Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[Politician Spock]

Now that tim is against this I feel the need to be for it.

He is only against it when they give it to the DEA. All this other stuff is fine.

Maybe Tim smokes weed.

 

[timschochet]

Now that tim is against this I feel the need to be for it.

He is only against it when they give it to the DEA. All this other stuff is fine.

Maybe Tim smokes weed.

I'd like to. Haven't in a long while.

 

[SacramentoBob]

There was an article I read a few days ago about people with access to this information were using it to spy on girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, etc. Did that get posted in here? Of course, this would never be abused or anything.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't worry - gov't probably shut this down too

 

[Steed]

During Wednesdays hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pushed Alexander to admit that plot numbers had been fudged in a revealing interchange:

There is no evidence that [bulk] phone records collection helped to thwart dozens or even several terrorist plots, said Leahy. The Vermont Democrat then asked the NSA chief to admit that only 13 out of a previously cited 54 cases of foiled plots were genuinely the fruits of the governments vast dragnet surveillance systems:

These werent all plots, and they werent all foiled, Leahy said, asking Alexander, Would you agree with that, yes or no?

Yes, replied Alexander.

Proof positive of what many of us have long posited: that under the flimsy guise of a targeted War on Terror, the surveillance state has established itself with little regard for an honest relationship with the American public.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/02/nsa_director_admits_to_misleading_public_on_terror_plots/singleton/

 

[Ted Mullins]

Fairly relevant - reddit AMA with Greenwald and the editor in chief of The Guardian

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_greenwald_and_janine_gibson_of_the/

Quick summary of some of the bigger points -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/glenn-greenwald-janine-gibson-reddit-nsa

I personally find Reddit's format somewhat hard to follow compared to a typical forum, but there's a lot of good stuff in here.

 

[tom22406]

Just in case you had any doubts this could happen.

Russia to monitor 'all communications' at Winter Olympics in SochiExclusive: Investigation uncovers FSB surveillance system – branded 'Prism on steroids' – to listen to all athletes and visitors

Russia's powerful FSB security service plans to ensure that no communication by competitors or spectators goes unmonitored during the event, according to a dossier compiled by a team of Russian investigative journalists looking into preparations for the 2014 Games.

In a ceremony on Red Square on Sunday afternoon, the president, Vladimir Putin, held the Olympic flame aloft and sent it on its epic journey around the country, saying Russia and its people had always been imbued with the qualities of "openness and friendship", making Sochi the perfect destination for the Olympics.

But government procurement documents and tenders from Russian communication companies indicate that newly installed telephone and internet spying capabilities will give the FSB free rein to intercept any telephony or data traffic and even track the use of sensitive words or phrases mentioned in emails, webchats and on social media.

The journalists, Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, who are experts on the Russian security services, collated dozens of open source technical documents published on the Zakupki government procurement agency website, as well as public records of government oversight agencies. They found that major amendments have been made to telephone and Wi-Fi networks in the Black Sea resort to ensure extensive and all-permeating monitoring and filtering of all traffic, using Sorm, Russia's system for intercepting phone and internet communications.

The Sorm system is being modernised across Russia, but particular attention has been paid to Sochi given the large number of foreign visitors expected next year. Technical specifications set out by the Russian state telecoms agency also show that a controversial technology known as deep packet inspection, which allows intelligence agencies to filter users by particular keywords, is being installed across Russia's networks, and is required to be compatible with the Sorm system.

"For example you can use the keyword Navalny, and work out which people in a particular region are using the word Navalny," says Soldatov, referring to Alexei Navalny, Russia's best-known opposition politician. "Then, those people can be tracked further."

Ron Deibert, a professor at the University of Toronto and director of Citizen Lab, which co-operated with the Sochi research, describes the Sorm amendments as "Prism on steroids", referring to the programme used by the NSA in the US and revealed to the Guardian by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The scope and scale of Russian surveillance are similar to the disclosures about the US programme but there are subtle differences to the regulations," says Deibert. "We know from Snowden's disclosures that many of the checks were weak or sidestepped in the US, but in the Russian system permanent access for Sorm is a requirement of building the infrastructure."

"Even as recently as the Beijing Olympics, the sophistication of surveillance and tracking capabilities were nowhere near where they are today."

Gus Hosein, executive director of Privacy International, which also co-operated with the research, said: "Since 2008, more people are travelling with smartphones with far more data than back then, so there is more to spy on."

Wary of Sorm's capabilities, earlier this year a leaflet from the US state department's bureau of diplomatic security warned anyone travelling to the Games to be extremely cautious with communications.

"Business travellers should be particularly aware that trade secrets, negotiating positions, and other sensitive information may be taken and shared with competitors, counterparts, and/or Russian regulatory and legal entities," the document reads. The advice contains an extraordinary list of precautions for visitors who wish to ensure safe communications, such as removing batteries from phones when not in use and only travelling with "clean" devices.

Soldatov and Borogan have discovered that the FSB has been working since 2010 to upgrade the Sorm system to ensure it can cope with the extra traffic during the Games. All telephone and ISP providers have to install Sorm boxes in their technology by law, and once installed, the FSB can access data without the provider ever knowing, meaning every phone call or internet communication can be logged. Although the FSB technically requires a warrant to intercept a communication, it is not obliged to show it to anyone.

Tellingly, the FSB has appointed one of its top counterintelligence chiefs, Oleg Syromolotov, to be in charge at Sochi: security will thus be overseen by someone who has spent his career chasing foreign spies rather than terrorists.

Another target may well be gay rights, likely to be one of the biggest issues of the Games. Putin has said that competitors who wear rainbow pins, for example, will not be arrested under the country's controversial new law that bans "homosexual propaganda". However, it is likely that any attempts to stage any kind of rally or gathering to support gay rights will be ruthlessly broken up by police, as has been the case on numerous occasions in Russian cities in the past. Using DPI, Russian authorities will be able to identify, tag and follow all visitors to the Olympics, both Russian and foreign, who are discussing gay issues, and possibly planning to organise protests.

"Athletes may have particular political views, or they may be openly gay," says Deibert. "I think given recent developments in Russia, we have to be worried about these issues."

At a rare FSB press conference this week, an official, Alexei Lavrishchev, denied security and surveillance at the Games would be excessive, and said that the London Olympics featured far more intrusive measures. "There, they even put CCTV cameras in, excuse me for saying it, the toilets," said Lavrishchev. "We are not taking this kind of measure."

The FSB did not respond to a request for comment from the Guardian, while a spokesperson for the Sochi Olympics referred all requests to the security services. But Russian authorities often express a belief that NGOs working on human rights and other issues have subversive agendas dictated from abroad, and the FSB apparently feels that with so many potentially dangerous foreigners descending on the Black Sea resort for the Olympics, it has a duty to keep an eye on them.

In the end, the goal is overarching, but simple, says Soldatov: "Russian authorities want to make sure that every connection and every move made online in Sochi during the Olympics will be absolutely transparent to the secret services of the country."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/06/russia-monitor-communications-sochi-winter-olympics

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130930/16175624702/three-months-after-it-cleared-100k-signature-threshold-pardon-snowden-petition-still-unanswered.shtml

 

[Sand]

Huh, so perhaps they are going to get able to capture everything, but not keep it?

NSA Data Center Up in Flames.

Whoops.

 

[Slapdash]

Huh, so perhaps they are going to get able to capture everything, but not keep it?

NSA Data Center Up in Flames.

Whoops.

 

[tom22406]

Huh, so perhaps they are going to get able to capture everything, but not keep it?

NSA Data Center Up in Flames.

Whoops.

 

[Slapdash]

Lavabit's Legal Fight: Should The Feds Have The Right To Break The Internet's Security System?

At the end of July, the government filed a sealed document with a court in Virginia that sought to portray Dallas, Texas, business owner Ladar Levison as an obstruction to an investigation of a not-publicly-named-individual (that we all know to be NSA leaker Edward Snowden). The FBI wanted to collect information about Snowden’s use of Lavabit’s secure email services, but had been told by Levison that his system was not designed in a way that allowed for easy capture of his customers’ email activity. “On July 11, 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s office issued a grand jury subpoena for Mr. Levison to testify… [and] to bring to the grand jury his encryption keys,” wrote U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride in the July court filing [page. 99]. “The FBI attempted to serve the subpoena on Mr. Levison at his residence. After knocking on his door, the FBI Special Agents witnessed Mr. Levison exit his apartment from a back door, get in his car, and drive away.”

“I don’t have a back door,” said Levison in an interview earlier this month. “I was just leaving my house.”

When he then noticed a gray Escort following him, he freaked out. After weeks of going back and forth with the FBI who made it clear that he held sensitive data to which they wanted access, he was worried it could be “some foreign intelligence agent seeking to waterboard him for information.” He made some abrupt turns to try to lose the tail, and planned to make his way to a police station. “I lost them before I got to police station, though,” he says.

It’s hard to imagine the man calmly sitting before me in a white shirt and tie, petting his tiny, pink-harnessed Italian greyhound (named Princess), unknowingly making evasive maneuvers to avoid the feds. They did eventually catch up with him. The FBI served him with the subpoena later that night, allaying his fears of potential torture. At least of the physical variety.

It is but one example of a failure by the government and Levison to see an investigation into one of Lavabit’s over 400,000 email users from the same perspective. Levison, who says he has “been turned from a small business owner into a political activist overnight,” has from the beginning been willing to hand over the information the government sought about the person (who we all know to be Ed Snowden) because it had the proper legal orders for that information. But the government wanted direct access to Lavabit’s system with a pen trap device that would allow agents to collect intel about Snowden’s email use in real time. The agents did install that device upstream — making a run around Lavabit to install it with the company’s Internet service provider, TierPoint — allowing it to capture Lavabit customers’ activity. But the design of Lavabit’s system — in which encryption is used liberally to protect users’ accounts even from Lavabit itself — thwarted the FBI’s ability to decode that data, leading the government to try to find a way to defeat Lavabit’s security system, a security system that protects not just Snowden but Lavabit’s hundreds of thousands of other customers.

That culminated in 1. Levison handing over the encryption keys to his site, 2. Lavabit shutting down its email service in dramatic fashion, 3. A $10,000 contempt charge for Levison for stalling for two days before handing over the encryption keys digitally (after first handing them over printed out in tiny font on 11 pages), and 4. An appeal [PDF] to the Fourth Circuit, filed Thursday, that will ultimately determine whether it’s unconstitutional for the government to ask a website to turn over the encryption keys that protect its activity from intruders (even when those intruders are federal agents).

Wired has called it a “landmark privacy case” in a post that features a prominent photo of Edward Snowden. But the Lavabit case isn’t really about Snowden at all. Ladar Levison was willing to hand over whatever the government asked for when it came to Snowden (except for his password) — and even offered to custom code a solution that would allow him to capture Snowden’s activity and hand it over to the feds on a daily basis. (The feds turned that down. A judge later objected to “ do[ing] it in a way that the government has to trust [Lavabit].”) The government had the legal authority to get access to Snowden’s information and Levison was willing to comply and hand it over, as he had done in the past when one of his users was accused of trafficking in child pornography. Where this investigation got screwy — and the reason why Lavabit is fighting the government tooth and nail in court — is that the government asked for something so much larger than Snowden: the technological keys to intercept not just Snowden’s digital communications but those of all of Lavabit’s more than 400,000 users. By handing over those keys, Levison subverted the selling point of his service: secure communication that could not be spied on by a third party, which is why he shut down his company.

“You can’t run a secure website in the United States if you can be forced to hand over your SSL keys,” says Levison, who has stopped using email since the Lavabit shut-down, and now communicates only by text, Facebook (funnily enough) and, when he needs to send sensitive information, Silent Circle, an encrypted communication provider that offers chat and text services. Since he went public with his fight, Levison says he’s been contacted by other businesses that have also been ordered to turn over SSL keys, though they’ve never talked about it publicly.

“SSL keys are the security tool that underpins the Internet,” says Levison. They are the way you prove that you are the person who runs a particular website, and the keys you use to see the private activity on that website. Levison did not want his to end up in an NSA databank, for use whenever the government might want to use them. The FBI argued to a judge that it would only use them for getting access to the unknown-person-otherwise-known-as-Snowden, but Levison thinks that there should be technological constraints on what the government can do, not just legal ones.

Lavabit’s appeal to a federal court makes the argument that asking a business to hand over its encryption keys is an overbroad and unreasonable search, as well as a threat to a company’s business. “It is unthinkable that Congress would have given the government the authority to seize keys that would make it possible to intercept all of Lavabit’s communications with all of its customers—communications that the customers have been told are private against exactly that kind of secret surveillance,” write Lavabit lawyers in their opening brief. In fact, after the FBI’s having Lavabit’s keys was exposed, GoDaddy revoked them saying industry policies dictate they do so when they “become aware that the private key has been communicated to a 3rd-party and thus could be used by that party to intercept and decrypt communications.”

“For a company built on secure email services to surrender its private keys to an untrusted third party is a truly dramatic act, akin to requiring a hotel to turn over a master key to all of its hotel rooms (or install clear glass doors on those rooms)—or, for that matter, commanding the City of Richmond to give the police a key to every house within the city limits,” write Levison’s lawyers in their brief to the court. “[T]o comply with the government’s subpoena would have either required Lavabit to perpetrate a fraud on its customer base or shut down entirely.”

Levison recently traveled to Washington, D.C. to try to lobby lawmakers about the issue, but they “were more interested in their credit card bill,” a.k.a. the federal debt, he says. Usually, a third party to a criminal complaint (which Lavabit is) wouldn’t have the right to fight the government in court over the constitutionality of its investigation techniques after it had already handed over what the government wanted. That would be the job of Snowden’s attorneys. Luckily, Levison has that contempt charge along with the $10,000 fine, which gives him something to fight against.

Levison may not have gotten lawmakers to sign onto his cause, but he does have public support. He’s received over $200,000 in donations to his legal fund. Meanwhile, technologist Ed Felten of Princeton, who worked for a year for the Federal Trade Commission on tech and privacy issues, writes:

I was surprised that a court would go so far as to order Lavabit to turn over the security crown jewels. Turning over this information would have put Lavabit in a position of essentially lying to its users about security. While it’s true that Lavabit might have headed this off by being more cooperative earlier, when only the Snowden account was at issue, this chain of events only serves to undermine users’ trust in U.S.-based technology providers. Lavabit shut down rather than lie to its users, but that’s more than most providers would have done.

It will be an interesting case to watch, even if it’s a specialized one given Lavabit’s unique technical model.

“A business’ most closely guarded secrets may not be ransacked simply to gather a small amount of information about someone suspected of wrongdoing,” argues the brief. We’ll see if an appeals court agrees.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/10/14/lavabits-legal-fight-appeal/

 

[tom22406]

So now the French are wanting some answers

French officials called the spying “totally unacceptable” and demanded they cease.

The Foreign Ministry summoned the American ambassador, Charles H. Rivkin, who met with ministry officials on Monday morning.

“These kinds of practices between partners are totally unacceptable and we must be assured that they are no longer being implemented,” Mr. Rivkin was told, according to a ministry spokesman, Alexandre Giorgini.

The Interior minister, Manual Valls, speaking on Europe 1 Radio, called the revelations “shocking” and said they “will require explanation.”

“If an allied country is spying on France, it’s totally unacceptable,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/world/europe/new-report-of-nsa-spying-angers-france.html?_r=0

And so is Mexico

According to Der Spiegel, the NSA succeeded in hacking a central server in the network of the Mexican presidency that was also used by other members of Calderon's cabinet, yielding a trove of information on diplomatic and economic matters.

Without citing by name the German report, which was picked up by a number of Mexican media, the Mexican foreign ministry condemned the latest allegations about "suspected acts of spying carried out by the National Security Agency".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/mexico-condemns-us-nsa-hacking-presidents-emails

 

[wazoo11]

Oof, what a bad week for US foreign relations.

 

[Ilov80s]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

Definately a fool.

Heck, Mike Rogers (-R, Michigan) said it wasnt a problem/crime against the 4th amendment if the persons being spied upon didnt know it.

So much idiocy.

Here is Stephen Colbert skewering him... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-savages-nsa-and-rep-mike-rogers-se

 

[Jewell]

Greenwald To Foxs Bolling: Obama Deliberately, Repeatedly Misled Public About NSA Spying

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greenwald-to-foxs-bolling-obama-deliberately-repeatedly-misled-public-about-nsa-spying/

Following revelations that the NSA may have accessed Google and Yahoo data centers to possibly track Americans email accounts, Foxs Eric Bolling welcomed journalist Glenn Greenwald onto his weekend show Cashin In to discuss what President Obama may have known about the program and when he knew it. Do you think President Obama was misinformed or uninformed? Bolling asked.

I think neither, Greenwald answered. I think he was informed, but chose to tell the public things that he knew to be false. He claimed Obama has repeatedly misled the public by claiming that the NSA does not invade the content of our communications, when article after article has proven that they do.

These are mind-boggling revelations, Bolling said to Greenwald or the material that continues to be published from Edward Snowdens NSA leaks. He asked if we can expect more information to emerge from the documents Snowden provided to Greenwald.

Greenwald maintained what hes been saying for months, that the majority of very significant and even remarkable stories are yet to be reported. He added that hes currently working on reporting some more shocking stories as quickly as he can.

 

[jonessed]

Huh, so perhaps they are going to get able to capture everything, but not keep it?

NSA Data Center Up in Flames.

Whoops.

That is awesome.

 

[Ilov80s]

She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

Definately a fool.

Heck, Mike Rogers (-R, Michigan) said it wasnt a problem/crime against the 4th amendment if the persons being spied upon didnt know it.

So much idiocy.

Here is Stephen Colbert skewering him... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-savages-nsa-and-rep-mike-rogers-se

That was outstanding, Colbert is a genius.

 

[SacramentoBob]

She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

Definately a fool.

Heck, Mike Rogers (-R, Michigan) said it wasnt a problem/crime against the 4th amendment if the persons being spied upon didnt know it.

So much idiocy.

Here is Stephen Colbert skewering him... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-savages-nsa-and-rep-mike-rogers-se

That was outstanding, Colbert is a genius.

"Or notice her Adam's apple"

 

[tom22406]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.

This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

 

[tom22406]

If you have some free time check this out.

Very well done and worth your time.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1

 

[timschochet]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

 

[The Commish]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

In the context of this issue, she appears to be EXACTLY clueless

 

[StrikeS2k]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

 

[tom22406]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

She is the definition of clueless regarding this issue so I stand by what I said and I will add that in the gun control debate she also has shown her ignorance in that as well.She may mean well but she really needs to do her homework.

As far as not knowing what is going on we all fall into that boat but you can thank Ed Snowden for shedding some light on what is really going on and whether you like what he did or not this really needed to be made public and I'm thankful he did.

Almost everyday we learn something new and I'm sure that will continue for quite a while.

 

[Slapdash]

She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

Definately a fool.

Heck, Mike Rogers (-R, Michigan) said it wasnt a problem/crime against the 4th amendment if the persons being spied upon didnt know it.

So much idiocy.

Here is Stephen Colbert skewering him... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-savages-nsa-and-rep-mike-rogers-se

Quite brilliant actually. Rogers coining the Schrödinger's theory of privacy.

 

[Ilov80s]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

Well she is in charge of the Intelligence Committee and she says she had no idea about much of the spying we have been doing. Isn't that kind of the definition of clueless?

 

[The Commish]

She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

Definately a fool.

Heck, Mike Rogers (-R, Michigan) said it wasnt a problem/crime against the 4th amendment if the persons being spied upon didnt know it.

So much idiocy.

Here is Stephen Colbert skewering him... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/colbert-savages-nsa-and-rep-mike-rogers-se

Quite brilliant actually. Rogers coining the Schrödinger's theory of privacy.

Was I the only one who thought of Sheldon when I heard this idiot making this "argument"?

 

[timschochet]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

Well she is in charge of the Intelligence Committee and she says she had no idea about much of the spying we have been doing. Isn't that kind of the definition of clueless?

Did she say she had "no idea"?

 

[timschochet]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

Tim,

The alternative to calling her clueless is to say she is flat out LYING to the country. So, which would you rather her be called?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Defending your rights in the digital world

October 31, 2013 | By Trevor Timm
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s New NSA Bill Will Codify and Extend Mass Surveillance of Americans
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of the NSA’s biggest defenders, released what she calls an NSA “reform” bill today.

Don’t be fooled: the bill codifies some of the NSA’s worst practices, would be a huge setback for everyone’s privacy, and it would permanently entrench the NSA’s collection of every phone record held by U.S. telecoms. We urge members of Congress to oppose it.

We learned for the first time in June that the NSA secretly twisted and re-interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act six years ago to allow them to vacuum up every phone record in America—continuing an unconstitutional program that began in 2001. The new leaks about this mass surveillance program four months ago have led to a sea change in how Americans view privacy, and poll after poll has shown the public wants it to stop.

But instead of listening to her constituents, Sen. Feinstein put forth a bill designed to allow the NSA to monitor their calls. Sen. Feinstein wants the NSA to continue to collect the metadata of every phone call in the United States—that’s who you call, who calls you, the time and length of the conversation, and under the government’s interpretation, potentially your location—and store it for five years. This is not an NSA reform bill, it’s an NSA entrenchment bill.

Other parts of the bill claim to bring a modicum of transparency to small parts of the NSA, but requiring some modest reporting requirements, like how many times NSA searches this database and audit trails for who does the searching.

But its real goal seems to be to just paint a veneer of transparency over still deeply secret programs. It does nothing to stop NSA from weakening entire encryption systems, it does nothing to stop them from hacking into the communications links of Google and Yahoo’s data centers, and it does nothing to reform the PRISM Internet surveillance program.

Ironically, a bill that claims to bring transparency to the NSA was debated, discussed and modified by the Intelligence Committee today in secret.

The bill does make minor improvements in other areas, by explicitly allowing the FISA court to accept amicus briefs in certain circumstances (though it has already done so with existing authority), and authorizing a report to Congress will summarize significant FISA court opinions. Summarize, but not release.

Make no mistake: this is not an NSA reform bill at all. Instead of codifies one of the NSA’s most controversial surveillance programs. We urge you to call your Senator to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s disingenuous bill.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/sen-feinsteins-nsa-bill-will-codify-and-extend-mass-surveillance

 

[Jewell]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

"Clueless" wasn't used with regard of Feinstein's knowledge of the NSA's workings. Clueless was used in the manner that, "Feinstein must be clueless if she thinks we believe her that Snowden could have just come to her and everything would have been taken care of."

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.

This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

 

[timschochet]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

Tim,

The alternative to calling her clueless is to say she is flat out LYING to the country. So, which would you rather her be called?

No.

Those alternatives are based on the information which you have, which is incomplete at best.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[timschochet]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

"Clueless" wasn't used with regard of Feinstein's knowledge of the NSA's workings. Clueless was used in the manner that, "Feinstein must be clueless if she thinks we believe her that Snowden could have just come to her and everything would have been taken care of."

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.

This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I didn't see the show. Doesn't sound good. But your evaluation remains based on limited information.

 

[StrikeS2k]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong. Most people, who are familiar with how governments have acted throughout history, take the opposite stance.

2) It doesn't matter whether they have good reason to violate the constitution. That's something you just never seem to get. Some of us cherish our constitutional rights. You don't. We get that. But those of us who do will fight for them. You could at least respect that point of view.

 

[The Commish]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

I'm taking her at her word and assuming, for a brief second, that she isn't lying. She claims she doesn't know the NSA is spying on these people. If she's not clueless then what is she? Is willfully ignorant a better term?

 

[The Commish]

Those alternatives are based on the information which you have, which is incomplete at best.

What exactly are you talking about here? If it's what the rest of us are talking about this is probably the biggest stretch comment you've ever made in the FFA. We know that she said (paraphrasing) that all Snowden had to do was tell her what was going on. Why would he have to tell her anything if she knew? What more information do you need? Data has been provided to thoroughly support Snowden's assertion, so we know he's not lying.

 

[Jewell]

Here's my problem with all of you who call Feinstein clueless on THIS issue:

1. She is privy to everything you guys know about what the NSA is doing.

2. She is privy to a lot of stuff you guys don't know about what the NSA is doing.

Based on these two points, isn't it ironic for anyone here to call her clueless? It's one thing to disagree with her stance on this issue or her conclusions, but shouldn't the term clueless be reserved for someone who knows less, not more, about a topic than you do?

"Clueless" wasn't used with regard of Feinstein's knowledge of the NSA's workings. Clueless was used in the manner that, "Feinstein must be clueless if she thinks we believe her that Snowden could have just come to her and everything would have been taken care of."

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I didn't see the show. Doesn't sound good. But your evaluation remains based on limited information.

But you really don't need any information of the NSA's workings to assess whether Feinstein's statement is true that all Snowden had to go was come to her and she would have addressed/corrected the issues Snowden raised. That seems ridiculous to me, but apparently you take Feinstein at face value.

 

[Jewell]

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong.

At last check, Tim was still holding on that Obama did not lie or intentionally mislead regarding citizens' ability to keep their existing health insurance.

 

[timschochet]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong. Most people, who are familiar with how governments have acted throughout history, take the opposite stance.

2) It doesn't matter whether they have good reason to violate the constitution. That's something you just never seem to get. Some of us cherish our constitutional rights. You don't. We get that. But those of us who do will fight for them. You could at least respect that point of view.

1. There is a fine line between criticizing the government and demonizing the government. Forget about how "governments have acted throughout history", and focus on how OUR government has acted. Based on American history, I don't give our government the benefit of the doubt, but I remain highly skeptical of the deliberate conspiratorial charges being tossed around so loosely here. If I had to guess, I still believe this is a generally good (and inevitable) program, with lots of ineptitude, some corruption, and some bad acts by certain people which needs to be investigated, and the defense of it has been handled ineptly as a result of mindless bureaucracy. That's my guess, but of course I don't know.

2. Thanks for the patronizing civics lesson. Your assurance that the Constitution has been violated is not shared by everyone. I'm not going to spend time arguing that what the NSA is doing (or at least, what they're supposed to be doing) is Constitutional; I will leave that to the judges and judicial experts who know much more than I do about this subject. No offense, but you're not one of them.

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong.

At last check, Tim was still holding on that Obama did not lie or intentionally mislead regarding citizens' ability to keep their existing health insurance.

Yes this is true.

 

[The Commish]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong. Most people, who are familiar with how governments have acted throughout history, take the opposite stance.

2) It doesn't matter whether they have good reason to violate the constitution. That's something you just never seem to get. Some of us cherish our constitutional rights. You don't. We get that. But those of us who do will fight for them. You could at least respect that point of view.

1. There is a fine line between criticizing the government and demonizing the government. Forget about how "governments have acted throughout history", and focus on how OUR government has acted. Based on American history, I don't give our government the benefit of the doubt, but I remain highly skeptical of the deliberate conspiratorial charges being tossed around so loosely here. If I had to guess, I still believe this is a generally good (and inevitable) program, with lots of ineptitude, some corruption, and some bad acts by certain people which needs to be investigated, and the defense of it has been handled ineptly as a result of mindless bureaucracy. That's my guess, but of course I don't know.

2. Thanks for the patronizing civics lesson. Your assurance that the Constitution has been violated is not shared by everyone. I'm not going to spend time arguing that what the NSA is doing (or at least, what they're supposed to be doing) is Constitutional; I will leave that to the judges and judicial experts who know much more than I do about this subject. No offense, but you're not one of them.

How is a program "good" with lots of ineptitude, some corruption and some bad acts???? I'll add on top of that list the reality that the oversight folks apparently have no idea what's going on in said program.

 

[timschochet]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong. Most people, who are familiar with how governments have acted throughout history, take the opposite stance.

2) It doesn't matter whether they have good reason to violate the constitution. That's something you just never seem to get. Some of us cherish our constitutional rights. You don't. We get that. But those of us who do will fight for them. You could at least respect that point of view.

1. There is a fine line between criticizing the government and demonizing the government. Forget about how "governments have acted throughout history", and focus on how OUR government has acted. Based on American history, I don't give our government the benefit of the doubt, but I remain highly skeptical of the deliberate conspiratorial charges being tossed around so loosely here. If I had to guess, I still believe this is a generally good (and inevitable) program, with lots of ineptitude, some corruption, and some bad acts by certain people which needs to be investigated, and the defense of it has been handled ineptly as a result of mindless bureaucracy. That's my guess, but of course I don't know.

2. Thanks for the patronizing civics lesson. Your assurance that the Constitution has been violated is not shared by everyone. I'm not going to spend time arguing that what the NSA is doing (or at least, what they're supposed to be doing) is Constitutional; I will leave that to the judges and judicial experts who know much more than I do about this subject. No offense, but you're not one of them.

How is a program "good" with lots of ineptitude, some corruption and some bad acts???? I'll add on top of that list the reality that the oversight folks apparently have no idea what's going on in said program.

What I meant by that was that I continue to believe that the concept of collecting mass data, and searching through it with algorithms, is an important means to fight terrorism.

 

[The Commish]

One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole issue, for me, is that we receive only dribs and drabs of information, and ALL of it is negative about what the NSA is doing. Any argument that there are good reasons for the NSA's actions, that it's vital for national security, that we have been saved by the NSA, is hidden from us. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tim,

1) Given that we have limited information it's amazing that you ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the government, regardless of how much information there is that they are in the wrong. Most people, who are familiar with how governments have acted throughout history, take the opposite stance.

2) It doesn't matter whether they have good reason to violate the constitution. That's something you just never seem to get. Some of us cherish our constitutional rights. You don't. We get that. But those of us who do will fight for them. You could at least respect that point of view.

1. There is a fine line between criticizing the government and demonizing the government. Forget about how "governments have acted throughout history", and focus on how OUR government has acted. Based on American history, I don't give our government the benefit of the doubt, but I remain highly skeptical of the deliberate conspiratorial charges being tossed around so loosely here. If I had to guess, I still believe this is a generally good (and inevitable) program, with lots of ineptitude, some corruption, and some bad acts by certain people which needs to be investigated, and the defense of it has been handled ineptly as a result of mindless bureaucracy. That's my guess, but of course I don't know.

2. Thanks for the patronizing civics lesson. Your assurance that the Constitution has been violated is not shared by everyone. I'm not going to spend time arguing that what the NSA is doing (or at least, what they're supposed to be doing) is Constitutional; I will leave that to the judges and judicial experts who know much more than I do about this subject. No offense, but you're not one of them.

How is a program "good" with lots of ineptitude, some corruption and some bad acts???? I'll add on top of that list the reality that the oversight folks apparently have no idea what's going on in said program.

What I meant by that was that I continue to believe that the concept of collecting mass data, and searching through it with algorithms, is an important means to fight terrorism.

ok

 

[RCon]

Going by Feinstein's public statements lately, on a variety of topics, the only reasonable conclusion is that she's an idiot.

 

[tom22406]

Feinstein made the comment that all Snowden had to do was come to her with what he knew and she would have taken care of it and that Congress would have at least heard him out.

So let's say he did this very thing she suggested.Does anyone really believe we would know what we do right now about what was going on or even a little portion of it?

I say not a chance.

One look back at the past whistleblowers of the NSA tells a very different tale,they just didn't have the documents to prove what they knew and paid a steep price for it.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Feinstein made the comment that all Snowden had to do was come to her with what he knew and she would have taken care of it and that Congress would have at least heard him out.

So let's say he did this very thing she suggested.Does anyone really believe we would know what we do right now about what was going on or even a little portion of it?

I say not a chance.

One look back at the past whistleblowers of the NSA tells a very different tale,they just didn't have the documents to prove what they knew and paid a steep price for it.

0.00% chance.

 

[Ilov80s]

Diane Feinstein is such a fool. She really just said on TV that all Snowden had to do was tell her about the problems he saw and she would have taken care of it. Yeah, ok. She is opposed to is spying on our allies, now that she knows that they know.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that saw this little gem.This woman is clueless on so many levels and must really think people believe what she says(Tim does of course).

She would have taken care of it

I like Diane Feinstein. I won't attempt to defend her on this issue, because I have discovered that I don't know enough to do so (though I continue to firmly believe this applies to the rest of you as well.)But Senator Feinstein is a sharp, honest public servant and I have a great deal of respect for her. She is the exact opposite of clueless.

Well she is in charge of the Intelligence Committee and she says she had no idea about much of the spying we have been doing. Isn't that kind of the definition of clueless?

Did she say she had "no idea"?

I don't know the direct quote from her, but it was widely reported that she was unaware of spying on foreign allies.