Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 08:28 PM Nov 2013

Whoa... Anybody Got A Second Source On This ???

The NSA surveillance controversy explained in five simple points
SAM CLENCH NEWS.COM.AU
NOVEMBER 04, 2013 8:38AM

<snip>

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is preparing to testify in the Angela Merkel wiretapping case after meeting with a German MP in Moscow. Mr Snowden is set to give explosive testimony and according to the MP Hans-Christian Stroebele, it's "clear that he knows a lot" about the scandal involving the NSA and Ms Merkel, the German Chancellor. As Mr Snowden threatens to blow the case wide open, we take a closer look at the NSA. and explain the controversy over America's spying operations in five simple points.

WHAT IS THE NSA?

The National Security Agency is one of America's largest intelligence organisations. Think of it as a less famous cousin of the FBI and CIA. It specialises in codemaking and codebreaking, and providing secret information to US political and military leaders.

The NSA outlines two broad "missions" on its website. Its "Information Assurance" mission is aimed at keeping stickybeaks out of America's business, while its "Signals Intelligence" mission gathers and processes information for "intelligence and counterintelligence" purposes.

The agency describes its vision as "Global Cryptologic Dominance through Responsive Presence and Network Advantage". Ironically, you would need to be a codebreaker yourself to make any sense of that.

Orwellian language aside, the NSA basically spies on people. But it can't conduct "human-source" intelligence gathering - everything's electronic. There are no James Bonds in the NSA.


<snip>

More: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-explained-in-five-simple-points/story-e6frg6n6-1226752489737


9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whoa... Anybody Got A Second Source On This ??? (Original Post) WillyT Nov 2013 OP
Aka the "Five Eyes" program... not a big secret. riderinthestorm Nov 2013 #1
The last section of the article seems disingenous FarCenter Nov 2013 #5
some nadinbrzezinski Nov 2013 #2
Obama was stupid to continue Bush's programs FreakinDJ Nov 2013 #3
But does he even know if he is continuing those policies? truedelphi Nov 2013 #4
Did You Catch This ??? WillyT Nov 2013 #6
AKA - passing the buck as part of the plan ... n/t RKP5637 Nov 2013 #7
Logic suggests rather strongly that he did know. Savannahmann Nov 2013 #9
interesting gopiscrap Nov 2013 #8
 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
1. Aka the "Five Eyes" program... not a big secret.
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 08:35 PM
Nov 2013

HOWEVER what isn't clear is if the rest of the Five Eyes members were party to the worst NSA overreaches.

We know the US is. And since the US and the UK are practically one and the same intel agency, I presume the UK is also massively involved.

I presume the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders were kinda hoping nobody would notice them...

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
5. The last section of the article seems disingenous
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 08:59 PM
Nov 2013

Each of the Five Eyes nations has legal restriction on intercepting communications of its own citizens.

The assumption has been that each intercepts the international communications of the others citizens, and then they swap analyzed information based thereon as is advantageous.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
4. But does he even know if he is continuing those policies?
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 08:53 PM
Nov 2013

In the article the OP cites, there is an entire section that carries the following "header" ":But does Obama know?"

Jon Stewart asked that question the other day, along with his colleague Jessica Williams. Rather hilarious banter, but in reality it is tragic - Obama is becoming simply a "know nothing" ambassador of good will, who can't afford to know what is really happening as then he couldn't possibly be so upbeat in his "speechifying."

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-28-2013/wait-wait----don-t-tell-him-

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
9. Logic suggests rather strongly that he did know.
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 03:23 AM
Nov 2013

Let's say I work for you. You're the President, and I'm one of your direct report subordinates. In other words, I report directly to you. For five years I've kept information from you, and then you find out about it from the Press. Now, political considerations may keep you from firing me, but would you put me in charge of a panel to review what it is my department is doing?

If you were previously ignorant of my activity, and are disturbed enough by the reports of what I have been up to, wouldn't you either fire me, or appoint someone to take a look at what I am really up to?

If it was me? I'd appoint the most rabid Civil Rights Attorney from the Justice Department to crawl up the NSA's ass with a mining headlight to make sure we got all the dark corners exposed, at least to the boss, Me.

So the claim that President Obama didn't know might be a useful way to avoid congressional hearings, but nobody is really going to believe it, and nobody is going to take the administration seriously again.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whoa... Anybody Got A Sec...