5 ms·

Paul Syverson (one of the authors of the Tor design paper - https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf https://svn.torproject.org/svn/p

by vippy 11y ago

Paul Syverson (one of the authors of the Tor design paper - https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-des...) actually came by the GSA about a month ago to talk about privacy. The geeks are listening.

sarciszewski 11y ago
Until they indict James Clapper for perjury and grant Snowden immunity, I refuse to assist the government in any way beyond paying taxes. http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/01/clapper-ssci/ https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/01/clapper-ssci/
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    He didn't understand the question? I find that really hard to swallow. > As a result, the Committee itself became complicit in an act of public deception. Good, let's imprison them all for perjury then, not just Clapper.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      No, they already knew the answer to the question which he fully understood, and he lied about the program because it was top secret, and they were using a public hearing to try and out the program. They already knew about the program and even so if they wanted to truly find out without breaking national security they could have held a closed door session.
      - schoen 11y ago
        I'm wondering about the sources of laws and norms about "oversight". On the one hand, Congress and committees have a subpoena power and individual members have an immunity for what they reveal on the floor. On the other hand, the Executive manages to enforce security clearance requirements against individual Congressional staff (not against the members themselves, I believe -- though they get them to follow procedures for information security that are analogous to what a regular government employee would do). And the committee members seem to have a pretty strong tradition of keeping classified information secret -- but isn't that just a tradition? Couldn't a member just decide that the public ought to know something in particular and hence reveal it? Is it a tactical decision about hoping to achieve better cooperation with witnesses and sources in the long term? (I'm also wondering where the whole concept and structure of oversight comes from -- I think historically and constitutionally it has to do with the budget power but it seems like it's developed pretty far beyond that.)
      - facetube 11y ago
        So you admit he lied to Congress and the American public, but think it was justified? What do you think would have happened had Clapper told the truth?
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > "They chose to make these statements in public that weren’t accurate," Wyden added. "They could have declined to answer the question in an open hearing. They have declined to answer questions in an open hearing before. At that hearing, he declined to answer other questions." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
        res0nat0r 11y ago
        Declining to answer is the same as admitting it exists, which he wasn't permitted to do. It is no matter anyway, the chairman knew the answer to the question before it was asked, and he just wanted to expose the program, which Clapper wasn't going to allow to happen. Just because you are able to chair a public committee doesn't mean you also have the right to expose top secret government programs you happen to not like.
- reagency 11y ago
  Paying taxes is by far the greatest submission you could do to support the regime. Taking the govertment's money to help social services is far more noble than sending the govt a check that is used to buy spies and bombs.

by vippy 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago

Until they indict James Clapper for perjury and grant Snowden immunity, I refuse to assist the government in any way beyond paying taxes. http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com

res0nat0r 11y ago
https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/01/clapper-ssci/ https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/01/clapper-ssci/
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  He didn't understand the question? I find that really hard to swallow. > As a result, the Committee itself became complicit in an act of public deception. Good, let's imprison them all for perjury then, not just Clapper.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    No, they already knew the answer to the question which he fully understood, and he lied about the program because it was top secret, and they were using a public hearing to try and out the program. They already knew about the program and even so if they wanted to truly find out without breaking national security they could have held a closed door session.
    - schoen 11y ago
      I'm wondering about the sources of laws and norms about "oversight". On the one hand, Congress and committees have a subpoena power and individual members have an immunity for what they reveal on the floor. On the other hand, the Executive manages to enforce security clearance requirements against individual Congressional staff (not against the members themselves, I believe -- though they get them to follow procedures for information security that are analogous to what a regular government employee would do). And the committee members seem to have a pretty strong tradition of keeping classified information secret -- but isn't that just a tradition? Couldn't a member just decide that the public ought to know something in particular and hence reveal it? Is it a tactical decision about hoping to achieve better cooperation with witnesses and sources in the long term? (I'm also wondering where the whole concept and structure of oversight comes from -- I think historically and constitutionally it has to do with the budget power but it seems like it's developed pretty far beyond that.)
    - facetube 11y ago
      So you admit he lied to Congress and the American public, but think it was justified? What do you think would have happened had Clapper told the truth?
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      > "They chose to make these statements in public that weren’t accurate," Wyden added. "They could have declined to answer the question in an open hearing. They have declined to answer questions in an open hearing before. At that hearing, he declined to answer other questions." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        Declining to answer is the same as admitting it exists, which he wasn't permitted to do. It is no matter anyway, the chairman knew the answer to the question before it was asked, and he just wanted to expose the program, which Clapper wasn't going to allow to happen. Just because you are able to chair a public committee doesn't mean you also have the right to expose top secret government programs you happen to not like.
reagency 11y ago
Paying taxes is by far the greatest submission you could do to support the regime. Taking the govertment's money to help social services is far more noble than sending the govt a check that is used to buy spies and bombs.