberty. Is Prism really a major increase in substantive invasion of privacy, or is the program more like the cops and soldiers we see at the train station, who are indeed seeing all of us but by are by no means interested in all of us? Within the intelligence services, relevant and contextual analysis would have to be dramatically outpaced by the rate of data collection, and it’s a given that most of the data are meaningless, dynamic, and rapidly obsolete. Thus, if Occam’s Razor is our divining rod, then the government’s statement that the NSA is not listening to our phone calls or reading our emails, is actually the most rational conclusion. The explanation from the Obama administration really is the one that makes the most sense — that what’s being gathered is metadata for the purposes of pattern detection, which is both legally and technologically a very different animal from mining the content of a phone call or an email.

It’s true that, in theory, a government agency can spy on everyone (think China), but how effectively this translates into authoritarianism depends on factors other than the intelligence apparatus being employed. In the U.S. for instance, I tend to have faith in our love of social chaos as a humanistic buffer against authoritarian rule. We Americans have been openly cussing and spitting at one another from Day One, and our lack of a common culture is good for democratic health the same way cross breeding is good for genetic health. To have an authoritarian state requires that a substantial segment of a given population have faith in the authority, and this usually depends upon something cultural like religion, race, or tribe. And while we do have those types who would define what it means to be a “real American,” it’s worth remembering that most of us are still mutts, and this includes those inside the defense and intelligence communities, the halls of Congress, and the White House.

Blowing A Whistle

“You would think that the government was listening in to the secrets of 200 million Americans from the reaction and the hyperbole being tossed about,” wrote Simon. “And you would think that rather than a legal court order, which is an inevitable consequence of legislation that we drafted and passed, something illegal had been discovered to the government’s shame. Nope. ... The only thing new here, from a legal standpoint, is the scale on which the F.B.I. and N.S.A. are apparently attempting to cull anti-terrorism leads from that data. ... I know it’s big and scary that the government wants a database of all phone calls. And it’s scary that they’re paying attention to the Internet. And it’s scary that your cellphones have GPS installed. ... The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. ... The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised. And to that, The Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don’t know of any actual abuse.”

We do need to be constantly on guard for abuses. But the fact is, added Simon, that for at least the last two presidencies “this kind of data collection has been a baseline logic of an American anti-terrorism effort that is effectively asked to find the needles before they are planted into haystacks, to prevent even such modest, grass-rooted conspiracies as the Boston Marathon bombing before they occur.”

To be sure, secret programs, like the virtually unregulated drone attacks, can lead to real excesses that have to be checked. But here is what is also real, Simon concluded:

“Those planes really did hit those buildings. And that bomb did indeed blow up at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. And we really are in a continuing, low-intensity, high-risk conflict with a diffuse, committed and ideologically motivated enemy. And, for a moment, just imagine how much bloviating would be wafting across our political spectrum if, in the wake of an incident of domestic terrorism, an American president and his administration had failed to take full advantage of the existing telephonic data to do what is possible to find those needles in the haystacks.” (<--The gist of what I've been saying)

And, I’d add, not just bloviating. Imagine how many real restrictions to our beautiful open society we would tolerate if there were another attack on the scale of 9/11. Pardon me if I blow that whistle.

Edward Snowden We Love You
Why We Should Resist the Hero Worship

posted June 19, 2013 03:07 PM            

I see PRISM as an invasion of privacy consistent with the paranoid, all-encompassing, spying of draconian regimes of the past.

posted June 19, 2013 06:24 PM            

It just seems to me that it's easier and more convenient to run with a sort of blind outrage, rather than understand anything about the protections of the law, and the true scope of the program.

"The information we lack vastly outweighs the information we have. We should be cautious in interpreting data summaries we don’t fully understand."

posted June 19, 2013 07:50 PM            

OR do you think that any state meddlesome enough to pry into your inner sanctum of thought (within or outside or outside of a legal framework makes no difference to me, ethics trumps laws in my view) is automatically posing a kind of threat that can only escalate into violence over time?

First, Stalin's men intercepted your letters and THEN you were put in the Gulag....

posted June 20, 2013 05:26 PM            

quote:

---

OR do you think that any state meddlesome enough to pry into your inner sanctum of thought

---

You're saying that you believe a government is capable of divining your inner thoughts? That's a pretty hefty charge. Who can I call in government who will know what number I'm thinking of right now?

quote:

---

History does repeat itself; IMO, to think America is somehow just innately "above all that" is a dangerous kind of complacency.

---

"Complacency" suggests that no thought or action has been taken. We're talking about the opposite of that. It is not complacent to take a more comprehensive view. It is far more complacent to blindly adhere to a nebulous or vague piece of information.

Our justice system may not be perfect in a single instance, but it is constantly evolving to correct abuses. That is the history that has continued to repeat itself within our country. To believe that all of the people involved in law making and enforcing in our country would be against the most basic of equities where privacy is concerned seems like a leap of imagination.

I'm not tackling the subject of whether it's a matter of opinion or not, because we all deal with stupid people every day who have opinions that are misguided and wrong. I recall the neighbor that suggested my food poisoning came from onion, because he'd read that incorrect meme floating around Facebook that claimed onions are bacteria magnets. I'm sure my neighbor felt his opinion was fact, (and I spared his pride from the sting of the truth about it) but it was really a matter of opinion, and his opinion was factually wrong.

posted June 20, 2013 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I don't believe Big Brother is capable of watching everything.

---

Technologically, what does he need that he doesn't have? Honestly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You're saying that you believe a government is capable of divining your inner thoughts? That's a pretty hefty charge. Who can I call in government who will know what number I'm thinking of right now?

---

It doesn't have to be outright psychic to enter the "inner sanctum." If I tell my friend something in confidence and the government intercepts the communication, that is invasive and makes me feel violated.

Those of you who defend these interceptions make me scratch my head. Is this the post-privacy era?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
"Complacency" suggests that no thought or action has been taken. We're talking about the opposite of that. It is not complacent to take a more comprehensive view. It is far more complacent to blindly adhere to a nebulous or vague piece of information.

---

Whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Our justice system may not be perfect in a single instance, but it is constantly evolving to correct abuses.

---

Where do you see evidence of this? I see the justice system faltering as, for example, non-violent drug offenders get life imprisonment and white collar criminals responsible for thousands of people losing their homes facing no penalty at all. I see private prisons bribing judges to supply them with more inmates/workers. So I don't know where your cheery view comes from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
To believe that all of the people involved in law making and enforcing in our country would be against the most basic of equities where privacy is concerned seems like a leap of imagination.

---

Who's saying there is unanimous agreement anywhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It's just interesting that faced with the same data, people decide whether to take a negative, neutral, or positive position.

---

Like I said, privacy means a lot to some people (I am Scorpio NN, what do you expect?) and it's not that important to others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
It would be disastrous for any President to allow another big terrorist event on American soil, so how does such a President get out from under scrutiny on the practice?

---

Yeah, NSA spying prevented Newtown and the Boston marathon bombings so well.

Really one has to take a hard look at whether or not you are getting a fair trade: you're giving up privacy in exchange for protection? What are the specifics on how that protection is supposed to be supplied, via the sifting of the trillions of pieces of data being sucked up by PRISM? I'd like to know, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Hopefully, by ensuring its legality with respect to our rights as citizens. I'm certain we'll hear about it if and when there are actual abuses. Until then it just seems like a question mark.

---

posted June 21, 2013 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Technologically, what does he need that he doesn't have? Honestly.

---

Surely you know the answer to your own question here. Manpower.

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be outright psychic to enter the "inner sanctum." If I tell my friend something in confidence and the government intercepts the communication, that is invasive and makes me feel violated.

---

What would the government's reason be for looking so intensely into your life? What terrorist ties do you have that would even make your phone call worthy of listening to?

quote:

---

Those of you who defend these interceptions make me scratch my head. Is this the post-privacy era?

---

I'm not defending these interceptions. I'm saying that they aren't reasonably probable.

quote:

---

Whatever.

---

I wish that was a retort worthy of the comment.

quote:

---

Where do you see evidence of this?

---

You can't think of any laws over the years meant to correct abuses? Every safety regulation is a law designed to protect people. Gay marriage is currently in front of the Supreme Court. Even the Patriot Act we're discussing now has the intention of saving lives. If I'm cheery for observing what we all can observe, then I guess you're pessimistic for trying to make the case that the legal system isn't trying to serve justice.

quote:

---

Who's saying there is unanimous agreement anywhere?

---

I wasn't talking about a unanimous agreement. I was talking about basic human nature. In any society there will be rebels for bad as well as rebels for good. Amongst all law enforcement and law making bodies in the country I'm certain there will be some bad apples, but there will mostly be people trying to do good (and then there are some that will go out of their way to do even better).

quote:

---

Like I said, privacy means a lot to some people (I am Scorpio NN, what do you expect?) and it's not that important to others.

---

It means something to probably a majority of people. I don't know that a Scorpio NN really comes into play.

quote:

---

Yeah, NSA spying prevented Newtown and the Boston marathon bombings so well.

---

Great point. Now you understand the extent of the government "spying" on you, a non-terrorist. Now you understand how much privacy you're giving away for the sake of the U.S.'s national security.

quote:

---

What are the specifics on how that protection is supposed to be supplied, via the sifting of the trillions of pieces of data being sucked up by PRISM? I'd like to know, wouldn't you?

---

Well, it has been explained here and there. With regard to phone records, they're looking for specific phone numbers. That provides information into a possible lead. With regard to social media and searches law enforcement does use those to try to track down known criminals even outside of the FBI and NSA.

Would I be interested in knowing more about it? Sure. I've seen people on Facebook talk about "personal dossiers" the government may be collecting and so forth, but it's hard for me to see that as anything beyond speculation. I do believe that you have to become a person-of-interest before they'll start looking at you at all.

quote:

---

And I think the NSA's reaction time has proven itself to be too slow to intercept would-be terrorists anyway. After all, they said Bradley Manning was "aiding the enemy," but they were unable to prevent him from doing so. They were unable even to defend themselves against an "inside attack" by Edward Snowden. What did all their spying on him prior to his whistle-blowing do for the national security they say he seriously undermined?

---

That means that they can't look inside the thoughts of a person, so how could they have anticipated either of these leaks? Both of these men [very] likely had to pass extensive background checks in order to get the jobs in the first place. Things that might be red flags on a background check would be criminal activity, a bad credit report, a significant mishandling of something in the public sphere. Absent these kinds of things, a picture of a normal, law-abiding person is exactly who they want in those positions.

I think the public in general views whistle blowers as well-intentioned people. Being good intentioned people ourselves, I think most of us have made mistakes in an effort to serve our good intentions, so we all understand that impulse. In some ways, Snowden wasn't a whistle blower. There were articles like mockingbird found that were around long before Snowden spoke. Snowden merely provided us with another opportunity for us to debate what we think about this practice.

posted June 21, 2013 03:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Surely you know the answer to your own question here. Manpower.

---

So even if technology enables them to watch people through their X-box or webcams, listen to what's going on in their houses via their cell phones, track their whereabouts with street cameras, security cameras, credit card transactions and so on...you still think it's incorrect to say that Big Brother is pretty close to watching everything, just because it's not always seen by human eyes in real time? Okay, to me that is a trivial issue, and the judicial breakdown allowing for virtual limitless intelligence gathering itself is a problem, regardless of how the intelligence is immediately handled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
What would the government's reason be for looking so intensely into your life? What terrorist ties do you have that would even make your phone call worthy of listening to?

---

Ask yourself the same questions, they are monitoring everyone all the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I'm not defending these interceptions. I'm saying that they aren't reasonably probable.

---

You think the interceptions aren't happening? Huh?

You think Snowden is lying, you think the manhunt for him is based on him spreading mere lies?

What do YOU think is a "reasonable" guess as to the scope of their interceptions, and do you base that on your trustful attitude towards government or actual facts?

quote:

---

The US has admitted using a secret system to mine the systems of the biggest technology companies to spy on millions of people's online activity, overshadowing attempts by Barack Obama to force China to abandon its cyber-espionage program.

As concern mounted over the sweeping nature of US surveillance, the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, confirmed revelations by the Guardian that the National Security Agency uses companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple to obtain information that includes the content of emails and online files.

....

To push back against the growing scandal, Clapper also declassified aspects of a highly secretive acquisition of all Verizon's phone records first disclosed by the Guardian. Clapper took the extraordinary step late Thursday night to argue that the program operates "within the constraints of law" and "appropriately protect[s] privacy and civil liberties".

"The collection is broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications," Clapper said. Yet Clapper defended the broad, ongoing intelligence collection effort by saying that "only a small fraction" of the phone records – such as phone numbers and call – are ever scrutinized by intelligence analysts for connections to terrorism. Such scrutiny occurs according to "strict restrictions" overseen by the Justice Department and the special, secretive US surveillance court, he continued.

---

Clapper admits secret NSA surveillance program to access user data

Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAINWAY

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Now you understand the extent of the government "spying" on you, a non-terrorist. Now you understand how much privacy you're giving away for the sake of the U.S.'s national security.

---

Um, the data collection is not really debatable as far as I'm concerned. I'm shocked you are trying to argue that. My point is, the collection isn't serving the purpose they say it is for. It's not even preventing imminent attacks against the NSA itself. Which begs the question, why are they collecting and storing all this information?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I do believe that you have to become a person-of-interest before they'll start looking at you at all.

---

According to what criteria would you become a person of interest, that's the big question, and the fact that so much of the language around "enemy combatants" and "persons of interest" remains nebulous has incited quite a firestorm of protest. It gives people the impression the government prefers to keep the rules secret just so people can accidentally break the rules and get punished for it.

Many political dissidents feel that the government's persecution of whistle-blowers is only a hair's breadth away from the persecution of regular journalists and then the ordinary activists who circulate those journalists' work. It's a climate of fear for good reason, IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
That means that they can't look inside the thoughts of a person, so how could they have anticipated either of these leaks?

---

Who knows? I don't know how cryptic Snowden's initial contact to Greenwald was, I don't know the capabilities of the NSA spying. I do know that if they cannot break the encryption used by computer geeks, they aren't much further ahead with national security, which again begs the question: is it worth it to violate everyone's privacy, supposedly looking for signs of danger?

And why should I trust that that's the real reason they're gathering intelligence, anyway? Especially when there are alarming signs that we are headed towards an outright police state, complete with preventive detention?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Happy Birthday Edward Snowden.

---