Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK
Surprising absolutely no one, the Guardian reports that Keith Alexander was fully briefed and supportive of the GCHQ's plan to destroy Snowden-related computers at the Guardian's offices in London.
The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.
White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as "good news".
A Compromise with the NSA
"The NSA wants to know everything we do? Fine, but only if We the People see everything the NSA does. The real problem with the current mass surveillance is asymmetry."
Now we all know that the NSA is not going to open its doors and reveal its secrets - that would be foolhardy in the extreme and seriously endanger the US and its citizens. And despite the sincerely-held views of many of our members and others elsewhere, from the outside there doesn't appear to be anything like a groundswell of dissent in the US regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA's activities.
However, perhaps by being a little more open it might begin to win back the trust of those who currently doubt that the NSA is working in their interests. What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power? What amount of spying on allies and partners would be acceptable while remembering that each time such activity is discovered it weakens the trust of the ally and can have serious repercussions for US business? Would clearly stating which terrorist plots had been thwarted by intelligence gathered, in part at least, by the NSA be enough? Or have we already passed the point of no return?
Related Stories
At least 80 percent of all audio calls are gathered and stored by the NSA, whistleblower William Binney has revealed. The former code-breaker says the spy agency's ultimate aim is no less than total population control.
"At least 80 percent of fiber-optic cables globally go via the US", Binney said. "This is no accident and allows the US to view all communication coming in. At least 80 percent of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores."
Binney has no evidence to substantiate his claims as he did not take any documents with him when he left the NSA. However, he insists the organization is untruthful about its intelligence gathering practices and their ultimate aim. He says that recent Supreme Court decisions have led him to believe the NSA won't stop until it has complete control over the population.
Edward Snowden has called on supporters at the HOPE hacking conference to develop easy-to-use technologies to subvert government surveillance programs.
Mr Snowden, who addressed conference attendees on Saturday via video link from Moscow, said he intends to devote much of his time to promoting such technologies, including ones that allow people to communicate anonymously and encrypt their messages.
"You in this room, right now, have both the means and the capability to improve the future by encoding our rights into programs and protocols by which we rely every day," he told the New York City conference, known as Hackers on Planet Earth, or HOPE. "That is what a lot of my future work is going to be involved in."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:34PM
American intelligence agencies have become a cancerous monstrosity with their malignant tendrils penetrating and enveloping everything. Like Scarface, they destroy everything they touch, which includes the American way of life.
They must be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground-up, with public oversight and accountability as part of their core. We should immediately separate all employees and assets of the intelligence services into 3 catagories:
There is no "bargaining" or "reasoning" with American the intelligence services in their current state. Trying to "reign them in" is like trying to bargain with a petulant child - you tell them not to do something, and 5 minutes later they're doing it again. You tell them not to do that thing, and then they start doing something else annoying.
Bill Binney just announced that the NSA is lying about storing domestic data, and is in fact collecting 80% of phone calls. Russell Tice admitted that there were NSA programs so secret and explosive that they had their own computer systems, and that what Snowden had access to was nothing compared to many compartmentalized things the NSA is actually doing. I wouldn't be surprised in the least that corporations were infiltrated by intelligence agents, effectively becoming arms of the government themselves, and that the internet is actually one big experiment to quantify people and manipulate their moods. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the NSA had the ability to "tailor-make" an internet experience for each user.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:59PM
Remind me what you have the 2nd amendment for? The other 3 boxes certainly haven't worked...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:49PM
FatPhil, I completely agree with you. Despite the steady stream of revelations about the NSA's vast crimes over the past year, revelation after revelation about lawlessness at the highest levels of our global society (see HSBC's laundering billions for the Mexican drug cartels and getting away with it scot-free), and even more and more articles on Soylent itself in the past two weeks, there are still timorous souls who argue that we're hyperbolic, that the problem isn't that bad, or even astonishingly, that OK even if the system is broken the best way to fix it is to do nothing. It always reminds me of Belial from Milton's Paradise lost:
I have two young children. I have enough to eat and a roof over my head. I don't fear for my life or their lives on a daily basis. I know that revolution could make all of those things cease to be true, and worse. But I was raised an American and the love for freedom and justice are bred in the bone. And beyond being received values I have come to know they are laudable and true and correct in their own right. I cannot stand by and do nothing while they're stolen away from us.
I don't know much about guns. I'm not a soldier. I don't like loud noises or explosions. Violence is not something I seek. But I will do what I can where I can to my utmost to fight these criminals who have conquered our country without firing a shot.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:41PM
I hope you posted these using Tor. No, not as a matter to keep you pseudonimity, just to increase the "noise" NSA needs to deal with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:47AM
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HfpD3mg9efQJ:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.quotations/8O3dcrvIqPc/x3lh_2fH358J%2Bbetter+the+devil+you+know+alt.quotations
"""
It is probably much older than that in various forms.
e.g. Recorded from 1586 by D. Rowland is:
"Better is evill knowne, than the good which is yet to know."
"""
Which predates even Milton. (And hoorah for usenet!)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:34PM
Carving out my own little kingdom when the revolution starts. Once the military and militarized police are gone or busy with revolutionaries, I will be the most armed, meaning i can claim all the territory i want as a warlord because anybody who challenges the sovereignty of me or my kingdom will be shot.
Oh wait, did you want the bullshit talking points we always use rather than the truth so we can get people to support our cause? TO DEFEND THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!!1 (except the 1st protects muslims, who are all nothin but violent terrorists, so we'll let its erosion slide; the 4th is a terrorist shield too, so we'll look the other way while it gets undermined; if we started enforcing the 5th it'd mean we'd have to stop the gravy train that is the drug war since it lets us seize anything we want from anybody, so we dont care about it either; plea bargins, "parallel construction", and excessive bails are too damn excellent at getting and keeping thugs off the street, so we're not too keen on the 6th through 8th either...); Actually, we dont need the rest of it, just the second, because guns and terrorists.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:12PM
If you look at the people at the top of the intelligence community that seem to stay in their positions no matter who becomes president or what political changes take place, I'm not sure the Intelligence Apparatus is not "the top".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:14PM
Well, if you look at news, it appears the second amendment is for shooting a bunch of people and then blowing your own brains out when you crack.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 12 2014, @11:07PM
Years ago, watching American news, you'd think America had an epidemic of Black kids beating up White kids because that's what briefly got a disproportionate share of airtime on American mainstream news.
The current state of mainstream American news is that of a politically-manipulated tabloid at best and entertainment at worst. American intelligence learned the hard way what difference honest news could make back in the Vietnam days. Almost exactly a year ago, the Pentagon admitted that they lost again their control of the media, this time to independent media (the Drudge Report was mentioned specifically, but Drudge is only an aggregator of independent media).
I know it's fun to make fun of Americans as being violent thugs (as an American I tend to agree with that sentiment, especially now), but gun ownership itself isn't a bad thing -- ask Switzerland. Gun violence is symptomatic of a larger problem, and unfortunately will probably increase as things get worse in America...and of course it will be blamed by scared plutocrats in government and their obedient lapdogs in the American media.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:29AM
> I know it's fun to make fun of Americans as being violent thugs but gun ownership itself isn't a bad thing -- ask Switzerland
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in america involve handguns. Switzerland's deal is about rifles which also come with 18 weeks of training and seven 3-week re-training sessions over the next 10 years. Ammunition is kept in a government arsenal, not at home with the weapon.
Furthermore, half of american gun deaths are suicides. That's roughly 14,000 people. Gun suicides are predominately an issue of opportunity, some gets really worked up and impulsively kills themselves. The time it takes to find another means of suicide is more often then not enough time to reconsider. For every 1% decrease in household gun ownership there is a 0.5-0.9% net decrease in all forms of suicide. [slate.com] No matter your position on responsible gun ownership, those numbers pretty clearly indicate a bad thing is going on.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:20AM
Are you calling this Swiss government-issued small-arm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P220
a rifle??!?!?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:32AM
Well, there's no need to follow that link, as it's clearly going to be bogus. "Cause" is a very strong word.
Imagine the scenario where those with a slightly unstable disposition, and who will be more likely suicide threats, feel a greater need to own guns. I.e. being suicidal *causes* higher gun ownership.
Such a scenario would be statistically indistinguishable from a "gun ownership actually causes higher suicide rates" scenario, and I'm pretty sure both conclusions are equally derivable from the statistics in that so-called study.
And note, I am *not* saying that gun ownership *doesn't* cause higher suicide rates by the above comment. I'm simply highlighting that oh-so-often "shows" should just read nothing stronger than "supports", and in the absence of both falsifiability and subsequent attempts at falsification provides no certainty at all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:47AM
no, its not, the lack of adequate training and responsibility is a very bad thing though. people who leave loaded weapons lying around in areas where their children play are especially bad, but my biggest pet peeve will always be muzzle control - do not point your weapon at anything you don't plan on shooting, it doesn't matter if you think its unloaded, i'm not willing to bet my life on your bad judgement; it also needs to be drilled into people that the first thing you should do any time you pick up a weapon is check the chamber, and thats just basic safety stuff.
this is why i choose to interpret the 2nd amendment to require militia participation (which is what it says), to ensure all firearms owners are adequately trained. speaking of the 2nd, i really want to propose amending it, changing it to remove the militia wording since thats the cause of so many disagreements. if militia participation has nothing to do with it, why is it mentioned? lets amend it and remove the awkward, unclear wording and make it clear. i have a feeling that the NRA and other groups dont want to do this though, because if the people didn't vote for the amendment to remove the unclear wording, militia participation would be a requirement for firearms ownership, and thats a gamble they don't want to make. and dont say "oh the supreme court already decided it" because thats just usurping authority from the people, where it belongs. it should've been decided by the people from the start; anybody who doesn't want the people deciding is scared that the result wont be what they want, and probably knows they're using a faulty interpretation and feel guilty about it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:06AM
It's what it weakly implies. The use of an ablative (others call it nominitive, but I learnt latin, so it's ablative to me) absolute construct is a rhetorical (poetic, even) device which has no place in modern day law-making.
Modern day American English does support your assertion more strongly - for example, this "authoritative" text from 1996:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080728061355/http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/001.html
But you'll notice that that is an authoritative text about *contemporary* English, and hence does not apply to #2.
For plenty of words of strong agreement with the rest of your post, see my reply to Ethanol-Fueled's.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @09:55AM
And yet despite that positivity in one context, I'm very anti second-amendment. Shock horror! I said it! It needs rewording, that's all. Nobody in their right mind can agree with a 100% literal interpretation of it. "Terrorists going about their dastardly plots" is a subset of "people", for a start. I disagree with almost all of the argumentation about it historically (OK, I'm only familiar with the stuff that's bubbled up to SCOTUS, and I've not yet caught up with the March changes yet, that will be some evening reading when I get some time), because everyone is too frightened to say "it needs rewording", and instead applies some twisted logic to squeeze their argument to fit the wording, or the interpretation of the wording to fit their argument. And this works both ways, both the pro-gun conclusions and the pro-control conclusions - all conclusions have been arrived at using, at least in part, flawed premises, and even if the conclusions are (morally) "right"[*], as a pure mathematician at heart I view the justification of the conclusion to be unsound. And that is why there's never-ending debate over this. Of course every step in one direction will be countered 10 years later by a step in the other direction - precisely because nothing is unassailable (apart from, apparently, the quirky not-modern-english wording of the amendment text itself). And before you (collectively) stew and steam and ask why do I, an outsider, think I have useful insights into this topic - it's *because* I am an outsider, I have *absolutely* no skin in the game.
(Oh, if anyone has a list of the dozen or so pre-signing revisions and rewordings, please post it. Someone posted it about a year ago, and I forgot to take a copy. It's a really enlightening insight into the worries, agendas, biases, and what-have-you of the signatories, as wordings were tweaked, and clauses were added and removed. It may have come up in the context of Heller (one of the *logically* sounder decisions, IMHO), but I can't find it at Cornell. Cheers.)
[* I am a staunch moral relativist, do not attempt to read any meaning into me making reference to something being morally right, I simply had to use those terms as those are the terms that others like to apply. Hence the quote marks, but I don't think the implications of that markup are clear enough, hence this disclaimer.]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday July 13 2014, @10:10AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14 2014, @02:03AM
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -- Oscar Wilde
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 22 2014, @04:14PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:02PM
Various agencies of the US Government has been making deals with the agencies of other governments to spy on the citizens of the US as well as others. Those acts and all resulting unjustifiable mental and physical abuses sounds like crimes against "We the People" as well as other governments against their own citizens. If they are going to accuse Snowden of treason for the sharing of such information then they should accuse themselves of it as well since they are at least to some extent aiding and abetting the other countries involved into gathering said information. Further, if any two countries are sharing information on a third and all three of them know that the involved countries also have agreements with each other then isn't like the gossips of the world getting together to talk about the party, or parties, not currently present? Including the citizens of said countries whom the assorted governments would rather control then be controlled by.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:36PM
Everybody in their mind (and their cats) knew they were destroying but a copy. Pleased by a gratuitous and inconsequential act? That's idiotic.
In the light of the above, American intelligence sounds more oxymoronic as the time passes.
My point? The NSA I can trust is the dead (as an institution) NSA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @07:01PM
On top of that. Lets just say for a second they want to prosecute him? He practically could walk out of a court room at this point now and have a very nice job on the news circuit. They gave him a get out of jail free card. Willful destruction of evidence. If I was his lawyer I would be popping 300 dollar champagne bottles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @07:54PM
I'll just leave this here...
http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2014/07/nsa-says-snowden-emails-exempt-from-public-disclosure/ [matthewkeys.net]
"releasing the records could interfere with law enforcement proceedings"
This is beyond corrupt. This is watergate level of corrupt...
(Score: 5, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:40PM
Knowing whether or not the NSA is listening in to your calls is not going to make everything "symmetrical."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:53PM
I think that rectifying asymmetry involves the American people being able to listen to the NSA's phone calls.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:31PM
> I think that rectifying asymmetry involves the American people being able to listen to the NSA's phone calls.
That is insufficient because the public has much, much more to lose.
The knowledge that everything you do and say is stashed somewhere to be called up as soon as you become a person of interest or even just adjacent to a person of interest is inherently oppressive. Just because you can look up the same thing on the people with the power doesn't stop you from self-censoring your actions.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
-- Cardinal Richelieu
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:44PM
Currently its "adjacent to a person who's adjacent to a person of interest." If you're on the same FedEx delivery route as a person of interest, or shop at the same grocery store, or use the same cell carrier, you're within 3 hops and subject to scrutiny. Basically the stash they have on anyone can be called up at any time.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:20PM
So it's OK for them to spy on me if I can spy on them? Fuck that. Y'all spy on each other to your hearts' content, but please leave me out of it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:08PM
The revelations have made it clear that whoever is up there in the 3 letter agencies, and the governmental system(s) that bind it together, will lie to you, no matter what. The revelation have, for me, destroyed any little bit of trust that was there before the revelation.
Once trust is destroyed, it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to rebuild the trust. It would take more than adding a bit of symmetry. Trust in the old has gone. Therefore, for trust to be rebuild, something new has to be instated. Something completely new without the baggage of the old.
The current situation makes me think of the film "Wag the Dog". The establishment is willing to distract and lie all the way, to keep the status quo and manipulate to assist their agenda. We need to get grip on the dog again, not following its cosmetic tail.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fatuous looser on Saturday July 12 2014, @06:38PM
The trust is gone for good & it's not coming back. If you're old & childless, like me, you might have the luxury of withdrawing gradually from this society, which has made itself sick. No smartphone, no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo. They are data collectors for the dystopia & must be jettisoned wholesale. The "online" computer will eventually have to go too, sorry to say. Was mighty fun for awhile but the whole milieu has been poisoned.
The only trustworthy federal government would be microscopic relative to what we have grown today. That way no department has too much money to do mischief like black ops, false drug wars, militarized police departments & foreign entanglements. The gov't. has to be able to audit where the spending is going or we are all sunk.
The Constitution was precious but it's already been killed off. Without an opportunity to reinvent it at some time in the future (extremely unlikely), Land of the Free is ancient history.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:59PM
I personally suspect that the entire edifice is crumbling.
It's interesting that we always refer to our systems as democracies, when they seem to far more resemble the old Roman model of a republic. Democracy traditionally had a meaning that revolved around direct participation in the affairs of whatever government a community had. There was no such thing as representation as we understand it today.
It's interesting also that the founding of the US makes no mention of the idea that it is a democracy . In fact, democracy was something the founders actually feared. It was only later when the term became appropriated by political parties that the terms democracy and republic became more or less interchangable.
I suspect what comes next is actual democracy. We have the technology to directly and easily participate in the affairs of our own municipalities and local governments. We've seen what representation actually becomes - a bipolar system where monied interests devastatingly distort the process of representing contituents, to the point where most elected representatives actually work directly in opposition to the communities they're supposed to represent.
I try to be an optimist, so I honestly believe that the deceptive practice we like to call democracy will cease. Democracy will become something more than voting between two or three well heeled, bought off douchbags every few years.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:03AM
the problem with direct democracy is that its literally mob rules. if, for example, all of the non-whites pooled all their voting power and achieved a majority over whites, they could then indiscriminately punish caucasians without recourse, institutionalizing whats often called "reverse discrimination" (though its just regular ol' discrimination). if a majority suddenly decided that all heterosexual married couples should be taxed 99% or jailed, then that would be law.
direct democracy is a terrible thing, it really is, especially on large scales. what would probably work better is a random-selection representation republic - each area's representatives are randomly chosen from the eligible, and making people ineligible needs to be difficult, otherwise if somebody is "too good" all you'd have to do is slide a baggie of coke under their door and call the cops, boom instant felon and they're no longer eligible. it defeats the purpose if people can be made ineligible so easily and fraudulently. and while i'm talking about ideal, the unbiased use of research and the scientific method should be required for forming new laws too. sadly, i'll never see anything like that in my life.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by migz on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:20PM
Hi, I live in South Africa. Having voted for the abolition of apartheid, I am now the victim of race-based legislation now labeled affirmative action. The problem of majoritarianism is a real one. I guess I will have to take my tax-paying ass to a place where my ability to be promoted does not depend on the colour of my skin.
(Score: 1) by sqrt(-1) on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:08AM
I have been wondering for some time now - have we hit the limits of representative democracy ? Common belief is that participatory democracy cannot scale (Switzerland seems to be doing well, without many problems that those outside of it are aware of). And we seem to have accepted that representative democracy is the next logical step. Perhaps it is time to look at alternatives. To your point - going to participatory democracy necessitates more decisions to be made locally, which not many (albeit, those in power) are in favor of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:50PM
"What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power?"
easy:
fusion power plant in my neighborhood.
cure to cancer.
cheap tickets to mars.
flying cars.
no more wars.
[the list goes on].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by lgsoynews on Saturday July 12 2014, @07:51PM
I disagree. Asymmetry IS a big problem. But the root of the problem is the existence of all those spying programs run amock. And the fact that the people running the show think that they are doing what is RIGHT. Which is the most frightening thing of all! Nothing worse than an unchecked self-righteous fool/nut with some authority.
Endanger the US? Why? How? Even if the NSA were 100% transparent (ie: explaining exactly the scope of each of their operations), how would it be a problem? They shouldn't have anything to hide! Now, of course, they would not make the collected data available for anyone to download... But I fail to see why an almost-complete transparency would be that bad or in any way dangerous.
You hit the sore point here. I still wonder why there have not been riots or at least massive protests about what the NSA are doing. But, knowing how most people are woefully ignorant on the topic of privacy and its implications, I'm not that surprised in fact. Sad, and afraid for the future, but not really surprised.
Nothing could convince me. The only real solution would be a complete disbanding of this agency. But of course, it can't happen (too big, too many interests involved). A complete -or almost complete- transparency should be possible. There is not real justification for this black-ops mentality. It has always encouraged abuses and corruption.
Another important thing to change would be to force them to change their attitude. Their shadowy, abusive & self-righteous (us against THEM) mentality is a big part of the problem.
I'm really afraid of that. It's too late. I have no doubt that there will be some superficial changes: lip-service paid to some of the concerns -as usual-. But the REAL problem is that in the US governement & in the NSA they still are convinced that they are the good guys & as such can't do wrong. That's what you need to change if you want things to get better. Given the crap that has been going those past decennies -especially since 9/11- I won't hold my breath.
But I'm not american, so what can I say...
Not that the situation is great in france either, there are some very similar problems and attitudes here.
Most people here too don't understand the issues, even among the programmers & highly technical people I've met, they are incredibly uninformed (and don't care). And don't get me started about all the idiots that spew the old "I've nothing to hide" line, grr.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:36PM
What on Earth makes you think that a secret police is necessary, desirable, or unavoidable? Or that the secret police have done anything to actually protect Americans outside of a small number of plutocrats? Or that they haven't caused far more and much worse problems than they ostensibly protect us from?
On the contrary; they are thugs, illegitimate usurpers who should be rounded up, tried, convicted, and sentenced to long terms behind bars. And we should make room for them by freeing all those currently held for non-violent victimless crimes -- a depressingly large portion of the current prison population.
The military has legitimate need for spying on all other militaries, as well as countries we are actually at war with. No other form of espionage is reasonable, helpful, or permissible in a free society.
All the claimed dangers the secret police are supposed to protect against are ordinary criminal matters that should be handled the same as any other: through regular police investigatory techniques with the help of specific and limited judicial warrants as appropriate. On the rare chance that a foreign country refuses to cooperate in the search for violent international criminals, that is itself grounds for war -- though sanctions and other diplomatic pressures would likely be all that's necessary.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shortscreen on Saturday July 12 2014, @11:17PM
How to restore confidence in the NSA (or certain other executive branch agencies): identify all the fucktards who took an oath to protect the constitution but thought they were too important to actually follow it. Fire the low-level facilitators, prosecute the egregious offenders, and prosecute the higher ups, most especially those who knew damn well they were breaking the law and lied and abused their authority at every turn to hide their crimes.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:33AM
I agree, this is the biggest disconnect. Asymmetric power.
If you or I commit the trivial act of not wanting to give information (encryption keys for instance) we can be jailed while the Security Apparatus is largely free from blame. Clapper should be in jail, the employees who stalked partners should be on trial, police who misuse the terrorism laws should be dismissed.
Without due process there is only oppression, but one would be naive to assume this wasn't the purpose all along. Democracy is dead, long live Democracy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @12:06AM
What we do is NONE OF THEIR GODDAMN BUSINESS! Most especially if I were an American. If I were an American and up to no good, what I do is only the business of the civilian police forces after they've gotten probable cause to have me watched. The NSA, like the CIA, is not supposed to be operating that way. The rest of the world, fine, just be careful that you don't wind up burning diplomatic capital and the trust that American industries have with everyone else while you're at it. People are already refusing to buy American networking gear thanks to the NSA's meddling, and this is threatening to Balkanise the Internet. If you Americans think that the cost of having the rest of the world distrust you and refuse to do business with you is not too high when set against the threats the NSA is supposedly protecting you against, that's your call as a country. Frankly, from where I sit, you'd be better off being more finely focused.
To restore trust is a hard thing, and what needs to happen for starters is that the people involved in gross violations of the Constitution be executed as traitors to their country, as they have arguably levied war against the United States by making a mockery of every principle it has stood for. I'd like to the heads of liars like Keith Alexander whose contempt for the Constitution seems to know no bounds roll off the guillotine, or at the very least strapped into a chair with a lethal cocktail of poisons flowing into their veins. The rule of law must be restored upon these institutions first for trust to even BEGIN to be restored.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday July 13 2014, @01:45AM
The problem is that the VAST majority of the people working for the NSA are people of integrity, and really do have our best interests at heart. I've grown up and lived in central Maryland all my life. I actually grew up with every intention to go work for them at some point (obviously, that desire evaporated after I started to understand them). Particularly these days working in government infosec, I have lots of personal friends who have worked and do work at the NSA. (Although thanks to Mr. Snowden, we know that some are a bit snarky with their PowerPoint slides...) Nearly all of them are fine, upstanding, trustworthy people. That's not the problem.
The problem is that it creates a system that attracts untrustworthy people. Absolute power attracts the corrupt and corruptible. History has taught us that giving such sweeping authority and power to unchecked agencies DOES eventually lead to abuse. And this is the point that I try to raise to my NSA friends: It's not you I'm worried about. It's J. Edgar Hoover. It's the one-off abuses against political dissidents. It's the chilling effect. It's analogous to leaving a loaded gun unsupervised on your dresser.
It's funny how many of them actually understand and agree with me. But I guess that's not the kind of dissent that's welcome inside the walls of Fort Meade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:27AM
How is being instrumental in the creation of a panopticon over the people of the United States in any way part of their best interests?! "I was only following orders," was not good enough to get Adolf Eichmann off the hook, and it shouldn't be good enough for them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:42AM
> The problem is that it creates a system that attracts untrustworthy people.
That is part of the problem, but it is far from the only problem. It isn't even necessarily the main problem.
There is a saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Absolute power doesn't just attract the corrupt - it lets simple ignorance crush the powerless.
There is an example that every american should be aware of, its called "the white man's burden" [wikipedia.org] which, summed up, is that the people in charge know what's best. Its a doctrine rooted in good intentions but history has shown the results are generally destructive because being in charge actually breeds ignorance about the lives of the people who are not in charge. And that is why concentration of power is dangerous even in the hands of the most well intentioned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:15AM
they took an oath to defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. by subverting the constitution or even simply standing idly by while its being undermined, they are breaking that oath; at worst, they are the domestic enemies that they're supposed to be defending the constitution from. clearly their word means nothing and they have zero integrity. their intentions dont matter; remember the saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and also that the ends do not justify the means.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday July 14 2014, @12:03AM
What you and the sibling posts are missing is that I was not defending the NSA nor its constituent employees and contractors. What I am saying is that, in their minds, they are doing what's right, and they are (generally) trustworthy people who are acting in good faith. Misguided, perhaps, but good faith nonetheless.
You must understand your adversary as well or better than they understand themselves. Understand the motivation; understand the rationalization. Understanding the problem well is the best way to go about fixing it.