6 ms·

Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that: 1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is

Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that: 1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance. If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred. 2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers. 3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts.

uptown 13y ago
Ask Laura Poitras if the NSA has a file on her. Read the article. It's worth the 20 minutes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?ref=magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno...
- bazillion 13y ago
  It's still illegal to collect on her...she's a US citizen with no ties to terrorism.
  - uptown 13y ago
    I agree. Do you disagree that it's likely that the NSA has a "file" on her?
  - delinka 13y ago
    And with all the abuses admitted to by the executive branch of the federal government over the decades, do you honestly think that it being illegal actually prevents them from doing it?
    - bazillion 13y ago
      Yes. That's basically like saying that you're culpable for a crime because the person who lived in your house before you committed a crime. The people who were in office and committed illegal acts decades ago are not the same people in office right now. Everyone should be judged based on their own actions -- the government is not some borg mind slowly creeping towards its dictatorial dreams, but a collection of individuals with different moralities. My guess is that if you look close enough, you're not going to find all these crazy conspiracies floating about actually be true, because people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job.
      - delinka 13y ago
        1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03... 2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.) You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered. Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than our own best interests in mind.
        bazillion 13y ago
        >1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03.... I agree. It's an elitist culture of special agent assholes and "everyone else". Trust me, I don't like the FBI. But, people within the organization also have very little power to change it -- they're extremely reticent to any kind of change regardless of efficiency gains. It took months of planning for them to even consider using an excel macro I wrote that could save millions of dollars per year. >2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.) You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered. I agree, whistleblower protections would be a massively positive change in how governance works in the US, and would make people accountable for decisions which have significant impact on national policy, security, and economy. That being said, I don't see either Manning or Snowden as whistleblowers. >Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than our own best interests in mind. Definitely. I'm personally hoping that this stuff spawns a legitimate third party as a true representative of what this generation's ideals are heading towards. The smart money, though, is on incumbents commandeering the messages and subverting them a la Tea Party.
  - nilved 13y ago
    Yes, that's correct. Yet, the NSA is doubtless collecting information on her.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Isn't it also illegal to break to the Democratic party headquarters?
- sigzero 13y ago
  She is not the "average" citizen either.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    When did the criteria change from "involved in terrorism" to "not-average"?
TomJoad 13y ago
1. He provided his phone number for the NSA to search, a piece of information that they do retain and almost certainly have collected. 2. Not bloggers, just American families: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-k... 3. All information gleaned from the NSA is real information, and you don't send it to the public relations department. Instead it is an actual department set up to handle these requests from the public who wishes to know what their government is doing.
- bazillion 13y ago
  1. What does that prove? That the metadata for your phone number is collected? 2. Except that wasn't true, it was the former employer: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ 3. FOIA requests get processed by the same people under the Chief Public Liaison Officer.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hyperventilator 13y ago
Thanks. And here is a productive way to protest. As a peaceful protest / 4th Amendment exercise, please consider attaching an encrypted file with EVERY email you send from now on. It's easy enough to do using TrueCrypt. It needn't be a file the recipient needs to decrypt, or keep. You needn't even remember the password. If everyone did this every time they send an email to anyone, it would flood the Internet with literally millions, then billions, of encrypted files, thereby demonstrating our resolve to maintain some level of privacy, and protecting most if not all of us "fish" in the "school" from the "sharks" who prefer to eat us one at a time (a la Edward Snowden and Ladar Levison). When fish in a massive school move together in coordinated ways, it frustrates predators. If this idea seems worthwhile PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
dictum 13y ago
> The NSA does not keep a "file" on you ...if you are an American citizen. That's implicit in "Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance", but I wanted to be pedantic since the debate on NSA surveillance seems to take surveillance of foreigners as something completely natural and in no way wrong. But honestly, assuming we get to a point where the US government has a file on every American citizen, does it really matter if the file is with the FBI and not the NSA? Of course the rules and laws covering the two agencies are different, but ultimately, it doesn't seem like the US government is very interested in strictly following the law.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Different agencies follow the law differently. Each agency is composed of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of agents, contractors, and even supporting military staff. ATF is pretty famous for being extremely fast and loose with the law (see Fast and Furious scandal). FBI on the other hand, is typically considered with higher regard as to legal compliance. But these are different agencies, run differently by different people. Furthermore, the authority to do actions may all start from the President... but the President divides the authority between the agencies. NSA does not collect from US citizens not only because its against the law, but because its inefficient. The FBI has more files, more manpower, and more specialists on that front. (IE: Fingerprint Database and Genetic Database). However, agencies sometimes collaborate with each other to pass authority between each other, it has become necessary in the era of post-9/11, when the lack of inter-agency collaboration was cited as the #1 reason why 9/11 wasn't prevented. So now authorities between agencies are passed around: NSA is allowed to collect metadata, because the program is technically FBI. Read the leaked FISA court order carefully. Its an FBI request, the NSA did not technically make the request. The FBI is demanding for data to be handed over to the NSA. If you are to understand politics, what is _really_ going on in this country, you need to break the habit of thinking of the US Government as one homogenous blob. It is composed of many parts, some of which compete for attention, some of which follow the law better than others. Lets see how good your "National Government" education was in High School. You know, some of that stuff is important to understand the context of what is going on.
coldtea 13y ago
>1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. That's the law. We've already established that they don't care much for that. >2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers. That's because they are uninteresting. Why do you assume everyone would be as uninteresting as you? How about the interesting people, people that would be going forward what MLK was in the past, for example? How about whistleblowers, investigative journalists, people active in politics, people working on high end tech, etc?
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Because MLK was targeted by the FBI, not by NSA. The reason why NSA failed to "help" the Boston Bombing attacks for instance, is because the Boston Bombers were American People. (ie: American citizens, or people on American Soil). All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding. For crying out loud, if you're going to use historical examples, at least get it right damn it. You're _trying_ to cite project COINTELPRO as a reason to fear the government, sure, whatever. Get the names right, get the agencies right, and get your history right before you post! Else you would look pretty damn ignorant to those who know history and understand politics. You do know at least the different agencies that the US Government law enforcement / intelligence community are composed of, right? Anyway, FBI keeps files on Americans, because that is their damn job! NSA cannot, and not only are they legally not allowed to, they do not have the infrastructure to actually keep individual tabs on Americans. The FBI is in charge of the fingerprint database. The FBI is in charge of the genetic database. The FBI _authorized_ the domestic surveillance FISA court order (Read the leaked documents from Snowden himself: FBI approval is on the papers for a reason).
  - bazillion 13y ago
    Breath of fresh air -- while everyone is busy trying to tear apart what I said (even though I've worked in the NSA, CIA, and with the FBI and consider myself a credible source), you, sir, have your facts correct. What all of the anti-NSA sentiment fails to address is the actual truth of the matter. The NSA is the only intelligence agency with its shit together, and provides the most actionable intelligence to decision makers. That being said, their collection strategy is determined by policy makers (in Washington) based off of what policy makers deem are the most important priorities. This means that the cycle works like this: 1. Policy makers determine what are their priorities pertaining to foreign policy, national security, etc. 2. *Policy makers provide that list of priorities to the NSA. 3. The NSA returns with what is needed in order to fill those priorities such as budgets and policy changes. 4. Policy makers take that information and weigh the cost/benefit of changing current policy, allotting more funding, etc. 5. NSA sends reports on collection, which policy makers have access to. 6. Policy makers take that information and provide feedback as to the helpfulness of it, who it was briefed to (as in, how high it was briefed), and what direction they are more interested in seeing reporting go. The NSA is a well-greased cog in a malformed machine. Don't blame the NSA for performing the duties they've been directed to do -- blame the politicians directing them to do it. In closing, the whole fact that public policy is shifting from all of the backlash is kind of heartening in that it shows the public does have a say in the process. I can't speak to the things in the news, but I will say that collecting on a US person is the fastest way to get fired in the NSA. That's probably why I find it so ironic for all the people deriding NSA now, and NSA having to take the "neither confirm nor deny" stance.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that: You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. >1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth". > Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance. The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance". >If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred. You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings. >2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers. I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted? >3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts. Even if their tactic is ineffective or even counter-productive, I prefer it to your denialist condescention.
dylangs1030 13y ago
You obviously have good intentions here, but you're going to be flamed half to hell.
- bazillion 13y ago
  Yeah =( Even though I absorb a lot of the privacy anger going on right now, I feel it's my duty to bring a voice that is knowledgeable about the subject matter, and try to eliminate a lot of the misinformation that is floating around in regards to this situation.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    1. A low-level former NSA employee isn't credible as an authoritative source for all things NSA, especially if you offer nothing to independently support your assertions. 2. To be credible, disclose your affiliation(s) in advance or at the moment you join a discussion.

uptown 13y ago

Ask Laura Poitras if the NSA has a file on her. Read the article. It's worth the 20 minutes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?ref=magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno...

bazillion 13y ago
It's still illegal to collect on her...she's a US citizen with no ties to terrorism.
- uptown 13y ago
  I agree. Do you disagree that it's likely that the NSA has a "file" on her?
- delinka 13y ago
  And with all the abuses admitted to by the executive branch of the federal government over the decades, do you honestly think that it being illegal actually prevents them from doing it?
  - bazillion 13y ago
    Yes. That's basically like saying that you're culpable for a crime because the person who lived in your house before you committed a crime. The people who were in office and committed illegal acts decades ago are not the same people in office right now. Everyone should be judged based on their own actions -- the government is not some borg mind slowly creeping towards its dictatorial dreams, but a collection of individuals with different moralities. My guess is that if you look close enough, you're not going to find all these crazy conspiracies floating about actually be true, because people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job.
    - delinka 13y ago
      1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03... 2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.) You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered. Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than our own best interests in mind.
      - bazillion 13y ago
        >1) It's not only elected officials who've abused their power. Employees of the FBI are not elected by citizens and the citizens have little power to change the makeup of the organization. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03.... I agree. It's an elitist culture of special agent assholes and "everyone else". Trust me, I don't like the FBI. But, people within the organization also have very little power to change it -- they're extremely reticent to any kind of change regardless of efficiency gains. It took months of planning for them to even consider using an excel macro I wrote that could save millions of dollars per year. >2) Institutional culture plays a large part in abuses that continue through administrations and even changes in departmental leadership. Institutional culture doesn't simply change because the head of the beast is re-appointed. (And even in the case of the current elected head of the Executive, many things have not changed though changes were promised, but that's a slight digression.) You talk about people with different moralities, and then mention that "people are much too lazy to be putting that much effort into a government job." I read that as regardless of people's personal opinions, they're too lazy to challenge the status quo and would rather keep their heads down and receive their paychecks. Without whistleblower protections, that's exactly the environment that's fostered. I agree, whistleblower protections would be a massively positive change in how governance works in the US, and would make people accountable for decisions which have significant impact on national policy, security, and economy. That being said, I don't see either Manning or Snowden as whistleblowers. >Finally, in my opinion, all this is moot. We should necessarily question those in authority, we should necessarily limit the power given to those in government, and we should necessarily suspect those in power to have anything other than our own best interests in mind. Definitely. I'm personally hoping that this stuff spawns a legitimate third party as a true representative of what this generation's ideals are heading towards. The smart money, though, is on incumbents commandeering the messages and subverting them a la Tea Party.
- nilved 13y ago
  Yes, that's correct. Yet, the NSA is doubtless collecting information on her.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Isn't it also illegal to break to the Democratic party headquarters?
sigzero 13y ago
She is not the "average" citizen either.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  When did the criteria change from "involved in terrorism" to "not-average"?

TomJoad 13y ago

1. He provided his phone number for the NSA to search, a piece of information that they do retain and almost certainly have collected. 2. Not bloggers, just American families: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-k... 3. All information gleaned from the NSA is real information, and you don't send it to the public relations department. Instead it is an actual department set up to handle these requests from the public who wishes to know what their government is doing.

bazillion 13y ago
1. What does that prove? That the metadata for your phone number is collected? 2. Except that wasn't true, it was the former employer: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/ 3. FOIA requests get processed by the same people under the Chief Public Liaison Officer.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hyperventilator 13y ago

Thanks. And here is a productive way to protest. As a peaceful protest / 4th Amendment exercise, please consider attaching an encrypted file with EVERY email you send from now on. It's easy enough to do using TrueCrypt. It needn't be a file the recipient needs to decrypt, or keep. You needn't even remember the password. If everyone did this every time they send an email to anyone, it would flood the Internet with literally millions, then billions, of encrypted files, thereby demonstrating our resolve to maintain some level of privacy, and protecting most if not all of us "fish" in the "school" from the "sharks" who prefer to eat us one at a time (a la Edward Snowden and Ladar Levison). When fish in a massive school move together in coordinated ways, it frustrates predators. If this idea seems worthwhile PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

dictum 13y ago

> The NSA does not keep a "file" on you ...if you are an American citizen. That's implicit in "Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance", but I wanted to be pedantic since the debate on NSA surveillance seems to take surveillance of foreigners as something completely natural and in no way wrong. But honestly, assuming we get to a point where the US government has a file on every American citizen, does it really matter if the file is with the FBI and not the NSA? Of course the rules and laws covering the two agencies are different, but ultimately, it doesn't seem like the US government is very interested in strictly following the law.

dragontamer 13y ago
Different agencies follow the law differently. Each agency is composed of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of agents, contractors, and even supporting military staff. ATF is pretty famous for being extremely fast and loose with the law (see Fast and Furious scandal). FBI on the other hand, is typically considered with higher regard as to legal compliance. But these are different agencies, run differently by different people. Furthermore, the authority to do actions may all start from the President... but the President divides the authority between the agencies. NSA does not collect from US citizens not only because its against the law, but because its inefficient. The FBI has more files, more manpower, and more specialists on that front. (IE: Fingerprint Database and Genetic Database). However, agencies sometimes collaborate with each other to pass authority between each other, it has become necessary in the era of post-9/11, when the lack of inter-agency collaboration was cited as the #1 reason why 9/11 wasn't prevented. So now authorities between agencies are passed around: NSA is allowed to collect metadata, because the program is technically FBI. Read the leaked FISA court order carefully. Its an FBI request, the NSA did not technically make the request. The FBI is demanding for data to be handed over to the NSA. If you are to understand politics, what is _really_ going on in this country, you need to break the habit of thinking of the US Government as one homogenous blob. It is composed of many parts, some of which compete for attention, some of which follow the law better than others. Lets see how good your "National Government" education was in High School. You know, some of that stuff is important to understand the context of what is going on.

coldtea 13y ago

>1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. That's the law. We've already established that they don't care much for that. >2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers. That's because they are uninteresting. Why do you assume everyone would be as uninteresting as you? How about the interesting people, people that would be going forward what MLK was in the past, for example? How about whistleblowers, investigative journalists, people active in politics, people working on high end tech, etc?

dragontamer 13y ago
Because MLK was targeted by the FBI, not by NSA. The reason why NSA failed to "help" the Boston Bombing attacks for instance, is because the Boston Bombers were American People. (ie: American citizens, or people on American Soil). All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding. For crying out loud, if you're going to use historical examples, at least get it right damn it. You're _trying_ to cite project COINTELPRO as a reason to fear the government, sure, whatever. Get the names right, get the agencies right, and get your history right before you post! Else you would look pretty damn ignorant to those who know history and understand politics. You do know at least the different agencies that the US Government law enforcement / intelligence community are composed of, right? Anyway, FBI keeps files on Americans, because that is their damn job! NSA cannot, and not only are they legally not allowed to, they do not have the infrastructure to actually keep individual tabs on Americans. The FBI is in charge of the fingerprint database. The FBI is in charge of the genetic database. The FBI _authorized_ the domestic surveillance FISA court order (Read the leaked documents from Snowden himself: FBI approval is on the papers for a reason).
- bazillion 13y ago
  Breath of fresh air -- while everyone is busy trying to tear apart what I said (even though I've worked in the NSA, CIA, and with the FBI and consider myself a credible source), you, sir, have your facts correct. What all of the anti-NSA sentiment fails to address is the actual truth of the matter. The NSA is the only intelligence agency with its shit together, and provides the most actionable intelligence to decision makers. That being said, their collection strategy is determined by policy makers (in Washington) based off of what policy makers deem are the most important priorities. This means that the cycle works like this: 1. Policy makers determine what are their priorities pertaining to foreign policy, national security, etc. 2. *Policy makers provide that list of priorities to the NSA. 3. The NSA returns with what is needed in order to fill those priorities such as budgets and policy changes. 4. Policy makers take that information and weigh the cost/benefit of changing current policy, allotting more funding, etc. 5. NSA sends reports on collection, which policy makers have access to. 6. Policy makers take that information and provide feedback as to the helpfulness of it, who it was briefed to (as in, how high it was briefed), and what direction they are more interested in seeing reporting go. The NSA is a well-greased cog in a malformed machine. Don't blame the NSA for performing the duties they've been directed to do -- blame the politicians directing them to do it. In closing, the whole fact that public policy is shifting from all of the backlash is kind of heartening in that it shows the public does have a say in the process. I can't speak to the things in the news, but I will say that collecting on a US person is the fastest way to get fired in the NSA. That's probably why I find it so ironic for all the people deriding NSA now, and NSA having to take the "neither confirm nor deny" stance.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that: You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing. >1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you. The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth". > Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance. The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance". >If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred. You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings. >2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers. I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted? >3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts. Even if their tactic is ineffective or even counter-productive, I prefer it to your denialist condescention.

dylangs1030 13y ago

You obviously have good intentions here, but you're going to be flamed half to hell.

bazillion 13y ago
Yeah =( Even though I absorb a lot of the privacy anger going on right now, I feel it's my duty to bring a voice that is knowledgeable about the subject matter, and try to eliminate a lot of the misinformation that is floating around in regards to this situation.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  1. A low-level former NSA employee isn't credible as an authoritative source for all things NSA, especially if you offer nothing to independently support your assertions. 2. To be credible, disclose your affiliation(s) in advance or at the moment you join a discussion.