20 ms·

The Criminal N.S.A.

552 points by guelo 13y ago

trevelyan 13y ago
The public is not acquiescing in surveillance. It is simply rare for the mainstream media to report on this critically (or at all -- note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times), an appalling development given the extension of this surveillance apparatus to targeting journalists. With that in mind, it is worth noting that the two authors of this piece are NOT professional journalists, although what they report could and should easily have been put together by actual staffers.
- tkahn6 13y ago
  > - note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times 1. As of right now, the story is linked to on the front page in the Opinion box since this is an opinion piece and not a news piece. If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. 2. The story of the NSA surveillance was front page on the NY Times when it broke and for about a week or two after. 3. The Mainstream media has been reporting on this consistently, both on the Snowden drama and the actual substance of his leaks. It's sad to see both longer-time and newer users running around with this chicken little reddit-level bullshit. The mods seem to be complicit in it so oh well. The upside is that I waste less time here.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Thank you for that interjection of sanity.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are sympathetic in tone and focus to the administration. Is anyone really going to characterize them as hard-hitting investigative reporting on the substance of the allegations? There is no lack of investigative reporting that could be done on this story (most obvious question: did Congress intend to authorize warrantless dragnet surveillance), some of which is happening elsewhere, making it hardly a paranoid leap to point out that NYT coverage has been muted and uncritical at best.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Well, how dare they not put him on the front page as often as you would like. And I suppose because your analysis stops on June 20 I'm supposed to forget any reporting that they did on him in the weeks prior.
        trevelyan 13y ago
        I would personally prefer they stopped feeding the Snowden soap opera and focused instead on meaningful policy and governance questions, such as: * did Congress intend to authorize warrantless surveillance when it passed the legislation being used by the NSA to justify its current policies and wrap them in a cloak of legality? * which of the leaked materials w/r/t NSA surveillance can and should be considered highly-classified? What is the national security justification for keeping these materials out of public view? * if Snowden was in a position of administrative privilege that gave him access to highly-sensitive materials without reasonable oversight, why was he employed by a private-sector company? What are the implications of this for FOIA requests, administrative costs, government transparency and checks against potential abuse? (seriously... what on earth is B.A. doing in this story?) * do the stories released by the NSA to justify warrantless surveillance really justify the actions taken in the light of the law? i.e. is stopping a cab driver from sending 8k to Somalia really the sort of urgent and time-sensitive national security concern that should preclude the government from spending a day or two to get a targeted warrant? Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what a reasonable person would conclude on these questions, it seems self-evident that these questions are much more important than most of what the NYT has treated as front-page news on the subject matter.
      - tkahn6 13y ago
        If you want 'critical' reporting, I highly recommend Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck. Pick whichever flavor you want.
  - jacoblyles 13y ago
    The Times puts plenty of opinion on the front page. It just does so obliquely. I can't forget their headline for the IRS scandal: "I.R.S. Scandal Gives G.O.P. Issue to Seize On", as if the politicization of the government's taxing power were only regretful to the extent that it might slow down the Democratic Party's policy agenda.
    - tkahn6 13y ago
      As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved. C'mon man.
      - jacoblyles 13y ago
        Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?
        tkahn6 13y ago
        No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.
        jacoblyles 13y ago
        That's a headline from Sunday May 12th, which I believe is the first story on it in the Times. The information first came to light at a press conference by Lois Lerner on May 10th and I don't see another NY Times article sandwiched between the dates. The headline did not go unremarked in conservative media[1]. There is no doubt in my mind which team the NY Times is batting for. [1]http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-nyt-headline-on-irs-scandal-gives-gop-an-issue-to-seize-on/ http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-n...
        13y ago
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism. > chicken little reddit-level bullshit It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on. Perhaps cutting people some slack until 24/7 surveillance becomes the New Normal might be in order?
    - hobs 13y ago
      In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc. There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.
      - ferdo 13y ago
        > Fox News != Anyone with credibility. There are very few mainstream sources that have a shred of credibility left. I see little qualitative difference between Fox and CNN, for instance. They only differ in style and delivery but their main entrees are still lies and rubberstamped government press releases.
      - Volpe 13y ago
        Yes, but even the choice of facts expresses an opinion. I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month. All fact, no opinion?
        tkahn6 13y ago
        He anticipated this point and explicitly acknowledged there are levels of opinion.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Just because they're all grey doesn't mean there aren't significant differences in the shade.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  I stopped reading after the first sentence. THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Apparently this op Ed contribution hasn't been pyong attention for the last 20 years (or actually hasn't cared until the latest bandwagon to jump on rolled into town) but all of this in the news has been in place way before Obama and extended by Bush like crazy after 9/11. Check CALEA signed by Clinton in 94 requiring telecoms to spy on their customers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L...
- chaz 13y ago
  > note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times NYT front page on June 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 -- five out of the past 7 days. Plus a front page mention on June 23. I know you don't mean your comment literally, but I think there's been a lot of coverage. There's some criticism that the stories of late tend to focus more on Snowden, but his part of the story is the only thing that's had material developments in the past week. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.p... (et al)
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    Thanks for the check. I was actually looking at the online version, and checking the prominent stories. I agree that the where-is-Snowden story is getting some coverage, but even there the selection and tone of the materials support the administration. Does the lack of new information from the US government mean that there are no new "material developments" in the story? Considering the damaging revelations in these leaks (misleading congressional testimony? private contractors with access to dragnet surveillance systems?), it is not plausible to claim there is no investigative journalism to do. That it has taken two outsiders to write a piece sensibly critical of the administration and unconstitutionality of data-vacuuming is utterly damning.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
Is it possible for Americans to file a class action suit over a top secret government surveillance program? I feel like we all have standing at least.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The courts would rightly reject it as a political matter.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    When I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
      - andrewljohnson 13y ago
        How are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question? I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4. If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.
e3pi 13y ago
"...The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law." "We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal." Fatal bug throughout the whole `stack'? Are these lawyered authors actually telling us the rudder is gone and the entire hull rotten?
- mpyne 13y ago
  The whole thing as implemented now definitely needs better accountability and oversight to call it a program that befits the public service. But I don't know about the rudder being gone (or what you mean by that exactly).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - e3pi 13y ago
    Well gudgeon-ed and pintel-ed teak rudder: Respect for civilization's eye's covered verdigris bronze lady holding up scales.
mpyne 13y ago
"Let’s turn to Prism: the streamlined, electronic seizure of communications from Internet companies." OK, good so far, PRISM does indeed streamline and automate the process... "... Prism is further proof that the agency is collecting vast amounts of e-mails and other messages — including communications to, from and between Americans." ??? PRISM was the one thing I stopped being worried about as soon as I figured out what it was. The government has always been able to subpoena a third-party for records pursuant to an actual investigation, and even Google seemed to be satisfied with the idea that specific PRISM requests have been legal (even if they forced NSA to get a real warrant first). Other things may indicate NSA is hoovering emails like a Mob boss hoovering blow but PRISM isn't one of them. PRISM has to be turned on to acquire data, unlike other NSA SIGINT this one's not actually magic. I'm kind of disappointed by the opinion piece because if they only took efforts to be factual they would probably be able to make a much more persuasive case (e.g. by bringing up Carnivore or 641A-style data interception instead of a system that queries specific individual users one-at-a-time).
- dram 13y ago
  So from Wikipedia, Boundless Informant uses 504 separate DNR (electronic surveillance program records) and DNI (metadata) collection sources known as SIGADs. In a 30-day period, they collected 3 billion data elements from within the US from these SIGADS. And the PRISM document says it is the "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports". Doesn't that mean that PRISM is the majority source of those 3 billion data elements? And why did Page, Zuckerberg and Apple say they never heard of PRISM? Perhaps I am wrong but it's somewhat confusing!
  - mpyne 13y ago
    If 2.999 billion elements never make it into those analytic reports then it may very well be possible that of the remainder that manual systems like PRISM end up being the majority source. As you note, there are hundreds of SIGADs, of which PRISM is just one. > And why did Page, Zuckerberg and Apple say they never heard of PRISM? Because PRISM is the name for the NSA end of that service and associated data tools. The company end of that service would be whatever they called the system they use for FISA warrant/NSL compliance.
whiddershins 13y ago
Well said.
logn 13y ago
It's criminal and people should go to prison. When we talk about locking people up forever because they're a threat to society, I can't think of a better example than this.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Take a gander at David Addington: http://froomkin.tumblr.com/post/54026897885 http://froomkin.tumblr.com/post/54026897885
mtgx 13y ago
Here's the thing. If file-sharers have the right to anonymous speech, what does that say about everyone being spied upon by the NSA? http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous-speech-court-hears-130627/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous... I'm starting to think more and more that beyond this being a US Constitution issue, it's a human rights issue, and we should fight to ban all such spying internationally. Yes, I realize how hard that that may be to achieve, and how long it would probably take, but we need to do it because it's the right thing for humanity, not because it's easy or hard, just like everyone is fighting for gay marriage all over the world, and have fought for free speech, and so on.
- h0w412d 13y ago
  How about we popularize encryption, and take the choice out of the hands of corporations and governments?
  - tommi 13y ago
    How do we do that when people don't care about privacy?
    - beefsack 13y ago
      If there's any time to do it, it would be now while it's such a big issue.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      By making the solutions so simple that they pick them because they don't care either way, but make it slightly more annoying for people still on non-end-to-end crypto services to communicate with those who are. If there's enough people who care, then hopefully network effects would slowly take care of the rest.
    - tripzilch 13y ago
      > How do we do that when people don't care about privacy? the same way governments / politicians / mass media do it: you make them care. it's a sad fact of humanity that most people will care about whatever they are told to care about, or rather, whatever their peers are perceived to care about. right now there is a window of opportunity for privacy to stand in the public eye's spotlight, fighting a (very real) fight against the encroaching forces of totalitarianism. you ask what to do. how about anything you see an opportunity to. educate your friends about privacy, about what is going on, about what the dangers of surveillance are[0], or perhaps educate yourself about using GPG, get the hang of it together with a few other techie friends, so that you can explain it to more people (because it's really not that complex, if someone walks you through it), if you have a brilliant idea write some code, etc. and also, delete Facebook? [0] http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...
fragsworth 13y ago
The blowback from this mess could very soon be more severe than everyone might think. I expect several foreign countries to ban American tech company operations in their jurisdictions. The bans in the foreign nations could easily stem from foreign business owners pressuring their politicians to ban American-operated companies under the guise of national security, privacy, and anti-American-power-mongering, but their real motivation will be to gain market share. Their politicians can easily make it into a win-win for everyone involved - the politicians (campaign contributions), the local businesses (market share), and the population, who wouldn't mind seeing a global anti-America movement.
- rustynails 13y ago
  Thou doth jest. Most western countries are lap-dogs to the US, and almost certainly exchange spying data with the US so that they don't breach their own privacy laws. This will have little impact with US allies.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Even if the intelligence governmental agencies exchange that in the US (and many certainly do), that doesn't mean they can't impose rules on businesses (expanding the privacy laws you mention) and other state entities to avoid using US tech services. Sure it'd be hypocritical, but when did that stop anyone?
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Especially because there's been past concerns about US intelligence passing sensitive data to US companies to help them win contracts. There's bound to be a lot of high level execs at European companies whispering in their governments ears at the moment about how this is putting them at a substantial disadvantage, whether or not they believe it to be true.
- D_Alex 13y ago
  > I expect several foreign countries to ban American tech company operations That will probably not happen. But what will happen, and have a small but ultimately significant effect, is that American companies will lose some contracts, by the narrowest of margins in a decision... contracts they would otherwise have won by a narrowest of margins... due to the fallout from the NSA surveillance scandal.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Yes, it is time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: Both criminal - and a betrayal of the people of the United States of America.
janlukacs 13y ago
Please talk to people who lived under oppresive regimes (former Eastern Block) and see for yourself what it meant to live in a society of paranoia, snitching, informants, secret service, fake patriotism etc.. embedded IN every aspect of social life (work, neighbours EVEN families). Americans can't grasp this because they never experienced it, that's why you need to talk to people who did, otherwise your children will be sorry.
tehwalrus 13y ago
This post makes a similar argument to my blog post[1] from earlier this week - that PRISM is simply criminal - although my analysis focused on why this made Snowden immune to charges as a whistleblower. I agree that it's time to take the US government to task over this. How does that happen? A civil suit, a private prosecution? [1] http://joe-jordan.co.uk/blog/2013/06/tinker-tailor-whistleblower-spy-Snowden-PRISM/ http://joe-jordan.co.uk/blog/2013/06/tinker-tailor-whistlebl... (hacker news comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5945185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5945185 )

552 points by guelo 13y ago

The public is not acquiescing in surveillance. It is simply rare for the mainstream media to report on this critically (or at all -- note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times), an appalling development given the extension of this surveillance apparatus to targeting journalists. With that in mind, it is worth noting that the two authors of this piece are NOT professional journalists, although what they report could and should easily have been put together by actual staffers.

tkahn6 13y ago
> - note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times 1. As of right now, the story is linked to on the front page in the Opinion box since this is an opinion piece and not a news piece. If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. 2. The story of the NSA surveillance was front page on the NY Times when it broke and for about a week or two after. 3. The Mainstream media has been reporting on this consistently, both on the Snowden drama and the actual substance of his leaks. It's sad to see both longer-time and newer users running around with this chicken little reddit-level bullshit. The mods seem to be complicit in it so oh well. The upside is that I waste less time here.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Thank you for that interjection of sanity.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are sympathetic in tone and focus to the administration. Is anyone really going to characterize them as hard-hitting investigative reporting on the substance of the allegations? There is no lack of investigative reporting that could be done on this story (most obvious question: did Congress intend to authorize warrantless dragnet surveillance), some of which is happening elsewhere, making it hardly a paranoid leap to point out that NYT coverage has been muted and uncritical at best.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Well, how dare they not put him on the front page as often as you would like. And I suppose because your analysis stops on June 20 I'm supposed to forget any reporting that they did on him in the weeks prior.
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        I would personally prefer they stopped feeding the Snowden soap opera and focused instead on meaningful policy and governance questions, such as: * did Congress intend to authorize warrantless surveillance when it passed the legislation being used by the NSA to justify its current policies and wrap them in a cloak of legality? * which of the leaked materials w/r/t NSA surveillance can and should be considered highly-classified? What is the national security justification for keeping these materials out of public view? * if Snowden was in a position of administrative privilege that gave him access to highly-sensitive materials without reasonable oversight, why was he employed by a private-sector company? What are the implications of this for FOIA requests, administrative costs, government transparency and checks against potential abuse? (seriously... what on earth is B.A. doing in this story?) * do the stories released by the NSA to justify warrantless surveillance really justify the actions taken in the light of the law? i.e. is stopping a cab driver from sending 8k to Somalia really the sort of urgent and time-sensitive national security concern that should preclude the government from spending a day or two to get a targeted warrant? Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what a reasonable person would conclude on these questions, it seems self-evident that these questions are much more important than most of what the NYT has treated as front-page news on the subject matter.
    - tkahn6 13y ago
      If you want 'critical' reporting, I highly recommend Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck. Pick whichever flavor you want.
- jacoblyles 13y ago
  The Times puts plenty of opinion on the front page. It just does so obliquely. I can't forget their headline for the IRS scandal: "I.R.S. Scandal Gives G.O.P. Issue to Seize On", as if the politicization of the government's taxing power were only regretful to the extent that it might slow down the Democratic Party's policy agenda.
  - tkahn6 13y ago
    As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved. C'mon man.
    - jacoblyles 13y ago
      Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?
      - tkahn6 13y ago
        No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.
        jacoblyles 13y ago
        That's a headline from Sunday May 12th, which I believe is the first story on it in the Times. The information first came to light at a press conference by Lois Lerner on May 10th and I don't see another NY Times article sandwiched between the dates. The headline did not go unremarked in conservative media[1]. There is no doubt in my mind which team the NY Times is batting for. [1]http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-nyt-headline-on-irs-scandal-gives-gop-an-issue-to-seize-on/ http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-n...
      - 13y ago
- ferdo 13y ago
  > If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism. > chicken little reddit-level bullshit It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on. Perhaps cutting people some slack until 24/7 surveillance becomes the New Normal might be in order?
  - hobs 13y ago
    In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc. There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      > Fox News != Anyone with credibility. There are very few mainstream sources that have a shred of credibility left. I see little qualitative difference between Fox and CNN, for instance. They only differ in style and delivery but their main entrees are still lies and rubberstamped government press releases.
    - Volpe 13y ago
      Yes, but even the choice of facts expresses an opinion. I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month. All fact, no opinion?
      - tkahn6 13y ago
        He anticipated this point and explicitly acknowledged there are levels of opinion.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Just because they're all grey doesn't mean there aren't significant differences in the shade.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
res0nat0r 13y ago
I stopped reading after the first sentence. THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Apparently this op Ed contribution hasn't been pyong attention for the last 20 years (or actually hasn't cared until the latest bandwagon to jump on rolled into town) but all of this in the news has been in place way before Obama and extended by Bush like crazy after 9/11. Check CALEA signed by Clinton in 94 requiring telecoms to spy on their customers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L...
chaz 13y ago
> note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times NYT front page on June 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 -- five out of the past 7 days. Plus a front page mention on June 23. I know you don't mean your comment literally, but I think there's been a lot of coverage. There's some criticism that the stories of late tend to focus more on Snowden, but his part of the story is the only thing that's had material developments in the past week. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/nytfrontpage/scan.p... (et al)
- trevelyan 13y ago
  Thanks for the check. I was actually looking at the online version, and checking the prominent stories. I agree that the where-is-Snowden story is getting some coverage, but even there the selection and tone of the materials support the administration. Does the lack of new information from the US government mean that there are no new "material developments" in the story? Considering the damaging revelations in these leaks (misleading congressional testimony? private contractors with access to dragnet surveillance systems?), it is not plausible to claim there is no investigative journalism to do. That it has taken two outsiders to write a piece sensibly critical of the administration and unconstitutionality of data-vacuuming is utterly damning.

andrewljohnson 13y ago

Is it possible for Americans to file a class action suit over a top secret government surveillance program? I feel like we all have standing at least.

anigbrowl 13y ago
The courts would rightly reject it as a political matter.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago
  When I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
    - andrewljohnson 13y ago
      How are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question? I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4. If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.

e3pi 13y ago

"...The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law." "We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal." Fatal bug throughout the whole `stack'? Are these lawyered authors actually telling us the rudder is gone and the entire hull rotten?

mpyne 13y ago
The whole thing as implemented now definitely needs better accountability and oversight to call it a program that befits the public service. But I don't know about the rudder being gone (or what you mean by that exactly).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- e3pi 13y ago
  Well gudgeon-ed and pintel-ed teak rudder: Respect for civilization's eye's covered verdigris bronze lady holding up scales.

mpyne 13y ago

"Let’s turn to Prism: the streamlined, electronic seizure of communications from Internet companies." OK, good so far, PRISM does indeed streamline and automate the process... "... Prism is further proof that the agency is collecting vast amounts of e-mails and other messages — including communications to, from and between Americans." ??? PRISM was the one thing I stopped being worried about as soon as I figured out what it was. The government has always been able to subpoena a third-party for records pursuant to an actual investigation, and even Google seemed to be satisfied with the idea that specific PRISM requests have been legal (even if they forced NSA to get a real warrant first). Other things may indicate NSA is hoovering emails like a Mob boss hoovering blow but PRISM isn't one of them. PRISM has to be turned on to acquire data, unlike other NSA SIGINT this one's not actually magic. I'm kind of disappointed by the opinion piece because if they only took efforts to be factual they would probably be able to make a much more persuasive case (e.g. by bringing up Carnivore or 641A-style data interception instead of a system that queries specific individual users one-at-a-time).

dram 13y ago
So from Wikipedia, Boundless Informant uses 504 separate DNR (electronic surveillance program records) and DNI (metadata) collection sources known as SIGADs. In a 30-day period, they collected 3 billion data elements from within the US from these SIGADS. And the PRISM document says it is the "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports". Doesn't that mean that PRISM is the majority source of those 3 billion data elements? And why did Page, Zuckerberg and Apple say they never heard of PRISM? Perhaps I am wrong but it's somewhat confusing!
- mpyne 13y ago
  If 2.999 billion elements never make it into those analytic reports then it may very well be possible that of the remainder that manual systems like PRISM end up being the majority source. As you note, there are hundreds of SIGADs, of which PRISM is just one. > And why did Page, Zuckerberg and Apple say they never heard of PRISM? Because PRISM is the name for the NSA end of that service and associated data tools. The company end of that service would be whatever they called the system they use for FISA warrant/NSL compliance.

whiddershins 13y ago

Well said.

logn 13y ago

It's criminal and people should go to prison. When we talk about locking people up forever because they're a threat to society, I can't think of a better example than this.

rhizome 13y ago
Take a gander at David Addington: http://froomkin.tumblr.com/post/54026897885 http://froomkin.tumblr.com/post/54026897885

mtgx 13y ago

Here's the thing. If file-sharers have the right to anonymous speech, what does that say about everyone being spied upon by the NSA? http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous-speech-court-hears-130627/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous... I'm starting to think more and more that beyond this being a US Constitution issue, it's a human rights issue, and we should fight to ban all such spying internationally. Yes, I realize how hard that that may be to achieve, and how long it would probably take, but we need to do it because it's the right thing for humanity, not because it's easy or hard, just like everyone is fighting for gay marriage all over the world, and have fought for free speech, and so on.

h0w412d 13y ago
How about we popularize encryption, and take the choice out of the hands of corporations and governments?
- tommi 13y ago
  How do we do that when people don't care about privacy?
  - beefsack 13y ago
    If there's any time to do it, it would be now while it's such a big issue.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    By making the solutions so simple that they pick them because they don't care either way, but make it slightly more annoying for people still on non-end-to-end crypto services to communicate with those who are. If there's enough people who care, then hopefully network effects would slowly take care of the rest.
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    > How do we do that when people don't care about privacy? the same way governments / politicians / mass media do it: you make them care. it's a sad fact of humanity that most people will care about whatever they are told to care about, or rather, whatever their peers are perceived to care about. right now there is a window of opportunity for privacy to stand in the public eye's spotlight, fighting a (very real) fight against the encroaching forces of totalitarianism. you ask what to do. how about anything you see an opportunity to. educate your friends about privacy, about what is going on, about what the dangers of surveillance are[0], or perhaps educate yourself about using GPG, get the hang of it together with a few other techie friends, so that you can explain it to more people (because it's really not that complex, if someone walks you through it), if you have a brilliant idea write some code, etc. and also, delete Facebook? [0] http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...

fragsworth 13y ago

The blowback from this mess could very soon be more severe than everyone might think. I expect several foreign countries to ban American tech company operations in their jurisdictions. The bans in the foreign nations could easily stem from foreign business owners pressuring their politicians to ban American-operated companies under the guise of national security, privacy, and anti-American-power-mongering, but their real motivation will be to gain market share. Their politicians can easily make it into a win-win for everyone involved - the politicians (campaign contributions), the local businesses (market share), and the population, who wouldn't mind seeing a global anti-America movement.

rustynails 13y ago
Thou doth jest. Most western countries are lap-dogs to the US, and almost certainly exchange spying data with the US so that they don't breach their own privacy laws. This will have little impact with US allies.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Even if the intelligence governmental agencies exchange that in the US (and many certainly do), that doesn't mean they can't impose rules on businesses (expanding the privacy laws you mention) and other state entities to avoid using US tech services. Sure it'd be hypocritical, but when did that stop anyone?
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Especially because there's been past concerns about US intelligence passing sensitive data to US companies to help them win contracts. There's bound to be a lot of high level execs at European companies whispering in their governments ears at the moment about how this is putting them at a substantial disadvantage, whether or not they believe it to be true.
D_Alex 13y ago
> I expect several foreign countries to ban American tech company operations That will probably not happen. But what will happen, and have a small but ultimately significant effect, is that American companies will lose some contracts, by the narrowest of margins in a decision... contracts they would otherwise have won by a narrowest of margins... due to the fallout from the NSA surveillance scandal.

w_t_payne 13y ago

Yes, it is time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: Both criminal - and a betrayal of the people of the United States of America.

janlukacs 13y ago

Please talk to people who lived under oppresive regimes (former Eastern Block) and see for yourself what it meant to live in a society of paranoia, snitching, informants, secret service, fake patriotism etc.. embedded IN every aspect of social life (work, neighbours EVEN families). Americans can't grasp this because they never experienced it, that's why you need to talk to people who did, otherwise your children will be sorry.

tehwalrus 13y ago

This post makes a similar argument to my blog post[1] from earlier this week - that PRISM is simply criminal - although my analysis focused on why this made Snowden immune to charges as a whistleblower. I agree that it's time to take the US government to task over this. How does that happen? A civil suit, a private prosecution? [1] http://joe-jordan.co.uk/blog/2013/06/tinker-tailor-whistleblower-spy-Snowden-PRISM/ http://joe-jordan.co.uk/blog/2013/06/tinker-tailor-whistlebl... (hacker news comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5945185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5945185 )