3 ms·

I have yet to see evidence that he has lied. Keep in mind that the personal data being mined by these systems was already recorded, legally and gathered legall

I have yet to see evidence that he has lied. Keep in mind that the personal data being mined by these systems was already recorded, legally and gathered legally with the contracts you agreed to with these companies. I've read the EULA and every single one of them states they will cooperate with authorities for data requests. Without evidence of abuse, there is no lie here. >How is that coherent with your first sentence? you can't have it both ways. People who live in USA and are technical would know about these systems. People external and non-technical would not necessarily. Is that so hard to understand? >What checks do you think are built in, exactly? Read the article, please, before commenting. >effective checks on the NSA's power are not in place. There is still no evidence that your statement is true. The article shows that effective checks are there, but like all defenses, they can be flanked. Thus Snowden had to abuse his trust to get around them. This is just reality. There will never be a defense that can't be flanked. You can say that this article is proof that there is ineffective checks, but then you have to admit that this article proves that Snowden had a ulterior motive when he accepted his contract with NSA. You must accept that if the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for) then you must also accept that Snowden broke some rules to steal these documents.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... The question you have to ask yourself, whether you think that would have come out without the Snowden revelations. Evidence that the govt. broke rules to do their job (after Obama explicitly denied the powers are abused): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-collected-thousands-emails-court http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-c... Evidence that checks are not in place: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24... The LOVEINT revelations only showed up when the officers volunteered the information pre-polygraph test, which are more of a fear instrument than verifiably accurate. That's not a check or balance. More to the point the relevant facts emerged after Alexander categorically denied that abuses take place.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  Parallel construction is legal because the source of the data is legal, They need to do parallel construction to hide the source of intelligence for tactical reasons. i.e. when it was revealed that NSA had power to tap cell phones with a warrant, criminals stopped using cell phones or used 'burners'. The emails being grabbed beyond the warrant NSA had was a result of encryption being used by GMail, so they had to grab emails by screenshot and keyword only, which caused collateral collection, but the amount of collection here is trivial. I already addressed LOVEINT, and you're arguing against yourself. LOVEINT is a perfect example of NSA cracking down on abuses then addressing them in open court so that they can legally take action, or if they can't take action, that it's known about so that bigger reforms can be made. I just gathered these facts by reading your article. It's clear that there are always two sides of the story, but nowhere here do I see NSA doing anything it didn't have permission to do.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    Parallel construction is being investigated because it's probably not legal.[1] In the NSA's own words "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate." [1] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first: 1: a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision) b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on) c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal) d. d:a) no evidence is found. d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins. 2: a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway. other steps as above. I take issue with this: "the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for)" The FISC found NSA overstepped their remit, broke the fourth amendment, announced that the FISC did not have sufficient oversight, and said that the NSA misrepresented facts repeatedly. The NSA initiate programs and depending how they feel about it present them to the FISC after the fact. In addition this contradicts what Obama said about there being no abuses. The only way that Obama could not be a liar here is if he did not know about it. Is Obama misinformed? In your own words: "the amount of collection here is trivial.", the government broke the law however 'trivially'. This is an admission on your part there is evidence and that you have seen it. You have not addressed LOVEINT. You seem to be missing how the LOVEINT stuff came to light, it was self reported by staffers, not uncovered by the NSA. Voluntary handover of information is not a check or a balance. Would you think the police were doing a good job if they only dealt with cases where the perpetrator made a statement on their own actions and turned themselves in without an investigation? Would you consider such behaviour a crackdown by the police? If there were sufficient checks, the NSA would know well before the culprit volunteered the information. In addition this contradicts what Alexander said about there being no abuses.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... The question you have to ask yourself, whether you think that would have come out without the Snowden revelations. Evidence that the govt. broke rules to do their job (after Obama explicitly denied the powers are abused): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-collected-thousands-emails-court http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-c... Evidence that checks are not in place: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24... The LOVEINT revelations only showed up when the officers volunteered the information pre-polygraph test, which are more of a fear instrument than verifiably accurate. That's not a check or balance. More to the point the relevant facts emerged after Alexander categorically denied that abuses take place.

AsymetricCom 13y ago
Parallel construction is legal because the source of the data is legal, They need to do parallel construction to hide the source of intelligence for tactical reasons. i.e. when it was revealed that NSA had power to tap cell phones with a warrant, criminals stopped using cell phones or used 'burners'. The emails being grabbed beyond the warrant NSA had was a result of encryption being used by GMail, so they had to grab emails by screenshot and keyword only, which caused collateral collection, but the amount of collection here is trivial. I already addressed LOVEINT, and you're arguing against yourself. LOVEINT is a perfect example of NSA cracking down on abuses then addressing them in open court so that they can legally take action, or if they can't take action, that it's known about so that bigger reforms can be made. I just gathered these facts by reading your article. It's clear that there are always two sides of the story, but nowhere here do I see NSA doing anything it didn't have permission to do.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Parallel construction is being investigated because it's probably not legal.[1] In the NSA's own words "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate." [1] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first: 1: a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision) b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on) c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal) d. d:a) no evidence is found. d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins. 2: a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway. other steps as above. I take issue with this: "the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for)" The FISC found NSA overstepped their remit, broke the fourth amendment, announced that the FISC did not have sufficient oversight, and said that the NSA misrepresented facts repeatedly. The NSA initiate programs and depending how they feel about it present them to the FISC after the fact. In addition this contradicts what Obama said about there being no abuses. The only way that Obama could not be a liar here is if he did not know about it. Is Obama misinformed? In your own words: "the amount of collection here is trivial.", the government broke the law however 'trivially'. This is an admission on your part there is evidence and that you have seen it. You have not addressed LOVEINT. You seem to be missing how the LOVEINT stuff came to light, it was self reported by staffers, not uncovered by the NSA. Voluntary handover of information is not a check or a balance. Would you think the police were doing a good job if they only dealt with cases where the perpetrator made a statement on their own actions and turned themselves in without an investigation? Would you consider such behaviour a crackdown by the police? If there were sufficient checks, the NSA would know well before the culprit volunteered the information. In addition this contradicts what Alexander said about there being no abuses.