1. Each time something increasingly worse about the NSA surveillance gets revealed, or confirmed, Sens. Wyden and Udall release a statement saying something like: "This is only the tip of the iceberg: if Americans only knew how bad it was, they'd be very angry." They're on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so are in a position to know at least more than their colleagues, and much more than their employers (the American people). This is extremely disconcerting. What we know and now see confirmed officially about the surveillance is pretty stunning. Exactly how bad is this? Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country?
2. So, if it's so bad, why won't the honorable Sens. Udall and Wyden take a stand and reveal the wrongdoings on the Senate floor? As I understand the law, they cannot be charged for anything revealed on the Senate floor. And even if there were a way to charge them, I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president to try.
These two gentleman swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. Why won't they uphold it? They are in a unique position to do so. The fact that they keep making these ominous statements is starting to seem more like a cover-your-ass strategy than an honest attempt to stop the illegal activities.
> Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country?
I'm going to assume the worst, which would be that the NSA is used as a tool of blackmail by nefarious parties whom the NSA relies on. Key House and Senate members put in a good word for the NSA and then they get some "free" information on their opponents, at which point they convince their opponents to "trade" wins with the opposing party's leadership.
Those in on the game get to continue their political career because the party leaderships are coordinating wins between each-other through bipartisan-orchestrated gerrymandering, and "suicide" elections where elected officials intentionally lose their elections in order to boost the profile of their friendly opponents.
Those whom are bucking the chain of command are ostracised and relegated to the fringes (eg: the Pauls).
Wyden & Udall are constrained by their roles within the system; they have both been trying to encourage people to ask the right questions, but they are not going to break the laws they are sworn to uphold.
What we need is an independent congressional commission with the power to unilaterally declassify information that is not directly related to ongoing operations ( i.e. anything naming specific operatives or live intelligence about events now in the field would be exempt. But descriptions of scope, and summary reports of the outcomes of programs would be allowed. ) so that the American public can get an idea of what is being done in it's name.
This commission to include in it's scope psychological warfare operations and propaganda directed at American audiences. And a full investigation of any information sharing regarding American citizens with other agencies of the Executive branch.
We need this now. These stains on our nations honor can only be cleaned by sunlight.
They'll be kicked out of the committees that allow them access to that classified data and will be unable to do anything further to try and fight these things.
I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president
I am not an American and have no idea how politics work in the US but Obama is basically a political Zombie by now. He can do whatever he wants now right?
Before getting access to classified information, they also swore an oath to not reveal it. Even if they can't be sued (which I do not know is true), they'd still be breaking their sworn word.
I think right now making noise in any way is a respectable move. If they go to far, then NSA might retaliate against them, and no legal protection in the world would save them. If they keep going the way they are right now, it will keep this issue in the public eye, which is exactly where it needs to be. Yes, the system is totally fucked, but give them credit for having the balls to say something at all.
Where this is going is a clear showdown on a large number of levels. I wish I could be optimistic about this being resolved decisively for the good guys but I think most likely we are likely to see a codification of the same stalemate.
The NSA has created a large market for services like Silent Circle and this means that a larger number of wiretaps and the like are likely to "go dark" as a result of encryption. We need fully open source and federated versions of things like Silent Circle has and those will come about.
But this will lead to new battles about encryption and government access to encryption. As the people start realizing that everything is tapped by default, they will start protecting themselves.
Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. Now that we know that this trust has been broken there is no way to go back.
We will see two battles in the near future. The first will be a battle over the size and scope of the surveillance state. I fear the NSA will win that one hands down.
But the second is over government access to encryption backdoors. We have more reason to be optimistic here.
Things are shaping up to create a huge showdown. I, for one, am relatively afraid of the consequences even if we win the second battle.
How are we supposed to challenge a secret program that even the overseers say they are overreaching, and yet wont acknowledge it exists, or that anyone has any right to sue because they cant prove the secret program targeted them.
Its a complete farce as far as I can tell, and the dog and pony show will eventually calm and then we will basically be in the same position as we ever were.
I will definitely be voting against those that support this buffoonery, but I don't know that most will.
>Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused.
They were abused for a long time and we did nothing. The difference was you had to physically tap the line while the call was taking place, and then physically listen to the entire call.This placed enormous limitations. Now you can automatically store everyone's calls (translated to text), and search the entire database with a keyword search.
But this is one of those things that, sadly, few people outside of places like HN have the slightest understanding of.
Cue praise from the majority of the main stream media that only tens of thousands of communications are improperly monitored since there are roughly 150 billion emails sent per day (globally). The surveillance program will be declared a stunning success and most people will agree since they are impressed by small percentages. The error rate being so low will imply, to most people, that the NSA is painstakingly concerned with only monitoring pertinent communications.
Out of curiosity, what is a good argument against this perspective that Average Joe can grok?
Why are you less impressed by small percentages than by numbers that are large only in the absence of a reference scale? It's generally not possible to design flawless systems, and failure rate a much more meaningful number.
Prior to the American Revolution, British Magistrates were giving the police "general warrants" that let them search whatever they wanted and this lead to all kinds of abuses of power. This is why we require that search warrants are reasonably scoped.
We have come full circle (ironically our most recent "President George" was the third President named George, so I like to affectionately call him President George III) back to a time of general warrants. We can expect that the same kinds of abuses of power will occur.
This means, effectively that the government can decide that someone is an annoyance to them and then look back at all of their communications for evidence of a crime, and then try the individual for very vague crimes in court. Checked face book at work? Are you guilty of using your work computer in excess of what your employer authorized? Worse is it wire fraud?
In the end we end up in a world dominated by government officials who can and will adopt the same mentality of Stalin's chief of police, Beria, who was purportedly quoted as saying "show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
We should shove our NSA rejection letters (mine was signed LOL) in their faces and make them give us our box loads of data along with out analytics scores.
As a new immigrant to the USA, I am simply appalled at the infringement of privacy that is being carried out by the NSA and the government. In Australia, we learned that the 1st amendment protected the Freedom of Speech of every American. How can you have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press when every private communication of citizens and reporters alike are being scrutinized by secret agencies in the government??
You can't. But a large number of people seem to not care, because they're already so used to putting every thought that pops into their head online where everyone can see it.
Hasn't "Freedom of Speech" always been about public speech? You alluded to it yourself when you said "freedom or the press". I don't see what invasion of privacy has to do with freedom of speech as the constitution means it.
jnbiche|12 years ago
1. Each time something increasingly worse about the NSA surveillance gets revealed, or confirmed, Sens. Wyden and Udall release a statement saying something like: "This is only the tip of the iceberg: if Americans only knew how bad it was, they'd be very angry." They're on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so are in a position to know at least more than their colleagues, and much more than their employers (the American people). This is extremely disconcerting. What we know and now see confirmed officially about the surveillance is pretty stunning. Exactly how bad is this? Is all of congress tapped? All the governors? Snowden hinted at this. What the fuck is going on in my country?
2. So, if it's so bad, why won't the honorable Sens. Udall and Wyden take a stand and reveal the wrongdoings on the Senate floor? As I understand the law, they cannot be charged for anything revealed on the Senate floor. And even if there were a way to charge them, I'd like to think it would be political suicide for any president to try.
These two gentleman swore an oath to the U.S. constitution. Why won't they uphold it? They are in a unique position to do so. The fact that they keep making these ominous statements is starting to seem more like a cover-your-ass strategy than an honest attempt to stop the illegal activities.
ihsw|12 years ago
I'm going to assume the worst, which would be that the NSA is used as a tool of blackmail by nefarious parties whom the NSA relies on. Key House and Senate members put in a good word for the NSA and then they get some "free" information on their opponents, at which point they convince their opponents to "trade" wins with the opposing party's leadership.
Those in on the game get to continue their political career because the party leaderships are coordinating wins between each-other through bipartisan-orchestrated gerrymandering, and "suicide" elections where elected officials intentionally lose their elections in order to boost the profile of their friendly opponents.
Those whom are bucking the chain of command are ostracised and relegated to the fringes (eg: the Pauls).
olefoo|12 years ago
What we need is an independent congressional commission with the power to unilaterally declassify information that is not directly related to ongoing operations ( i.e. anything naming specific operatives or live intelligence about events now in the field would be exempt. But descriptions of scope, and summary reports of the outcomes of programs would be allowed. ) so that the American public can get an idea of what is being done in it's name.
This commission to include in it's scope psychological warfare operations and propaganda directed at American audiences. And a full investigation of any information sharing regarding American citizens with other agencies of the Executive branch.
We need this now. These stains on our nations honor can only be cleaned by sunlight.
LoganCale|12 years ago
beedogs|12 years ago
The short answer is that it isn't your country anymore.
chanux|12 years ago
I am not an American and have no idea how politics work in the US but Obama is basically a political Zombie by now. He can do whatever he wants now right?
btilly|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
Zoomla|12 years ago
bengrunfeld|12 years ago
einhverfr|12 years ago
The NSA has created a large market for services like Silent Circle and this means that a larger number of wiretaps and the like are likely to "go dark" as a result of encryption. We need fully open source and federated versions of things like Silent Circle has and those will come about.
But this will lead to new battles about encryption and government access to encryption. As the people start realizing that everything is tapped by default, they will start protecting themselves.
Wiretaps were tolerated when we could trust in processes that would guarantee that they would not be abused. Now that we know that this trust has been broken there is no way to go back.
We will see two battles in the near future. The first will be a battle over the size and scope of the surveillance state. I fear the NSA will win that one hands down.
But the second is over government access to encryption backdoors. We have more reason to be optimistic here.
Things are shaping up to create a huge showdown. I, for one, am relatively afraid of the consequences even if we win the second battle.
hobs|12 years ago
How are we supposed to challenge a secret program that even the overseers say they are overreaching, and yet wont acknowledge it exists, or that anyone has any right to sue because they cant prove the secret program targeted them.
Its a complete farce as far as I can tell, and the dog and pony show will eventually calm and then we will basically be in the same position as we ever were.
I will definitely be voting against those that support this buffoonery, but I don't know that most will.
jivatmanx|12 years ago
They were abused for a long time and we did nothing. The difference was you had to physically tap the line while the call was taking place, and then physically listen to the entire call.This placed enormous limitations. Now you can automatically store everyone's calls (translated to text), and search the entire database with a keyword search.
But this is one of those things that, sadly, few people outside of places like HN have the slightest understanding of.
gasull|12 years ago
Did Obama denied PRISM too or did he just let others deny it? If the former, isn't this a reason for impeachment?
mcphilip|12 years ago
Out of curiosity, what is a good argument against this perspective that Average Joe can grok?
morpher|12 years ago
einhverfr|12 years ago
Prior to the American Revolution, British Magistrates were giving the police "general warrants" that let them search whatever they wanted and this lead to all kinds of abuses of power. This is why we require that search warrants are reasonably scoped.
We have come full circle (ironically our most recent "President George" was the third President named George, so I like to affectionately call him President George III) back to a time of general warrants. We can expect that the same kinds of abuses of power will occur.
This means, effectively that the government can decide that someone is an annoyance to them and then look back at all of their communications for evidence of a crime, and then try the individual for very vague crimes in court. Checked face book at work? Are you guilty of using your work computer in excess of what your employer authorized? Worse is it wire fraud?
In the end we end up in a world dominated by government officials who can and will adopt the same mentality of Stalin's chief of police, Beria, who was purportedly quoted as saying "show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
SCAQTony|12 years ago
bengrunfeld|12 years ago
LoganCale|12 years ago
throwawaykf02|12 years ago