Michael Hayden's Mad At Snowden Again... (Check Out The Not-So-Veiled Threat At The End)

[WillyT]

The Future of Surveillance in a Post-Snowden World
Michael V. Hayden - HuffPo
Posted: 03/18/2014 10:23 am EDT Updated: 03/18/2014 10:23 am EDT

<snip>

THE SNOWDEN EFFECT: Edward Snowden has accelerated a necessary and inevitable debate in American society regarding surveillance. In the course of doing so, however, I believe that Snowden has badly shaped this debate and, in the course of this acceleration, created a media frenzy that is largely focused on headline-grabbing sensationalism rather than speaking to the hard facts.

If the information compromised by former CIA officer Aldrich Ames and that of the former FBI agent Robert Hanssen can be compared to pails and possibly barrels, Snowden has ripped out the entire plumbing because in the course of conducting his espionage, Snowden has revealed far more than sensitive intelligence. He has revealed sources and methods, that is, the methodology by which the U.S. conducts its electronic eavesdropping. As a consequence, Snowden has compromised an entire generation of investments in U.S. tactics, techniques, and procedures. He represents the single greatest hemorrhaging of legitimate American secrets in the history of the Republic.

Snowden has added a significant amount of drama to the debate. Indeed, whatever beliefs he may have had as the defender of privacy, his assertions and revelations have been inconsistent with his overall effort. Well over 90 percent of what Snowden has revealed has had nothing to do with Americans' communications. Rather, Snowden has compromised how the U.S. goes about collecting the communications of non-U.S. persons who are, in fact, legitimate intelligence targets; these are some of the most important aspects of intelligence tradecraft.

At the intersection of these revelations and the media frenzy it has created; the "Snowden effect" has been press coverage that is far less "reportorial" than "prosecutorial," in which a great number of articles are written in an accusatory tone.

Let me dispel some myths spun by Snowden and the media coverage of him:

<snip>

The ending...

In the end, neither the NSA nor the CIA wants to do things that are not consistent with the consensus view of American values. Our intelligence agencies must, and will, accept any delimitation defined by the American citizenry.

Tell me where the lines are. Just give me that political and legal guidance, and we'll go play hardball. We'll stay inside the box. At the same time, we will have to say "this will make you a little more comfortable, and it's going to make you a little less safe." We get it, but let's shake hands on that last part -- "a little less safe."

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-v-hayden/snowden-surveillance_b_4983206.html

Personally I'd take that deal... doubt they's hold up their end though...

[grasswire]

1. what is a "delimitation"?

"Our intelligence agencies must, and will, accept any delimitation defined by the American citizenry"

[questionseverything]

5. here ya go

de·lim·it (dĭ-lĭm?ĭt) also de·lim·i·tate (-ĭ-tāt?
tr.v. de·lim·it·ed also de·lim·i·tat·ed, de·lim·it·ing also de·lim·i·tat·ing, de·lim·its also de·lim·i·tates
To establish the limits or boundaries of; demarcate.


the boundaries are clearly set in the 4th amendment

[villager]

2. Never know what could happen if we're "less safe!:"

Warnings about domestic terror plots could be expediently ignored, people could be arrested for mere dissent, the global finance racket could loot and crash our economy.... heck, if intelligence agencies weren't up on it, Presidents might not even be safe riding in open parade routes in Dallas!

Good thing none of that stuff has ever been allowed to happen, in exchange for pissing away the 4th Amendment!

[denverbill]

3. They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither.

I doubt Ben Franklin would trust them either.

And didn't Congress pass a law preventing them from using money to plot coups? How's that working out?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Well, thankfully, we're the 'Land of the Brave'.

Not the 'Land of cowards'. So we can happily exchange not having our every communication spied upon for a chance of terrorism that's smaller than the chance of getting hit by lightning.

End the 'no fly list', end the wiretapping and/or collection of any data, including 'meta-data' of anyone who doesn't have a specific warrant attached to them as an individual, end the ability of any non-government worker to see personal data, decrease the NSA by about 90%, and get the CIA back to working exclusively on foreign intelligence, which they apparently suck at anyway.

[Blue_Tires]

6. I thought the Rosenbergs ranked higher on the all-time list of intel failures?

[WillyT]

7. Kick !!!

[MNBrewer]

8. Their spying makes us MORE safe?

Not buying it.

[frylock]

9. neither the NSA nor the CIA wants to do things that are not consistent with the consensus..

"...neither the NSA nor the CIA wants to do things that are not consistent with the consensus view of American values."