List Of Americans Who Have Been Individually Spied On Will Soon Be Released "biggest disclosure yet"

[Leopolds Ghost]

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 04:57 PM - Edit history (3)

[div style="border:0px;"][font color="white"]...[/font]
[div style="border:0px;width:1040px;min-width:1040px;height:632px;background:white"]


[div style="border:0px;width:1040px;"]
[div style="margin-left:10px;margin-top:-672px;min-height:505px;padding-left:10px;padding-right:20px"]
Greenwald Will Be Publishing The Names Of Americans Whom NSA Is Spying On

Note that this does not include blanket collection and storage of all phone and cleartext communications data for an indefinite period of time, which is ongoing. --LG

The man who helped bring about the most significant leak in American intelligence history is to reveal names of US citizens targeted by their own government in what he promises will be the “biggest” revelation from nearly 2m classified files.

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who received the trove of documents from Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, told The Sunday Times that Snowden’s legacy would be “shaped in large part” by this “finishing piece” still to come.

His plan to publish names will further unnerve an American intelligence establishment already reeling from 11 months of revelations about US government surveillance activities.

Read more .... source: The Times (UK) (full article)

Greenwald's Finale: Naming Victims of Surveillance -- Real Clear Politics/Sunday Times

Sorry for the right-wing newspaper links in here but I can't find any articles by WPo or NYT about this news, oddly enough. I did find this blog post where the Wash Post condemns Greenwald as a "radical media-government adversarialist" for criticizing the editors of the Washington Post for being "very much old-style, old-media, pro-government journalists, the kind who have essentially made journalism in the U.S. neutered and impotent and obsolete"; a criticism that could also be leveled at the new editor of The Atlantic, David Frum. This despite Greenwald's praise for Barton Gellman et al. who won a Pulitzer Prize for their work which very nearly didn't get published, as its editors sat on it.

More from the link[div style="margin-left:10px;min-height:150px;padding-left:10px;"]


[div style="display:inline-block;width:650px"]Greenwald said the names would be published via The Intercept, a website funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder and chairman of eBay. Greenwald left The Guardian, which published most of the Snowden revelations, last autumn to work for Omidyar. [div style="margin-left:10px;padding-left:10px;padding-right:20px"]
'Biggest yet': Greenwald to publish names of Americans whom NSA is spying on -- RT
Greenwald: I'm Going to Publish Names of NSA Victims -- The Sunday Times / RCP
Snowden journalist set to make ‘biggest’ disclosure yet -- New York Post
Greenwald to publish list of U.S. citizens NSA spied on -- Washington Times
Glenn Greenwald Details The 'Fireworks Show' NSA Leak That He's Saving For Last -- Business Insider

[div style="margin-left:10px;padding-left:10px;padding-right:20px;min-height:320px"][div style="width:55%;margin-left:15px;padding-right:5px;margin-right:-15px;margin-bottom:5px;overflow:hidden;float:right"]

[div style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap"]By the way, you can really tell from reading the full Times article that this piece was meant as a piece on Greenwald and his new book, and the importance of this new scoop took over the article. It includes odd little bits, such as the following, at the end of the article:

Greenwald, who has 12 dogs, ranging in size from a Bernese mountain dog to a miniature pinscher, at his home in Brazil, also promised further revelations about GCHQ, the NSA’s British sister agency.

“The British are more unrestrained and vicious in their surveillance mindset than even the US.” he said. “When you go to the park in New York, you see these built-up muscular guys and they have these tiny Shih Tzu dogs.

“It will seem like a mismatch but the Shih Tzu is super-vicious and yapping. That’s how I see the relationship between the GCHQ and the NSA.”

Oh, and here's some troubling news on the current anti-spying bill:[div style="display:inline-block;width:1040px"]

Snowden's Wrong, Our Gov't Wants To Expand...

...surveillance of the U.S. public by more comprehensively outsourcing it. These statements in my previous sentence are basic facts.

The entire concept that the government wants to "rein in" bulk collection by the NSA, is technically true. But, it's extremely deceptive. Our government is actively working to gut HR 3361/S 1699. This is another inconvenient fact.

HR 3361/S 1699 (HR 3361 has been passed by the House and is now in the Senate as S 1699) will provide our government with more comprehensive powers and tools to surveil our own country.

And, it will--far more likely than not--be passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a form similar to what the House passed, and then it will, more than likely, be passed by the full Senate and signed into law by a President who's been--from the get-go--all over this process to insure it IS gutted.

Per Marcy Wheeler, on Monday...

...Right now, we’re looking at a bill that outsources an expanded phone dragnet to the telecoms (with some advantages and some drawbacks), but along the way resets other programs to what they were before the FISC reined them in from 2009 to 2011. That’s the starting point. With a vote count that leaves us susceptible to further corruption of the bill along the way.

Edward Snowden risked his freedom to try to rein in the dragnet, and instead, as of right now it looks like Congress will expand it.

By the way, on top of everything else, it should be noted that the USA Freedom Act (HR 3361) extends (most notably the Section 215 provisions in) the Patriot Act sunset clause by two years, through 2017.

I realize Ed Snowden would like to think that the government "ending" the NSA's bulk collection of domestic surveillance is something that his efforts have accomplished. But, our government is making sure just the opposite will occur.

And, yes, Marcy's right about the reality that the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote the status quo line on this. What else may one say when Democrats like Schumer, Feinstein, Klobuchar and Whitehouse are ready to do whatever it takes to "protect our country"...just as long as they may spin a bullsh*t line like, "We've reined in bulk collection of the NSA," to provide a Kafkaesque version of "Mission Accomplished" to spin all of us in the unwashed masses into thinking that something's actually changing here!

You see, technically, something IS changing! Our government is EXPANDING domestic surveillance by outsourcing it.

by bobswern on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM PDT (Daily Kos)

[div style="border:0px;height:540px;margin-left:575px;margin-right:-15%;background:white"][div style="border:0px;width:400px;"]


[div style="border:0px;width:100%"][div style="margin-left:10px;margin-top:-540px;padding-left:10px;padding-right:20px"][div style="width:540px;margin-left:-20px;"]

Helpful resources: (from another blog)

• Prism Break: Stop reporting your online activities to the security
[font color="white"]• [/font]industrial complex with these free alternatives to common software.
• Tails: A live operating system, that you can start on almost any computer
[font color="white"]• [/font]from a DVD, USB stick, or SD card. It aims at preserving consumer privacy.
• UnlistMy.Info: Find out which top Online sites store data about you.

• PGP over e-mail

• OTR over text (Jabber, Facebook chat, etc. use XMPP which is compatible with OTR)

• FireChat and CryptoCat (new services for web-based community discussion, still being worked on)

• DuckDuckGo instead of Google

• RedPhone or Jitsi instead of Skype

• Google+ Isn't A Social Network - It's The Matrix -- The Guardian

• Project Chess: Report says Skype worked on secret project to provide chats -- Slate says it is proven Microsoft, owner of Skype lied to the public about an effort to ensure all Skype calls could be -- and are legally, per terms of service -- monitored through company-installed backdoors, this also seems to be true of Apple iOS, unfortunately. The NSA and Apple assured each other in one of the Snowden briefs that any iPhone can be easily cracked. (What of Android, you ask? Not unless it's jailbroken: Google has made Hangouts, part of Google+, an automatic requirement on users of new phones.)

Red Pills:

• NSA Spying on Americans

A presentation to the CCC Conference on its 30th anniversary by Jacob "@ioerror" Applebaum.

The number of Youtube comments seems to have leveled off at 1,337 for some reason... just saying.

Full Collection of Snowden Videos on NBC (available one week only, apparently)

There's an NBC sponsored Twitter poll where you can select #Patriot or #Traitor.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Now that will be an interesting list.

I wonder how many will turn out to be politicians or people who were candidates for office. I imagine many will turn out to be 'Occupy' type of organizers, or other protest group types.

[brush]

30. I think you're right

Any one percenters/rich repugs who think they might be on that list have already contacted Omidyar and shared a joke of two with him before being reassured that his/her name would not be released by his new hireling, Greenwald, who is now working for the one percent. OH THE IRONY!

Trouble makers like Occupy types, like you said, will be the ones on that list.

[Aerows]

130. I don't think it will come about

quite like you think it will.

We'll see when the list is release

[brush]

139. Maybe . . .

But I'm beginning to think we'll never see any list — too inflammatory.

[alsame]

2. I think there will be a lot of

corporate and political targets. Money and power.

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. By the way, for anyone reading this thread, The Bottom Two Video Links are the most important thing.

Not so much the blue links, but the conference presentations. Please watch.

They are by technical experts (in a manner of speaking) on the subject of what the NSA is really doing.

They might take time to watch, but worth it!

[bananas]

70. "The number of Youtube comments seems to have leveled off at 1,337 for some reason... just saying."

lol
thanks for the links

[Aerows]

128. That was pretty damn funny

[seveneyes]

3. Why the suspense, release it already

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing now.

[randome]

4. Because it's a 'fireworks show'!

People, don't hold your breath. This will most likely be a list of Americans caught communicating with foreign criminal groups. Just like Greenwald's misconception about PRISM, this 'fireworks show' will not be the anarchic vision for which some yearn.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

32. Fireworks shows

get a lot of attention, unfortunately for those that approve of the NSA surveillance of American citizens in America.

When the list comes out, I'd like for you to continue stating "the NSA does not spy on Americans", since that will be comedy gold.

[randome]

57. He/She who laughs loudest is usually in denial.

The NSA does not spy on Americans except in the normal course of their jobs -so far as we know. If Greenwald has evidence that the Americans targeted are not within the NSA's defined parameters for surveillance, that will be a big deal.

It won't mean much to me that you might be 'right' or that I might be 'wrong'. Everything I see and read is subject to reinterpretation depending on the evidence presented.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

103. I know we are being spied on, and the President himself has admitted it. So either you believe him

or you don't. His panel confirmed that all the spying on Americans has not caught a single terrorist. As a result he moved to try to end what the NSA and their Private Security Contractors, euphemistically call 'meta data', sort of like they call dead babies, 'collateral damage'.

If you don't want to believe facts, that is your prerogative but facts are facts, the US Govt is conducting a massive spying campaign against its own people.

[randome]

110. The only thing President Obama said about spying on Americans...

...is that it isn't occurring. You are twisting the panel's report about their conclusions to match your preconceptions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

126. Amazing irony here--

1) He/She who laughs loudest is usually in denial.

2) The NSA does not spy on Americans except in the normal course of their jobs

[Aerows]

131. It is rather hilarious

how several people have outed themselves in this thread. Just read through the thread, and you pick up on motives easily

[randome]

133. I'm not laughing at anyone.

Whoops! Now I am!

No, I'm not. Hey, did you miss the part "-so far as we know"?

There is a special feeling that comes from saying the words, "Maybe I'm wrong." Or "I was wrong." It makes me feel all superior-like when I say it.

I'm still looking for that moment in this debate. Can't find it so far.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

149. It's okay to laugh

We don't mind.

[Rex]

138. BINGO.

What makes it even funnier is said poster pretends to know what the NSA does and doesn't do! That in itself is comedy gold!

[JDPriestly]

136. We shall soon know for sure. Hopefully you are right, but who knows?

Did you watch the video by the man who publishes in Der Spiegel? It's in the OP and contains what I hope is a comprehensive review and listing of the heinous NSA programs.

Wondered why my Yahoo account is out of Ireland.

Wondered why my Yahoo accounts were owned when I was an officer in my local Democratic Club. Could this be why?

[Rex]

137. LOL! Like you know anything about the NSA!

[Aerows]

150. Let's not offend our "expert" on all things NSA

now.



Good person, but does more damage via "praise".

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. I told this story to a prominent whistleblower-type and...

Specifically the NY Post version as I had it close at hand (which is to say I found it on a barstool):

Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who helped NSA leaker Edward Snowden expose state secrets to the world, is set to make his “biggest” disclosure yet — the names of Americans the government spied on, he told The Sunday Times.

Greenwald added that Snowden’s legacy will be “shaped in large part” by this “finishing piece,” which is based on information obtained in the nearly 2 million documents the former NSA contractor secretly stole from the government.

“One of the big questions when it comes to domestic spying is, ‘Who have been the NSA’s specific targets?’” Greenwald said ... “Are they political critics and dissidents and activists? Are they genuinely people we’d regard as terrorists? What are the metrics and calculations that go into choosing those targets and what is done with the surveillance that is conducted? Those are the kinds of questions that I want to still answer.”

“As with a fireworks show, you want to save your best for last,” Greenwald told GQ magazine. “The last one is the one where the sky is all covered in spectacular multi-colored hues.”

His reply? "That's stupid. He should just release it."

I am reminded of the scene at the end of Bourne Supremacy where the underling pieces together the truth and goes to his boss with the information.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. No $$$$ in not promoting the show. eom.

[Aerows]

33. No attention to the story

in not promoting the fireworks show. I'm pretty sure it is going to be explosive and that scares the hell out of a lot of NSA personnel.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Maybe; but as I mentioned ...

The list has to be more than just a list of names. There has to be something that indicates proof that the people were surveilled.

Hell, I can type out a list of names ... so can you.

[Aerows]

38. I think you will get it :)

I think it will also satisfactorily put to bed the idea that "The NSA does not spy on Americans on American soil."

As though spying on Americans anywhere is acceptable, but that is going to be the one that pushes it right over the acceptable line in the mind of the American people.

Let's just wait for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Has that claim ever been made?

We know that the NSA has looked at Americans that are within 3 "hops" of a target.

And, I really doubt that any disclosure/discovery will affect those that are not already enraged .

[Aerows]

64. Look at the reply above you

He says they are doing it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. Which reply ...

who said what?

[Aerows]

119. You.

"We know that the NSA has looked at Americans that are within 3 "hops" of a target"

There are a hell of a lot of American citizens in three hops. Kind of like six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. And ...

Are those within 3 hops to be ignored?

[Aerows]

123. Well, if you assume everyone in those three hops are guilty

then sure. Our system of government is founded on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

If you start trawling for guilty people, you assume they are guilty. That's why it isn't Constitutional.

When you establish the ability to blanket warrant 12 million people, as happened with the Verizon business customers, sure, you *might* find a terrorist. But you have also subjected 12 million people to illegal search and seizure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. It seems you are conflating several different programs ...

and have very little understanding of our system of "government."

From what I understand ... the meta data is collected and stored, unexamined, until there is a hit ... at which point the 3 hop rule applies. There is no "blanket warrant" to examine the data.

But more, no one assumes everyone in those three hops are guilty; rather, everyone in those three hops are looked at to determine their connection to the original hit ... guilty or innocence is not determined at that early point of any investigation.

[Aerows]

151. I don't have any confusion

about 12 million Verizon customers being subject to surveillance, and that is not up for debate since it is fact and made public.

I don't like that 12 million Verizon customers were subject to trawling for ill-doing. It is not Constitutional to do so, and if you want to brand me as whack-a-doodle-do Libertarian, you can. It doesn't change the fact that it was not Constitutional to search through 12 million peoples business records to see what you can find.

You will never convince me that is okay, regardless of whether you call we a wingnut, a Libertarian wingnut, a right winger or someone that is anti-Obama. For the record, I voted for the man twice. The rest? If it makes you happy, go for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. How is something determined to be unconstitutional? ...

Has the SCOTUS ruled on this ... Or, is it something that we just don't like?

[Leopolds Ghost]

159. SCOTUS has made a LOT of rulings, we just don't like.

Including gutting the Voting Rights Act, etc.

At what point does the Constitution become "just a piece of paper", as Bush (who helped implement all these policies) put it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

161. This is true ...

The SCOTUS has, of late, ruled horribly on a number of issues ... But in our system of government, when they rule something constitutionally permissible/unconstitutional, then it is constitutionally permissible/unconstitutional ... Period.

[Leopolds Ghost]

167. How would folks here feel if the courts overturned Roe v. Wade?

"It's our system of government, live with it"? I doubt they would.

Also, several federal courts (contra stevenleser) have ruled the program illegal if not unconstitutional, but we know all liberal rulings get overturned by the Roberts court.

so relying on SCOTUS is basically a prescription for thinking nothing liberal is constitutional... like in the early FDR years.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. No ...

People feel terrible ... And then, those interested enough would turn to the legislature to re-write the law ... just like we have always done when we felt the SCOTUS got something wrong.

[randome]

58. So if an American is on our soil but has been in contact with terrorist groups...

...you think we should do nothing? Or do you think a warrant should be obtained to keep that individual under surveillance?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Whisp]

66. That's the Bingo question that no GG fanclub member will TOUCH. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Warrant, duh :P

[Aerows]

85. Start throwing out the need for warrants

and you throw out the need for all warrants.

[randome]

88. Agreed. But there is no evidence the NSA monitors American suspects without a warrant.

If Greenwald has that evidence, it would be a big deal. And if he is holding back on his 'big deal' to promote himself, that would be...sad.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. The problem is, they use blanket warrants.

So the list of persons actually selected for monitoring may be reduced to simple "persons of interest" if they already have the data
(for all of us, going back x amount of time. whatever x is.)

[randome]

92. "They use blanket warrants". You are -again- talking about the phone metadata records.

There is nothing indicating a 'blanket warrant' for surveillance against American citizens.

And the metadata -again- is not under 4th Amendment protection. So if Snowden wanted to change that...wait, he said he didn't know of the NSA doing anything illegal so why did he steal millions of national security documents and hand them off to foreign media corporations?

I don't get it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. Per Gellman, who broke the story for Snowden at Wash. Post, there are 4 programs: 2 meta 2 content

I am going on the basis of what a respectable, US media outlet told me, as you requested.

In fact, 90% of what we know about the issue has been at least mentioned in the Post.

Either by Gellman, or in relation to the Drake affair, or in the excellent series on Top Secret America in 2010 which discussed all this.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=washington+post+top+secret+america+series

So according to Gellman, two of the main programs (one of which is PRISM) are metadata.

The other two cover content: one is phone and one is email, IIRC. All 4 are bulk collection programs.

[randome]

115. PRISM is not a bulk collection program.

It's a secure FTP server setup for the transfer of data obtained through legal warrants.

And bulk collection of foreign communications is pretty much the NSA's job. What one needs to show evidence of is that the NSA is using these programs against American citizens. The metadata storage, yes, they are doing that but it is not against the law.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Besides which, you are asserting that metadata is 4th-amendment proof just because of current court

Which places it in a separate category of mail envelope headers (which it is a federal crime to snoop on, BTW) instead of library card records (which is what the ACTUAL nature of your metadata is, since it contains almost as much info about you as your actual post, and far more than is accessible to the public.) This is due to BAD court decisions.

The current SCOTUS will doubtless rule that all blanket surveillance does not violate the 4th amendment.

The ex-NSA apologist I mentioned above in this thread ALSO told me that blanket surveillance, not JUST metadata (if we did it but he thinks we don't) but that there is NO right to privacy given by the 4th amendment. He and another friend (current industry worker) vehemently argued this. They say the courts will back them up on this.

I'm sure they're right, but that's because we have a Dred Scott Supreme Court.

So the NSA position is that there is no constitutional right to privacy and no law against domestic universal electronic surveillance because the info is already "out there"... only the prohibition that the NSA be the one to track individuals domestically.

That's why they simply collect the info and give it all access to the FBI, DHS and the 5 allied intelligence agencies unredacted.

[randome]

118. If you think the NSA disregards all privacy concerns of American citizens...

...then why didn't Snowden or Greenwald present evidence of that? Third party business records have not been personal property since the 1970s. The most likely explanation is that there is no evidence the NSA 'collects everything' any more than there is evidence of Sasquatch.

I agree that the data 'sharing' that goes on between NSA and GCHQ is more worrisome and we should know more about how that works. But maybe if we focus on that instead of the Brietbart-like screams of 'Stop spying on us!', we might make some headway.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

125. And also asserting what PRISM is and is not

The only people qualified to make that determination run PRISM themselves, so they are hardly going to be critical of themselves. Assumptions of what PRISM is and is not aren't even relevant to the conversation, because they are just that - assumptions that the government doesn't lie, doesn't spy, and is a benevolent party to a man or woman.

[Aerows]

97. Indeed. A "warrant" that affects

12 million Verizon business customers is NOT a warrant. It is a sweep looking and trawling for wrong doing and against the 4th Amendment. That is exactly what happened.

[Aerows]

95. I know that you and I are on different sides of this

I completely disagree with you but I thank you for always being civil in our disagreements. That seems to be a desert around here, yet we can always have civil conversation.

I vociferously disagree with you most of the time, but we are polite about it. I appreciate that about you.

[randome]

116. And thank you for your own civil reply!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

132. Spoiler Alert: No need to wait, Aerows--I have an advance copy

of all DUers who are NOT on the list.

Without further ado, here it is--


























.

[Aerows]

134. When there is so much bullshit that you can barely move for stepping in it

You know they are growing a narrative that has nothing to do with a productive plant and the truth, and everything to do with shade trees.

[MADem]

52. Every headline, even on the inside pages, will produce a few more book sales.

I hope GG is sharing the profits with ES. It's the least he could do...assuming ES doesn't have other sources of income.

[Andy823]

54. I agree

How many times now have we heard the "next" leak will be "ground breaking". Now I may have missed something, but I haven't seen any "ground breaking" information leaked yet.

As for a "list" I have a been told their spying and all of us and listening to what we say, type, etc., so who needs a list?

[MADem]

56. Ha ha ha! Fair point, that!!!!

Here's yer list--pass around a pencil and a pad of paper attached to a clipboard...everybody, sign the list now!

Now, hand it up to the front of the class...and will someone please light off the fireworks!

Buy the book, now...buy that booooooook!!!!!!!

[Whisp]

67. Ha! Great point, Andy. Why a list, isn't EVERYONE already surveilled?

lol.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. I think this is a list of everyone who has been singled out under a secret court order.

Does the list cover FBI and DHS access to the NSA raw data stream of all calls and e-mails? I was angrily told "yes, and we fought for that" by an NSA apologist. He (and why is it always a he) argued "9-11 happened because we didn't have access to each other's information". But these people probably aren't on Greenwald's list, so that only covers people directly spied on by the NSA, not info shared with FBI, DHS, and allied foreign intel agencies who then apparently "launder" the data and send it back to us so that we don't have to spy on each other's citizens.

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. ... but since the NSA are apparently very careful to follow the FISA law (it's a rubber stamp court)

... who are these names exactly and how did the court authorize them to be spied on? Is the list entirely foreign-born (in which case I wonder if Greenwald should release it, since doing so might compromise US sigint) or entirely US citizens? How did FISA give them permission to target US citizens? And most importantly, what about the other people who are apparently conducting "anti-terror" surveillance of US citizens such as peace activists and the like using access to pooled data (FBI, DHS, etc)? There's been scandals around that since the 1970s.

Is this all done under the Patriot Act? Let's not forget, Eliot Spitzer was warrantlessly spied upon BY HIS BANK at the request of Bush's Justice Department in revenge for Spitzer going after the same banks in court for financial abuses at the time. Apparently, under US anti-terror law, any withdrawal of cash over a certain amount means your bank automatically gives the government full access to your financial records.

[Gravitycollapse]

86. I suspect part of the reason for spreading it out is denying the government the opportunity...

To sweep it under the rug. The point is to inflict maximum damage to public image. If this had been one giant dump of information, the attention of the American people would not be maintained. And it would run the risk of disappearing from public consciousness very quickly.

[randome]

91. I agree with you 100%. This is not about revealing the truth to the public.

This is about a Libertarian wet dream of harming the current government.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gravitycollapse]

93. You don't agree with me at all, actually. The government image needed to be harmed.

It needed to be bruised and battered. And the American public has become so idiotic and docile that we require a constant barrage of information for months at a time in order to guarantee we aren't distracted or defeated. The federal government knows this. The supporters of the status quo know this. That is why we see these allegations of "milking the situation" coming from them. They want it all out there as quickly as possible so it can be dealt with and erased before public sentiment reaches a tipping point.

[Aerows]

120. If Snowden would have done a dump

He would be out of the news within a week, as would his evidence. As it stands, he waits for public officials to make statements, then reveals them to be liars.

He has done it *perfectly*. His evidence has been in the news for nearly a year - that wouldn't have happened with a plain document dump.

All of this, though, is superfluous. When he rips out the names of those who have been surveilled, that is going to stir the ant pile.

Those named will HAVE to do something about it to save face.

[sendero]

94. It's nice..

..... that at least someone here gets it.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Be funnier to see the reaction of some of the Anti-Snowden crowd finding out they are being watched.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Should we be perversely proud of it? Who's the most watched person on DU?

Mark of activism and all that.

Or is it just people with connections to overseas conflicts? Hmmm.

This bombshell revelation could serve as a distraction from the
problem of bulk collection of citizen data (both metadata and,
recently, content, although they supposedly don't look at it
unless you become a person of interest.)

Also, how many hops do you have to be from a person of
interest (say, a housing justice activist who has been unfairly labeled for
scrutiny by DHS) for them to actively monitor you, and not just throw all
your call and e-mail data in the circular file?

And since the FBI and DHS share NSA data, how can they claim that
it's not being used for domestic surveillance when it's just sitting there?

[Katashi_itto]

13. All very true observations Sir

But our pro-authoritarian crowd will be working 24/7 to spin it.

We could give yearly trophies I suppose.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. Indeed :)

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Some people seem to have some really big egos...

[Katashi_itto]

35. You certainly would know.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. at least I don't think what I am doing on DU is of concern to the govt....

Ridic...

[Katashi_itto]

45. Lol!

Coming from you thats priceless

Thanks!

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. Priceless in what way.....please enlighten me...

Love to hear your explanation....that is IF you have one!

[Katashi_itto]

72. I already did.

So no cake for you

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. No actually you didn't but please do....I am waiting for your response

I won't hold my breath meanwhile...

[Katashi_itto]

82. Don't, I addressed your subject elsewhere.

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Yeah I figured you couldn't...

You can keep pretending you did thought....whatever you have tell yourself. If you had something it would be quite easy to repeat and if it was something so funny you called it priceless....but since you cannot said WHAT was priceless........since you won't even pretend to.... I rest my case...

[Katashi_itto]

104. You go ahead and do that.

Why explain to someone whose position is Pro Authoritarian/NSA? Besides It went over your head the first time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. oh please elaborate ....please provide proof of this silly

Contention...Ill be waiting...

You have alteady admitted to be anti government so of course any who isnt an anarchist like yourself would call every one who isnt Authoritarian.

[Katashi_itto]

111. Lol!

You'll be waiting a long time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. because you got nada!

[Katashi_itto]

114. You keep believing that.

I won't be juried by the likes of you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. don't have to.....I KNOW it!

[Katashi_itto]

124. True, every authoritarian state has enablers

you'll be most comfortable.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. Albert Camus

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. So which states are not Authoritarian?

please enlighten us...

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. Yes and they all have their Anarchists who don't believe in govt at all...

please see my sig line...

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. I am just being humorous.

I meet people in real life who brag about how the government is watching them because they are activists, and I can't stand it. It's one of the reasons I'm worried about the list. It makes them ineffective activists because then sensible moderates don't want to associate with them because they are being spied upon, and sensible radicals don't want to associate with them because they don't like being spied upon. I am neither a radical nor a moderate, I'm somewhere in between.

* Some of the same people told me that they weren't out to actually stop the Iraq war, they wanted to call attention to the issue because "when the war starts, it'll radicalize a lot of people." This was back when there was a chance of stopping the war... In other words, "heighten the contradictions..." ugh.

[Andy823]

55. Exactly.

I don't know about you, but if my name is "NOT" on that list I am going to be very upset. I don't know how many times I have been told by a GG groupie that the NSA spies on "EVERYONE"!

[Tsiyu]

73. Same here

I am gonna feel very sad if they are not listening in on my boring conversations!

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. I thought it was established that the NSA spies on everyone?

These are just the names they comb through and single out.

Once the Utah facility goes on-line (has it?) how many days' of raw phone and e-mail data will the NSA be able to store, long-term?

These are the names of the people they're allowed to search their database for.

The premise being that the customer records are allowed to be kept indefinitely without a warrant if they are not searched.

There's apparently no audit for doing so, though. (As in, the government said they have no way of knowing who's gone in and looked up their girlfriend's phone records, only when they catch them in the act.) As for Snowden's 2m worth of data, they all appear to be from an NSA private webserver containing company records and the like, not raw signals intelligence which might include actual citizens' metadata, since the newspaper articles claim he used a Googlebot to spider them or something.

[Aerows]

34. Exactly

Or more pointedly, that they can never use the "NSA doesn't spy on Americans in America but specifically on terrorists" routine.

I think that is what frightens them the most - the list will reveal that it never was about terrorism it was about dissent and leverage over certain American citizens.

[Katashi_itto]

36. Agree!

[msanthrope]

39. Who said the NSA cannot spy on Americans? Of course they can, with

varying levels of surveillance, as allowed by law.

[Aerows]

41. It's easy to argue for or against anything

when you move the goalposts. Have fun by yourself with that line of reasoning, because I'm not following you down that path.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. As if FISA doesn't exist!

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. I'm against it.

</groucho mode> No seriously, I was against it. Many of us were at the time, because every bill that passes only finds a way to legalize what we are complaining about. It was the first major problem I had with Obama because, let's not forget, Thomas Drake's allegations (thru proper channels, without stolen documents to back him up) led to Bush and Obama charging Drake with treason and it led to Senator Obama casting one of the deciding votes to amend FISA to immunize the telecoms for what the courts said the ACLU couldn't prove they were actually doing, i.e. giving the government access to customer data without a warrant.

In other words, the classic Bart Simpson defense: "I didn't do it... nobody saw me do it... you can't prove anything."

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. FISA is not an Obama policy.......that started years ago....

[stevenleser]

96. No, you're not. Without FISA, warrantless wiretapping would be legal.

I doubt that is something you would want.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. I just posted above (#99) about people apparently think warrantless wiretapping is constitutional

Apparently a lot of people who work for the NSA believe there is no implied right to privacy in the 4th amendment. They interpret it broadly, similar to people saying that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias or that the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to "subject" others to your opinions.

[stevenleser]

101. I've covered this extensively and supplied all the relevant appellate decisions. It's not opinion.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

US v. Duggan 1984

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324."

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. What you mean is that it's the opinion of the COURT system that Americans have no inherent 4th prot

"When the President is doing it for national security reasons, that makes it legal."

[treestar]

142. The court is one third of the power

one of the branches. Court opinions are the law. They are a check on the other two branches.

[stevenleser]

143. No. And FISA was a reaction to the very quote you are talking about.

The executive branch cannot abusively spy on people without a risk of impeachment because there is a paper trail. That was the point of FISA.

The President has the inherent power to perform surveillance for national security reasons. Protecting National Security is one of his primary jobs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

148. The 2nd Amendment DOES only apply to militias...

it was put in there SPECIFICALLY to satisfy the Southern States preserve the militias of the South that were in place to support slavery.....

You should probably consider what a "well regulated militia" meant in terms of the period....not by today's standards.

[TheKentuckian]

147. No one has forgotten that the pretense of any semblance of oversight is a secret Star Chamber

type operation dominated by by Roberts appointees dependent on self reporting, often after the fact, which is by intentional design an obvious rubberstamp but even under such "gimmie" operation and inclination, there are still abuses found.

No, we are waiting for you to grasp or remember that such a thing is a fucking mockery of our entire systems and values.

[stevenleser]

154. It's not supposed to stop surveillance. It's supposed to be a near rubber stamp.

Because the President is supposed to be able to do this surveillance for national security reasons. This has repeatedly been the ruling of appellate courts.

FISA was designed to provide a paper trail, not stop the surveillance. That way, if the executive branch was conducting surveillance abusively, for non-national security reasons, congress would be able to go over the paper trail and if it deemed it appropriate, impeach the President.

[Leopolds Ghost]

155. Nonsense.

Regardless of what you or your "expert" contacts say, defending policies Bush I and II put into effect, we have an inalienable right to privacy in our homes and posessions.

[stevenleser]

163. I have presented applicable appellate law to you and you have no counter for it.

The appellate law that I linked to you completely explains the situation and validates my opinion.

Your opinion is not based on anything.

[Leopolds Ghost]

164. You are using court cases to justify tyranny. The courts once held that slavery was ok

Your opinion is invalid and anyone who believes in NSA survellance of average citizens doesn't belong on DU. Just as you would try to get me kicked off DU if I was a homophobe.

[stevenleser]

175. I am "doing" nothing. There is no tyranny. No one is being beaten or killed or denied agency.

No ones choices are being taken away from them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

176. Universal surveillance is a form of tyranny.

If this technology had existed in the 1770s it'd be listed in the bill of particulars right alongside the billeting of soldiers in peoples' homes (which by the way, in modeling the invasion after Israeli counterinsurgency tactics, US policy did exactly that in the occupation of Iraq, billeting soldiers in people's homes, and nobody here cared.)

[stevenleser]

177. First of all, you just made that up. Second there is no universal surveillance.

We have allegations of some surveillance from people who have proven themselves completely unreliable.

We have a freak out over inflated claims of surveillance that even if believed would not constitute tyranny.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed...

I don't think Aerows is on Snowden's list!

[MohRokTah]

7. Wrong thread. eom

[Leopolds Ghost]

8. Your reply has been seen, and noted.

Oh yes, it's been noted!

[MohRokTah]

10. My apologies, I thought I was directly responding to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025024284

[KoKo]

9. Thanks for all the work you did on this post....

Wonder if you would consider posting this part over at "Progressive Media Resources?"

This part I snipped from your OP or split it into two separate posts. It would be good to have for a read and watch in PMG Group to keep it available for awhile longer than here in GD?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269




-------

Oh, and here's some troubling news on the current anti-spying bill:


Snowden's Wrong, Our Gov't Wants To Expand...

...surveillance of the U.S. public by more comprehensively outsourcing it. These statements in my previous sentence are basic facts.

The entire concept that the government wants to "rein in" bulk collection by the NSA, is technically true. But, it's extremely deceptive. Our government is actively working to gut HR 3361/S 1699. This is another inconvenient fact.

HR 3361/S 1699 (HR 3361 has been passed by the House and is now in the Senate as S 1699) will provide our government with more comprehensive powers and tools to surveil our own country.

And, it will--far more likely than not--be passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a form similar to what the House passed, and then it will, more than likely, be passed by the full Senate and signed into law by a President who's been--from the get-go--all over this process to insure it IS gutted.

Per Marcy Wheeler, on Monday...

...Right now, we’re looking at a bill that outsources an expanded phone dragnet to the telecoms (with some advantages and some drawbacks), but along the way resets other programs to what they were before the FISC reined them in from 2009 to 2011. That’s the starting point. With a vote count that leaves us susceptible to further corruption of the bill along the way.

Edward Snowden risked his freedom to try to rein in the dragnet, and instead, as of right now it looks like Congress will expand it.

By the way, on top of everything else, it should be noted that the USA Freedom Act (HR 3361) extends (most notably the Section 215 provisions in) the Patriot Act sunset clause by two years, through 2017.

I realize Ed Snowden would like to think that the government "ending" the NSA's bulk collection of domestic surveillance is something that his efforts have accomplished. But, our government is making sure just the opposite will occur.

And, yes, Marcy's right about the reality that the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote the status quo line on this. What else may one say when Democrats like Schumer, Feinstein, Klobuchar and Whitehouse are ready to do whatever it takes to "protect our country"...just as long as they may spin a bullsh*t line like, "We've reined in bulk collection of the NSA," to provide a Kafkaesque version of "Mission Accomplished" to spin all of us in the unwashed masses into thinking that something's actually changing here!

You see, technically, something IS changing! Our government is EXPANDING domestic surveillance by outsourcing it.

by bobswern on Wed May 28, 2014 at 10:49 PM PDT (Daily Kos)






Helpful resources: (from another blog)

• Prism Break: Stop reporting your online activities to the security
• industrial complex with these free alternatives to common software.
• Tails: A live operating system, that you can start on almost any computer
• from a DVD, USB stick, or SD card. It aims at preserving consumer privacy.
• UnlistMy.Info: Find out which top Online sites store data about you.

• PGP over e-mail

• OTR over text (Jabber, Facebook chat, etc. use XMPP which is compatible with OTR)

• FireChat and CryptoCat (new services for web-based community discussion, still being worked on)

• DuckDuckGo instead of Google

• RedPhone or Jitsi instead of Skype

• Google+ Isn't A Social Network - It's The Matrix -- The Guardian

• Project Chess: Report says Skype worked on secret project to provide chats -- Slate says it is proven Microsoft, owner of Skype lied to the public about an effort to ensure all Skype calls could be -- and are legally, per terms of service -- monitored through company-installed backdoors, this also seems to be true of Apple iOS, unfortunately. The NSA and Apple assured each other in one of the Snowden briefs that any iPhone can be easily cracked. (What of Android, you ask? Not unless it's jailbroken: Google has made Hangouts, part of Google+, an automatic requirement on users of new phones.)

Red Pills:

• NSA Spying on Americans



A presentation to the CCC Conference on its 30th anniversary by Jacob "@ioerror" Applebaum.

The number of Youtube comments seems to have leveled off at 1,337 for some reason... just saying.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Certainly, KoKo! I saved the OP before I posted. Here's another good quote from Kos thread:

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)

My browser seems to die on me before I can post, so I saved the OP.

This one is especially important, I think. From the Daily Kos thread:

[div style="margin-left:104px"]

"Unbreakable rule: Don't criticize other insiders"

As Elizabeth Warren writes in her book:

Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and
offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an
insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say
whatever they want. But people on the inside don't
listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access. …
But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule:
They don't criticize other insiders.

[div style="margin-top:-40px;margin-left:-40px;height:40px;overflow:visible"][div style="height:115px"]

[KoKo]

16. I've downloaded her book...on Chapter 1...so far it's a great read.....!

s

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked, recommended and bookmarked.

Thanks for the thread, Leopolds Ghost.

[neverforget]

17. What we'll hear from the defenders:

1) We've known this since whenever
2) I'm sure they're guilty of something
3) If they had nothing to hide, they had nothing to worry about
4) They're lying (Snowden and Greenwald)
5) Papa Paul Rand thanks you
6) Only Libertarians are against this

[Egnever]

18. My bet

They are foreigners. Not US citizens.

My second bet it will derail yet more diplomacy.

Yay!

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. I second that sentiment....and some DU'ers are going to be so disappointed THEY are not on the list!

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. My only questions are ...

When is the list to be released ... I would like to see it.

And how does anyone know what the "list" represents ... the list has to be more than just a list of names; I can type out a list of names!

[Duppers]

19. anyone here thinks their name will be on the list?

Besides me? No, seriously.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Um...

Difficult to say.

I mean, it's difficult to convey, but I seem to have met a couple people who are activists, so...

What this is really useful for is isolating activists in a sort of virtual McCarthy blacklist.

A couple of the people I know who was in the newspaper stating they had been put on a
state anti-terror watchlist was a Quaker peace activists. Little old ladies.

So the implicit message is, don't associate with these people. Don't associate with
anyone who might be a left-libertarian, or a peace activist, or even just a rabble-rouser in general.

I've been told that I really shouldn't associate with so-and-so because, although they are a nice person, they are a little too out-there and will get me in trouble later. This coming from people who argue with me when I say that NSA spying is real. The problem is that the only reason I associate with activists (including some I disagree with, such as center-right Dems on DU) is because I believe in liberal discourse, and some of them (including many leftists, especially single-issue leftists) no longer do not.

I remember it being a problem (not for me, but discussed in liberal zines) way back when... now a whole generation has come of age in an era when all you have to do to be considered liberal is vote for the right candidate and subscribe to certain side in the culture wars. There's no room for freedom of thought.

[Eleanors38]

25. "side in the culture wars." 'Bout sums it up...

That's the main thrust of RW politics: Set the parameters with culture war and let 'em argue in that play pen till their heart's content.

Nearly 40 yrs ago, a friend demanded the FBI send her surveillance records of her 60s - 70s activism. A dispute arose over shipping costs.

[treestar]

20. What a lot of blue links

I thought that was a bad sign. Or something.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. I was going for an All-Blue Post.

Last edited Sat May 31, 2014, 11:54 PM - Edit history (22)

[div style="height:80px"][div style="background:white;height:200px;width:100%;opacity:1"][div style="margin-left:47px;margin-top:-35px"]
[div style="width:68px;height:20em;margin-left:-68px;margin-top:-108px;margin-bottom:-100px;float:left"][div style="height:408px;overflow:hidden"][div style="width:inherit;height:50em;background:lightblue;opacity:0.5"]

[div style="width:100%;height:400px;margin-top:-108px;margin-bottom:-430px;padding-bottom:17px;margin-right:68px;float:left"][div style="height:408px;overflow:hidden"][div style="width:1200px;height:500px;background:lightblue;opacity:0.5;padding-top:47px;"][div style="display:none"]Like This.


[div style="display:float:left;margin-top:-35px"]

Like This.

[Squinch]

21. Great thread, great resources. Thank you!

[Leme]

22. if the members of the top 400 families were on the list, we have a new law by next week. nt

[villager]

31. "...a President who's been--from the get-go--all over this process to insure it IS gutted."

Ah, thank goodness for the Constitutional Scholars among us...

[Aerows]

40. If I was a small fish

in the NSA, I'd be looking for ways to cover my behind, because they always go for the people that "just follow orders" and never for the one that issued those orders.

[Octafish]

51. The Fish

I caught a tremendous fish
and held him beside the boat
half out of water, with my hook
fast in a corner of his mouth.
He didn’t fight.
He hadn’t fought at all.
He hung a grunting weight,
battered and venerable
and homely. Here and there
his brown skin hung in strips
like ancient wallpaper,
and its pattern of darker brown
was like wallpaper:
shapes like full-blown roses
stained and lost through age.
He was speckled with barnacles,
fine rosettes of lime,
and infested
with tiny white sea-lice,
and underneath two or three
rags of green weed hung down.
While his gills were breathing in
the terrible oxygen
—the frightening gills,
fresh and crisp with blood,
that can cut so badly—
I thought of the coarse white flesh
packed in like feathers,
the big bones and the little bones,
the dramatic reds and blacks
of his shiny entrails,
and the pink swim-bladder
like a big peony.
I looked into his eyes
which were far larger than mine
but shallower, and yellowed,
the irises backed and packed
with tarnished tinfoil
seen through the lenses
of old scratched isinglass.
They shifted a little, but not
to return my stare.
—It was more like the tipping
of an object toward the light.
I admired his sullen face,
the mechanism of his jaw,
and then I saw
that from his lower lip
—if you could call it a lip—
grim, wet, and weaponlike,
hung five old pieces of fish-line,
or four and a wire leader
with the swivel still attached,
with all their five big hooks
grown firmly in his mouth.
A green line, frayed at the end
where he broke it, two heavier lines,
and a fine black thread
still crimped from the strain and snap
when it broke and he got away.
Like medals with their ribbons
frayed and wavering,
a five-haired beard of wisdom
trailing from his aching jaw.
I stared and stared
and victory filled up
the little rented boat,
from the pool of bilge
where oil had spread a rainbow
around the rusted engine
to the bailer rusted orange,
the sun-cracked thwarts,
the oarlocks on their strings,
the gunnels—until everything
was rainbow, rainbow, rainbow!
And I let the fish go.

-- Elizabeth Bishop, 1911 - 1979

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. Something fishy about your post.

I detect a fish theme going on here.

What with the fishing expeditions -- oops, it's not a fishing expedition if it's national security.

[Octafish]

44. Great post, Leopolds Ghost!

THIS is DU.

[Aerows]

127. Amen!

I cherish your posts, too, Octafish because you always have something interesting to say .

[mudy waters]

59. Does anybody have an exact time?

when this will be released

[randome]

60. Yeah. "Soon."

Same time when Assange releases his 'poison pill' files that will bring the financial industry to its knees.

Same time when Occupy overthrows the establishment.

"Soon."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[mudy waters]

63. So you don't have answer

just snark. Real helpful.

[randome]

89. Greenwald has no answer. He's probably trying to think up distinctive names right now.

This is hardly the first time that a Libertarian 'hero' to some DUers has promised a real killer story in an unspecified future.

And the same group seems to fall for it every time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

62. More crap, a different story, who thinks the NSA ic continuing these same programs?

I can see why those charged with espionage receives long prison terms. Snowden is an activist, why he passed the background check is beyond me, he went to hacker school and with his stories changing all the time it appears he also went to bs school. These programs was okay when he was up Bush's butt and they would be okay if Rand Paul was president so it tells you where he is.

[Aerows]

68. I had the utmost respect for Ann Richards

She was a part of Texas that America could be proud of.

That's a segue and has nothing to do with this thread.

[Luminous Animal]

71. ;)

[underthematrix]

152. He passed the background because he had help from at least one person inside the contractor

he worked for and one on the gov't side. Forget the background check, he did not qualify on the basis of education and experience. He got in because he's foreign agent and was working for someone other than the contractor.

[Thinkingabout]

153. I have thought for some time he had the backing of some one or group.

He went to hacker classes, total plan invasion. He never tried to negotiate before his crimes so no negotiations now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

156. Yes, it's called the CIA. He *taught* at the Defense Intelligence School in DC

This wasn't publically disclosed because they don't do that unless they want to Plame somebody.

[Thinkingabout]

157. What about the classes he attended in India?

[Leopolds Ghost]

160. Unfamiliar with those

But I highly doubt he's working for "commies overseas" like some people seem to think.

There's a lot of well-respected liberals that DU likes that have appeared on RT because
the MSM is so bad in this country, and RT actually *is* a propaganda arm of Putin's state
which only aspires to hard-hitting journalism on US soil because it's in the interest of
Russia to appear like they're providing us with a mainstream media outlet that actually
is willing to be critical of the US gov't (unlike at home in Russia.)

[Thinkingabout]

162. He is being used by many other countries, he is a patsy, don't know who the

puppeteer is but he is running on their orders. If his purpose was to expose the NSA then he should have stopped at that point, he continues, UK has stated he has hurt their security programs, what in the hell was he exposing in the UK. It goes on and on, China has made a statement also, if he isn't working for the commies it because they have not called on him to do so, just wind him up and he will make noise.

[Leopolds Ghost]

165. An anti-Snowden conspiracy theory?

I seem to recall the persons who believe Snowden was a double-super-secret agent for the NSA to infiltrate online activists.

[Thinkingabout]

166. He just keeps on giving, now it is not about revealing anything, he is not a patriot of the US

[Leopolds Ghost]

168. From what I understand, he doesn't have the info anymore...

Although Greenwald claims to have encrypted chats with him every day and seems to idolize him in a journalistically inappropriate fashion, but I'm assuming they don't exchange secrets in that manner because if Russia can see then the US can certainly do the same on Greenwald's end.

[Thinkingabout]

170. His first problem was stealing files in the first place.

He was not authorized to give any information to anyone. As far as I know no one else has had charges filed against them in this case but Snowden. If there are others involved this would be a good time to reveal that information and cut a deal to provide the needed information.

[Leopolds Ghost]

171. The law is the law, right?

[Thinkingabout]

173. Yep, especially when affects every citizen in the US.

[Leopolds Ghost]

179. Well then why isn't the Administration prosecuting Bush Admin wrong-doers for NSA abuse?

Probably because of the blackmail ring DUers and others spent 6 years telling us Karl Rove was running, mostly targeted at gay Republicans according to that one article. Anyone remember that post? I wonder what happened to that scandal.

On the larger question, no, the law doesn't apply equally to all Americans, according to Matt Taibbi in his new book on selective prosecution of the rich and powerful. Just look at the lack of prosecution of corporate crime on Wall Street.

Eric Holder was specifically chastised for asserting -- without precedent -- that there was a statutory difference between "breaking the law" and "committing a crime" and that only the latter sort of crime should be prosecuted. For instance, the Justice Dept. recently laid out a metric of how many people would be economically injured by a prosecution when deciding whether or not to prosecute corporate crimes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

180. To be fair to Holder, yes there is a tradition of selective prosecution in the interests of justice

For instance, if someone broke the law but there were mitigating circumstances causing the state not to prosecute, as in the case of civil disobedience.

[Thinkingabout]

182. It does not matter what the status on others committing crimes, when and if Snowden goes

to trial evidence presented will be about this incidence of Snowden's crimes, when the closing arguments are offered I seriously doubt the fact other crimes have been committed in the US and outside of the US will be part of the argument. By some post here Snowden is not responsible for his crimes because others have committed crimes, no, he is still responsible for the crimes. This is not a charge of speeding and getting a ticket, his crime is serious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

183. What Snowden did is only a crime if you believe what the NSA did is NOT a crime.

That is why the only person who has gone to jail for BUSH'S WATERBOARDING PROGRAM is the PERSON WHO REVEALED IT.

The present Administration had him railroaded into a jail sentence for revealing the torture program that everyone likes to jabber about. Do you feel guilty for knowing about the torture program? That is information you are not supposed to know, and you should feel guilty for prying into it.

[Thinkingabout]

185. Good, now this is settled, the procedure the NSA is following and has been following since 2008

is correct. So now you can say what Snowden has done is a crime, he has committed espionage, he also stole files, two different charges and he is now wanted on those charges.

[Leopolds Ghost]

188. No, what's settled is that you and stevenleser support the FISA "reform" act that legalized

What Drake was reporting on, and enabled the Supreme Court to overturn ACLU's petition on the grounds that they couldn't prove what Snowden revealed to be true.

So you support enabling corporate criminals to turn over domestic records by giving them immunity from legitimate civil lawsuits (FISA reform) and you support domestic warrantless wiretapping...

[Thinkingabout]

189. What does corporate criminalshave to do with Snowden committing the crimes he committed?

Are you saying Snowden reasoned with himself "oh, there have been corporate crimes so I am going to commit crimes also". Have him stand and courts in the US and plead his case on this reasoning.

[Leopolds Ghost]

191. No, I'm saying the courts said that if Verizon et al were turning over records as Drake said,

Then the ACLU had a case against them. But they did not have a case, in the absence of Snowden's documents, because they couldn't prove that they -- and everyone else -- were having their records collected. So the government passed the FISA "reform" act to mandate the courts give full immunity to the telecoms for participating in this crime, and have the government be liable instead (the act made clear that the assumption was that it was not taking place, but if it was taking place the government should be held liable -- the "Bart Simpson" defense.)

"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything."

[Thinkingabout]

181. Is the present administration responsible for investigating the wrongs done in the Bush

Administration or is the Congress responsible?

[Leopolds Ghost]

184. *puts palms to forehead*

[div style="background:black;opacity:0.4;margin-top:-140px;width:250px;height:2em"][font color="white"]...[/font]
[div style="margin-top:-3.3em;opacity:1"][font face="Impact" size="5" color="white"]DOUBLE FACEHOOF[/font]
[div style="margin-top:125px"]...

[Thinkingabout]

186. this dog dont hunt

[Leopolds Ghost]

190. *sigh*

[Laelth]

65. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[DCBob]

69. If the list is authetic and complete..

I suspect the vast majority would be people who clearly deserved to be spied on... but I wonder if they will release the whole thing... if indeed they actually have it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. OK, this brings up an interesting point

Which gets at the heart of the whole "how do we know it's not blackmail fodder" angle.

Greenwald has said (in an angry twitter exchange with Assange et al.) that he will insist on vetting what he releases in the name of a no-harm rule, although he disagrees with the US corp media on the grounds (basically, he will only not release stuff if the gov't provides credible basis that harm would result, see here.)

But let's assume that the list of domestic targets is a mix of citizens and non-citizens, some of which are counter-espionage targets and therefore arguably "deserve" to be spied on by the FBI (but the FBI presumably has access to the full list, or possibly, the full unredacted NSA datastream of all calls and e-mails, if they want to get a secret warrant to investigate, say, an activist on Patriot Act grounds, like they did to bring down Eliot Spitzer.)

So how does Greenwald know which names not to release? On the grounds that, while they might have the right not to be domestically spied on by the NSA, they are actual agents of a foreign power and looking up their name on the list might tip them off? Do the rest of us have the right to know if we are being secretly and illegally spied upon, e.g. on FOIA grounds? Does the blanket collection of data (not just metadata, according to Gellman in the Washington Post, but a raw data stream of most calls and e-mails which is then shared with five other allied intelligence companies who then apparently comb through it for us, allowing the NSA to keep their hands clean.) Does it matter which people are being individually spied on if that is the case?

[stevenleser]

102. I can release a list of names. Pull the white pages into an editor and pick them randomly

The question is, will this list contain some sort of description of what surveillance was done and any listed justification for the surveillance.

Without that, a list of names means nothing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

108. There are two points at issue here, it seems:

1. Everyone is being surveilled upon, they just aren't targeting those of us who aren't on somepony's shit list.

2. What is the nature of this list of names, it will be put online for people to look up their own name. If they are not an enemy of the state, then presumably they will demand to know why they're on it, like the aforementioned little old ladies who run afoul of DHS or whom ever under the Patriot Act. That is what I assume he is waiting for, to ask the gov. to strike specific names off the list. He probably sent a copy of the list to the gov. for vetting.

This leads to two sub-issues:

(a). How do we use the list to determine if warrantless surveillance has taken place or if it was all done under a blanket warrant then on what basis? In other words, if all our info is being collected, are you (stevenleser) arguing a right to privacy on the basis of the fact that you have done nothing presumptively wrong but that others may not be afforded the same right on the basis of suspicion of association with persons tarred as anti-American under the Patriot Act, or is it the opposite -- that we all have the right to be surveilled upon and only those with "something to hide" have anything to complain about? Similar to the HOA mentality of other recent legislation enacted by conservatives in both parties... that we all have the right to be treated the same way as people with money, but people with money are more equal than others since they already have health insurance and a job and a good credit rating, etc.

(b). Arguments over the merits of blanket surveillance:

i. national security interests (Americans threatening national security interests here or overseas) (does this include economic interests?)

ii. metadata has been declared fair game by the SCOTUS on the grounds that it is not like library or health records, but instead is like license plate information or stuff you write on the envelope of your mail or anything else that can be looked up publically -- despite the fact that police need a warrant to pull your phone calls, and that metadata is half the information about you, since it is far more extensive than a background check -- it includes your entire call and internet history, who you know, who you've met, and who you've been in close proximity with, using cell phone location (which are also considered public information on the same grounds since you can't make a call without advertising your location at all times) and potentially webcam data

iii. the other two programs Gellman told us about were for long-term storage of actual call records to be sifted through once there was a FISA warrant (but anyone with the right access could get in). per Drake's revelations, there was a data center at Ft. Meade that could handle a few petabytes -- enough for 2 days of all US phone and e-mail, not clear if that is metadata only -- but the new center in Utah can apparently hold the calls and e-mails themselves, and of course anything else is archived on the Internet using webcrawlers and bots, since everything non-governmental is put online on web-facing servers these days -- what with the push towards cloud computing.

iv. is there an inherent protection of privacy guaranteed by the 4th amendment or rights otherwise not enumerated in the Constitution, like right to travel? I would think the 9th is the relevant amendment here since any inherent right to privacy extends the 4th, just as the right to reproductive rights has been construed as extending from other basic rights.

[stevenleser]

144. No. Greenwald listing names doesnt mean anything without more info.

He and Snowden have given out enough incorrect information and exaggerations.

[JI7]

80. what does "Soon" mean ?

i have been hearing this for a while now and there is nothing.

so does it mean days, weeks , months ................ ?

nothing ever really comes out. reports are always about how some big thing is going to come out. and the big thing that comes out is another story about how this big thing is going to come out.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. It's Happening...

[div style="background:white;opacity:1;margin-top:-15px"][font color="white"]It's happening...
It's happening...
It's happening...[/font]
[div style="width:220px;overflow:hidden;margin-left:30px;margin-top:-90px"][div style="position:absolute;width:220px;margin-left:66px;margin-right:-66px;overflow:hidden"][div style="position:absolute;margin-left:-40px;margin-top:-40px"]

[ChisolmTrailDem]

105. I think I heard Greenwald tell Colbert or somebody during his book tour that it would be August. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. Why?

So is the gov't telling them they will have an answer by August on which names to not publish for national security reasons?

The FISA and Patriot Act will be amended by then to account for the re-legalization of all this stuff for the upteenth time, this time in public.

We can't claim to have a complaint against it if they legalized it first through court precedent, then behind closed doors, then buried in a bill claiming to end the practice of illegal ___ (by making it legal).

Like when the past few Presidents said we had "fixed welfare" by kicking more people off the rolls.

[KoKo]

187. Good Points... I had read July...but maybe pushed back for the vetting. n/t

[cantbeserious]

81. Thank You For Sharing - Thank You Snowden - Thank You Greenwald

eom

[L0oniX]

84. I can just imagine the outrage from congress and the senate as all their names are listed.

I love pie.

[Aerows]

117. And to save face

they are going to have to do something about it or lose all credibility.

[Jackpine Radical]

129. I'm kinda nervous--

Will my self-esteem be able to take it if I don't make the list?

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. So much surveillance...

Can't take it anymore.

[Zorra]

172. Yeh, I'd be crushed...totally humiliated.

If the fictitious person identified on all my expertly crafted legal identification documents isn't on that list.

[Leopolds Ghost]

178. If my luck holds

[div style="position:relative;width:62em;overflow:hidden"]They may have me identified as a jane doe.


[div style="display:inline-block;width: 78px;margin-top:-100px;float:right"]
Your post makes me curious tho... you mean I am not talking to the real Zorra, but another person of the same name?

[woo me with science]

174. This is an outstanding post.

It reminds me of the old days of DU, when we had many more posters offering rich content like this.

Thank you especially for your links detailing the government's ongoing efforts to expand and entrench the mass surveillance, despite rhetoric designed to suggest they are doing just the opposite.

Thank you.