A total white wash. The NSA and all culpable will be exonerated and, but before the shit really hits the fan, some kid will fall down a well to distract folks.
Obama is PRO-spying and invading privacy. He's just upset he got caught.
President Barack Obama has quietly put together an intelligence review group to look at how to make people more comfortable with the US's snooping. In a short statement, the White House said Obama had met with the panel, made up of intelligence officials including former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell and academics like …
Agreed! ANY investigation that involves Clapper, who is KNOWN to have lied to Congress, has ZERO credibility. The ONLY way I would buy into any of this is if Clapper was first charged with perjury and then thrown in jail. Then his SUCCESSOR could help clean up the mess he left behind. With Clapper still free and in charge, I have ZERO confidence that anything will change.
@Marketing Hack 29/8 at 05:55
"You say "re-evaluate marketing" like that's a bad thing!"
It is in this instance. Marketing is a tool/skillset which is invaluable in many circumstances: but when our ruling élite are caught red-handed indulging in nefarious unconstitutional and illegal activities, to suggest re-marketing the concept so Joe Public rolls over and plays dead is a total misuse of said tool, and arrogant cynicism of the highest degree,
Remove the mandatory requirement to lie about National Security letters. That is all that is required to put things back right. There is a raft of offences already related to damaging national security and/or interfering with investigations starting with contempt of court and all the way to grand treason. There is no real legal or intelligence gathering reason (besides mandatory whitewash) to have the National Security Letter secrecy clause. Also, as long as that clause exists, it does not matter what he does - he will always be considered a liar (same as anyone having anything to do with the entire sorry and smelly affair).
Remove the mandatory requirement to lie about National Security letters. That is all that is required to put things back right.
At the vary least the FISA court would have to be abolished, and use the same legal system as everywhere else. Actually National Security Letters would have to be abolished all together. We have a system for collecting information on suspected criminals, it's called a warrant, and it has all the proper safeguards to make sure abuse it kept to a minimum that NSLs don't.
Which is, of course, why warrants don't tend to get used to spy on girlfriends, while NSA resources are.
I would not be surprised if NSA had some files on Obama and basically was in position to blackmail him. If he just let them act outside of any legal controls without being coerced into this, he's total failure (this to give him some credit as president voted in by US citizens).
So much for hope and change.
"President Barack Obama has quietly put together an intelligence review group to look at how to make people more comfortable with the US's snooping."
Simple, when I have access to Mr. Obama's personal emails, phone calls and constant location (along with every member of congress, the senate and government employee) then I'll ease up my attitude.
This will change nothing.
He doesn't want to fix the unconstitutional snooping, he wants to make people "more comfortable" with it.
The USSR might still be around if they'd figured out a way to make people "more comfortable" with standing in lines for hours to get a few rolls of toilet paper.
This is his modus operandi , he's convinced he's right, no matter what the topic, and the only two reasons people don't agree with him is because A-they just don't understand the topic, or B-they're racists.
To address A, he uses marketing, he thinks it's just a matter of 'selling' his ideas to the public.
To address B, he uses the media and those who have an irrational love of all things Obama.
Re: jon 68
Still pissed about your side getting its ass handed to it I see. Yeah he sucks but Walter Mondale Romney was the answer huh? A Mormon was going to save the day eh? How did that work out for ya? I have a hard time believing a right wing CEO type who had obvious control issues would have been much more friendly to our civil liberties.
They will be fed assorted heavily redacted stuff showing a)The US is under constant 24/7/365 planned attacks b)Only complete monitoring of everyone all the time forever can save it c)We only spy on bad people, honest.
The law professor is a token concession to the idea of an "outsider" having access.
I like mushrooms. I don't like mushroom committees.
"how the US "can employ its technical collection capabilities in a way that optimally protects our national security"
This exercise will only placate US citizens. By US law, it doesn't and won't apply to the rest of the world. Spin-doctor and PR-Agency tactics will be employed overtime to settle down the rest of us, but you'd have to be a damn idiot to not assume that it'll be business as usual.
The internal surveillance is what they're really in trouble over. All the other spying will be smoothed over in the international circle jerk called diplomacy.
Other countries are free to build businesses comparable to US offerings and would be crazy not to do so, but international surveillance is something all countries do, it's just if you get caught you've got to offer up some concessions.
You're correct of course.
What I'm concerned about, and I suspect it's so for most of us, is not that we're doing anything wrong but the fact that we're being watched--that we're under the constant threat of surveillance.
Let me give a few examples: most people when they go to the toilet do so in private: they don't want others staring at them even though the whole world partakes in the practice. Here's a few more: it's not only humans, we once had a timid cat that used to stop eating completely when I stared at it no matter how hungry it was (I used to be nagged at for teasing it and told to stop).
Last one: Google and other search engines have lowered my dependence on physical book libraries but the cost is that I now expect to be watched and my searches recorded, by Google and perhaps even NSA, GCHQ or whoever, albeit that my searches are boring and innocuous. That's very different to the traditional library where I could go and peruse any book on the shelves about any subject and no one would have a clue what I was looking at--nor would anyone have cared a damn, my library searches were essentially private and the look-up metadata vaporised the moment I put the book back on the shelf.
Being a techie with wide interests, I can search for all sorts of diverse and way-out info. That said, I'm always mindful of what I plug into search engines and just very occasionally I find myself aborting the search where the specifics of the search are too technical and too close to subjects that flag attention.
That I, as with many others these these days, find that I am self-censoring my searches truly pisses me off.
Every time I think about it I'm reminded that the terrorists have actually won. We're now a surveillance state of which Orwell would be 'proud'.
"while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties".
WTF is that supposed to mean: Your "commitment to privacy and civil liberties"! That's the Presidents job you poorly wiped asshole. It's not the mission statement of a company; those things are the foundations on which the country is founded. I'll make it easy you scrotum scab: Stop Spying On Your Own Citizens. Crisis sorted.
I like how they totally leave any mention of the Constitution out of their statements. Jackasses.
"...and reducing the risk of unauthorised disclosure"
THAT is what he is really concerned about. It invalidates all the other points, which sound reasonable enough - at the face of it. And he's essentially admitting that none of this would have been required if they didn't screw up and got caught in the first place.
They already tried that with the Britain: Remember the 'mystery' article in The Independent about the covert listening station?
Besides, I would be pretty much as OK as I can be with government surveillance by the Canadians. I actually have trust (or at least not fear) of them. I can't say the same about my own, US government.
President Barack Obama has quietly put together an intelligence review group to look at how to make people more comfortable with the US's snooping.
Yes, classic political "solution" - let's fix the impression, not the root cause. Which will fix it for the hoi polloi, but not for those who have more than a room temperature IQ.
This is actually not the only BS floating around on this topic. I heard somewhere that the German intelligence service or government got an agreement with the NSA not to be spied upon. To clarify: they got a promise from a setup doing something illegal that they would stop doing something illegal. Any opinions on the likelihood of a dishonest entity making a dishonest promise?
Yup, thought so.
Because, I'm sorry to say, they've gotten to you. Now that you've noticed their alterations you'll never be certain of what you previously read. You'll begin to second guess yourself and mistrust everyone. Check your Amazon account for Salinger books, you might not even realize you've bought them, but you have. You so have...
> President Barack Obama has quietly put together an intelligence review group to look at how to make people more comfortable with the US's snooping.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one.
The second one understanding what the actual problem is.
It seems to me that Obama fails the second test, firstly because he thinks that it is a problem of marketing and secondly because he doesn't realise that large-scale surveillance of ordinary people is the problem.
"in a way that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy"
We'll keep doing business as usual.
"while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties"
i.e. none whatsoever.
"recognising our need to maintain the public trust"
Don't piss off the voters, all 10 of those old fogeys. We need to market this better.
"and reducing the risk of unauthorised disclosure"
We'll get legislation/policies in place so we can Guantanamo any more Snowdens or Mannings.
Seriously though, it doesn't matter. Of all the people I've talked to here in the US, none of them give a shit about the NSA stuff, and the only one that has an actual opinion thinks Snowden should be swinging from a rope. Really. They have no problem with the NSA stuff.
> Seriously though, it doesn't matter. Of all the people I've talked to here in the US, none of them give a shit about the NSA stuff, and the only one that has an actual opinion thinks Snowden should be swinging from a rope. Really. They have no problem with the NSA stuff.
What do you expect? The USians think what they're told to think.
Jesus, a good proportion of them still think they are the free-est, wealthiest country in the world.
Wake up people!
"Seriously though, it doesn't matter. Of all the people I've talked to here in the US, none of them give a shit about the NSA stuff, and the only one that has an actual opinion thinks Snowden should be swinging from a rope. Really. They have no problem with the NSA stuff."
All the while believing the are in the freeist country in the world.
Wait till they try to organize and excercise that "freedom."
All the time they are doing this they are also meeting to decide what the "ground rules" (sic) will be to allow drones to fly over US soil... and not just military ones... corporate, law enforcement, delivery vehicles (need your drycleaning brought to the office?)
It will, as is predicted by many, become man-vs-machines... right after it becomes man-vs-man controlled machines.
It's becoming even more obvious how power corrupts under the guise of "but this is the definition of success". Unfortunately, this is only the maintenance of status quo. "Change" my arse.
Gene - Please talk to some people 1000 miles away in two land based directions. I have a problem with it. All the people I talk to have a problem with it. It's clearly not primarilly about protecting from an attack. If we actually had a democracy I'd be more than willing to offer service to defend it. It's about controlling the consumer and protecting them from being further educated with ideas and/or ideals that arent capitalist and support the status quo... as if *that's more democratic than religiousness, sexism or racism <sarcasm>. It's all about that special friend of the industry of military... the "spawn of satan" as it's known 'round these parts: marketing. So if we can all just remove all prejudice from a system, assign each of us a number, then we only have to worry about the relative value of the currency or resources from which we garner data... and here we are.
When more than 50% of the population actually vote for something (not 50% of that miniscule number that turns out to vote) we'll start having something that begins to represent a democracy. Until then... "protection" (not security) will just go to the highest bidders.
1. Classic [but surprisingly popular, if recent conversations with supposedly worldly people are anything to go by]:
"It's for your own safety, in order to prevent terrorists from attacking America [or insert country name]."
"We need to sacrifice things like privacy and freedom of the individual at some stage for the greater good of society."
Don't worry, it's not snooping, it's actually Snoopy. It's nothing to worry about: it's all a joke, a misunderstanding - it's just a cuddly cartoon character!
3. Cold fusion
The NSA is helping the US government identify areas in which we can improve the social and healthcare services so as to help Americans be more [insert attribute that Americans feel proud about being]. We are listening to you. We know what you want and what you expect.
We know where you live, what stuff you smoke, what taxes you haven't paid, when was the last time you drove while drunk, where your kids go to school, the names of your wife's lovers, and if you don't stop complaining about this "snooping" business, we're going to mess your life up.
I would suggest something drastic to take peoples minds of the subject a bit and to focus on something like the real issue; terrorism!
So I might suggest declaring war on somebody or something along the lines of maybe flying a couple of planes into a high profile public building and blaming..... Oh just a minute didn't somebody already do that??
Step 1: Follow all applicable laws, ignore none of them. In the event of a conflict, the highest law takes precedence, so the Constitution trumps all others.
Step 2: We're sorry Mr. President, but we couldn't get any of the alphabet soup agencies to agree to step 1.
how the US "can employ its technical collection capabilities in a way that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties
Ooo, oo, oo I know this one... you create a system where you are only allowed to capture the data of people who you actually suspect of involvement in terrorism (or to be safe, "involvement in acts likely to endanger the national security of the US of A")... and to be sure it's operated correctly, you have a judicial process before data capturing is allowed... say by having a judge issue a warrant allowing the communications interception only once he/she is satisified that you have 'reasonable grounds' for your suspicions, and therefore should be investigating that person...
Did I get it right?
Yes, you did get it right.
And by Special Order 1287, you are hereby banned from taking any public office or speaking in public in any official capacity. You will now come quietly with us as we bring you to a reeducational facility where you will be reprogrammed to be a good citizen and appreciate total surveillance for your own good.
Call me stupid, but wouldn't one way of encouraging the populace to go along with such wide-scale monitoring would be to... prove that it works?
If this bugging/spying works so well, perhaps the authorities can signal their confidence in it by relaxing airport security requirements? (Internal flights at least, even if johnny foreigner is still mistrusted).
See the hand moving.... hovering over the problem..... keep watching...... hey look! chemical weapons in syria! And hey presto when you look again at the hand the spying problem has vanished.
Glad you liked the show... have a good night everyone and dont forget to visit the gift shop on the way out.
The NSA are going to snoop on your email regardless of any legal niceties, so muddy the water a little bit. Just CC a random senator or congressman on every email you send. They're not going to read it, just treat it as spam, but the metadata will be still be collected and before long, every single US politician will be at the centre of a web of "interest".
Just CC a random senator or congressman on every email you send. They're not going to read it, just treat it as spam, but the metadata will be still be collected and before long, every single US politician will be at the centre of a web of "interest".
Now that's an interesting idea... maybe that would be one best implemented by loads of 'foreign terrorists', as the NSA systems place no controls over the capture and analysis of all of our data.
Where can we find a list of all of their email addresses... oooo can we have an email address for Obama as well? Given his stance on this, he definitely should get lots of foreign emails...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019