NSA data mining

[newbored]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/08/18/theyre-going-after-greenwald/

[...]only the energetic efforts of the Brazilian embassy managed to just barely get Miranda out of there and home to a free country.

[...]Miranda had been staying with Laura Poitras, the American documentary filmmaker who has been instrumental in Greenwald’s reporting.

By citing the "Terrorism Act" as justification for their actions, the Brits violated their own procedures, as this paragraph from their Code of Practice makes clear:

"The purpose of questioning and associated powers is to determine whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers, which are additional to the powers of arrest under the Act, should not be used for any other purpose."

 

[newbored]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Greenwald speaks:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

[...]The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

[...]five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David.[...]

According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders"[...]

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism.[...]

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing[...]

 

[newbored]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Glenn Greenwald offered Brazilian protection from U.S.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/08/glenn_greenwald_offered_brazilian_protection_from_u_s_will_not_accept/

[...]the Brazilian government will offer Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald protection from the U.S. government after determining he risks facing legal action if he returns to the U.S.

“I haven’t requested any protection from the Brazilian government or any other government because, rather obviously, I’ve committed no crime — unless investigative journalism is now a felony in the U.S.,” Greenwald said

"[...]the fact that Brazilian authorities believe there is a real possibility that the U.S. would unjustly prosecute journalists for the ‘crime’ of reporting what the U.S. government is doing is a powerful indictment of the U.S.’s current image in the world[...]"

“Given that the Obama DOJ has adopted theories that would criminalize journalism in both the WikiLeaks Grand Jury proceeding and the investigation of James Rosen, given that it has waged what most observers agree is an unprecedented war on whistle-blowers, and given that several prominent political figures and journalists have called for my prosecution, I obviously take the risk seriously,” Greenwald adds. “But I take more seriously the Constitution’s guarantee of a free press in the First Amendment. So I have every intention of entering the U.S. as soon as my schedule permits and there’s a reason to do so.”

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

^^^ Thanks newbored!

Absolutely outrageous behavior by the Brits.

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

I don't think calling people paranoid or tinfoil hats makes any sense any more. We were just shown that 90% of the stuff that people easily used to dismiss as paranoia, is, in fact, true.

How were we shown that exactly? If your belief is that NSA develops systems and methods to spy on people, then you're 100% correct. They've admitted to that. If your argument is that they use those systems to spy on Americans, then nothing has been shown to support that. The closest they may have come is this "damning" report on compliance violations that a) conveniently has the details left out by the WP via not printing the appendices that the report itself says contain details on the compliance incidences and b) shows that there were 2,776 in a year (what about previous years?) where 240+ million database queries occurred (and most of those - 1900+ - being "roamer" incidents which don't even involve Americans) - hardly indicative of mass surveillance on the American public. Additionally, even the most biased of news sources and the most vocal of Congressional critics conceded that none of these incidents appeared to be intentional which eliminates the ideas of spying on Americans since spying, snooping, surveillance, etc. requires intent to do so.

Again, these are legitimate programs (that have some legitimate mistakes when operating them - around 0.000011%) that the news media is selecting facts from classified documents they have to push their agenda and all of the people who were already predisposed to dislike the NSA or the government in general are all jumping on board to say "see I told you so" without actually getting all of the facts. One thing I would like to see from the Washington Post is the remainder of the report that has the details on these compliance issues. What are they hiding from us that they can't publish the remainder of the very report they quote as support of their position?

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

^^^ @tigerfan,

So you now build your case on Hanlon's Razor.

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

It must be Real Truth if NSA's UK minions are using terrorism statutes to detain the partner of Glenn Greenwald for 9 hours and seize his belongings. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

One is left to wonder if a Mrs. Greenwald would have been detained. And four 9 hours. Would they have confiscated her nappies?

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

^^^ Thanks newbored!

Absolutely outrageous behavior by the Brits.

The UK terror legislation has been abused by the police....leading me to believe that either amendments will be made to this legislation, or suitable directions will be issued to the police by the appropriate government minister to avoid repetitions that appear to suck up to the United States authorities.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Additionally, even the most biased of news sources and the most vocal of Congressional critics conceded that none of these incidents appeared to be intentional which eliminates the ideas of spying on Americans since spying, snooping, surveillance, etc. requires intent to do so.

The NSA is not going to confess to spying on United States citizens.

The NSA snoops on those who they believe are a threat to the security of the United States....including US citizens....to believe otherwise would be to accept that the NSA believes that US citizens will never commit acts of terror on American soil cue Timothy McVeigh.

 

[Corny]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

How were we shown that exactly? If your belief is that NSA develops systems and methods to spy on people, then you're 100% correct. They've admitted to that. If your argument is that they use those systems to spy on Americans, then nothing has been shown to support that.

I don't fucking care whether they are spying on Americans or not. I don't fucking care whether it is legal in the US or not.

And neither should any American. What has been in doubt is whether they have the ressources or the technical knowledge to pull this kind of monitoring off. And this has been proven just by the tech specs from xkeyscore. So they have the infrastructure and the possibility. There is no reason to believe it will not be abused. This is the reason why hackers are fighting for data privacy and against global databases since the 80s and before.

 

[bankside]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

Corny there is no proof it has yet, as of the present moment, taking in to account all the relevant information, caused, as it were, the death of the sun and the destruction of all life on this planet. And in particular, AMERICAN life on this planet.

Without proof of that actually having already happened, questioning the NSA or demanding open accountability and improved legal safeguards, are just the ravings of a treasonous crackpot.

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The NSA is not going to confess to spying on United States citizens.

The NSA snoops on those who they believe are a threat to the security of the United States....including US citizens....to believe otherwise would be to accept that the NSA believes that US citizens will never commit acts of terror on American soil cue Timothy McVeigh.

Only partially correct. Don't forget the potential criminals caught in the hopper. You know, the one hop - two hops - three hops machine.

From http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...a-since-2007?p=8947660&viewfull=1#post8947660


The innocence with which this NSA endeavor is presented never ceases to amaze me; my concerns in posts 129 and 180 remain undiminished.

From the Memorandum:

Section 3-Acquisition and Processing-General
....
(b) Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether information acquired must be minimized and will destroy inadvertently acquired communication ... at the earliest practicable point ... at which such communication can be identified either: ... or, as not containing evidence of a crime ....

Section 5-Domestic Communications
A communication identified as a domestic communication will be promptly destroyed ... unless ...
(2) the communication ... is reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Such communication may be disseminated ....[e.s.]

 

[T-Rexx]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

I don't fucking care whether they are spying on Americans or not. I don't fucking care whether it is legal in the US or not.

And neither should any American. What has been in doubt is whether they have the ressources or the technical knowledge to pull this kind of monitoring off. And this has been proven just by the tech specs from xkeyscore. So they have the infrastructure and the possibility. There is no reason to believe it will not be abused.

History has shown that groups wielding unsupervised power ALWAYS abuse their authority when left unsupervised long enough. ALWAYS.

The NSA has operated without supervision since early in the GWB administration. Their own internal audits - which they tried to conceal from the Senate Judiciary Committee which should be supervising them - document some of their own abuses of power. Not only is there no reason to believe the NSA has not abused its authority, but their own evidence indicates they have.

It is time to bring these people under control. In the absence of presidential leadership on this, Senator Partick Leahy (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) will be conducting hearings into the NSA's behavior.

 

[Corny]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

-> see: stanford prison experiment

 

[opinterph]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

-> see: stanford prison experiment

Stanford Prison Experiment

A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University

 

[bankside]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

I think the Milgram Experiment is also instructive.

The main lesson there was that people will do anything when they feel it is directed by someone in authority.

Partly in opposition to that experiment, and ironically partly as a result of what its findings revealed about human nature, university research is now subject to new rules of ethics, and close scrutiny from ethics boards.

 

[palbert]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

UK security agents enter Guardian offices, destroy hard-drives after Guardian refused to turn over Snowden materials.

.... And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...fo-guardian-says-reporting-continues-ny.shtml

Apparently no irreplaceable Snowden material was destroyed.

The Guardian has moved all Snowden reporting to less fascist environments,

 

[newbored]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

^^^ Thanks newbored!

Absolutely outrageous behavior by the Brits.

My pleasure, man.

Very serious transgressions by the British Government, indeed. It's all very worrying, I'd say. It'd seem the UK hasn't changed its long tradition of sucking up to and being entirely compliant to the USA Government. It hadn't been this ridiculous since the Bush/Blair days...

 

[tigerfan482]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

The NSA is not going to confess to spying on United States citizens.
The NSA snoops on those who they believe are a threat to the security of the United States....including US citizens....to believe otherwise would be to accept that the NSA believes that US citizens will never commit acts of terror on American soil cue Timothy McVeigh.

You keep bringing up Timothy McVeigh, yet that has no bearing on this matter or the NSA in general. No one has once accused the NSA of spying on, or failing to spy on, Timothy McVeigh nor has any evidence ever been produced to show that he was under any investigation before the OKC bombing, despite his rather public extremist views. If you're arguing that he was a domestic threat, then that part is obviously true. However, I think history has actually shown that domestic threats tend to be the most successful since they are protected by the Fourth Amendment. There is no information at all in there to support your contention that NSA spies on all threats, including American citizens. In fact, I think the evidence tends to point the other direction - that the lack of spying on US citizens allows for more domestic terror attacks to reach final planning and execution stages. It's time to cue the Boston Marathon bombing and the attempted Time Square bombing - all planned and carried out by US citizens or lawful resident aliens (both groups protected as US persons under FISA).

I don't fucking care whether they are spying on Americans or not. I don't fucking care whether it is legal in the US or not.

And neither should any American. What has been in doubt is whether they have the ressources or the technical knowledge to pull this kind of monitoring off. And this has been proven just by the tech specs from xkeyscore. So they have the infrastructure and the possibility. There is no reason to believe it will not be abused. This is the reason why hackers are fighting for data privacy and against global databases since the 80s and before.

I don't think the existence of resources or technological capability of the US (or many other countries for that matter) to spy on anyone they wish was ever in doubt. There are numerous government and private entities out there who could easily spy on just about anyone in the world. But is your contention that if something has the possibility of being abused, then it should be eliminated/made illegal? If so, then I think the world should be prepared to do without just about everything we enjoy today, because any of it could be abused. Your very example of hackers shows that you support abuse of technology as long as it supports what your position is.

I think the more relevant question is has it been abused, and I don't think there is any evidence that it has. There is evidence of mistakes (in an extremely small quantity), but abuse necessarily requires intent, and so far every source out there clearly states that there has been no intentional misuse of these capabilities.

But do tell - what are your proposals to "fix" this situation?

Only partially correct. Don't forget the potential criminals caught in the hopper. You know, the one hop - two hops - three hops machine.

From http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...a-since-2007?p=8947660&viewfull=1#post8947660


The innocence with which this NSA endeavor is presented never ceases to amaze me; my concerns in posts 129 and 180 remain undiminished.

From the

Memorandum:

Your concerns are based in the law. 50 USC section 1801(h)(3)
Neither the NSA nor the Attorney General has reinterpreted anything. It is specifically codified in the law. If you want it changed, write your Congressman. This requirement has existed in the FISA since it was originally passed and has been available for anyone to see. There has been little controversy to this until now.

History has shown that groups wielding unsupervised power ALWAYS abuse their authority when left unsupervised long enough. ALWAYS.

The NSA has operated without supervision since early in the GWB administration. Their own internal audits - which they tried to conceal from the Senate Judiciary Committee which should be supervising them - document some of their own abuses of power. Not only is there no reason to believe the NSA has not abused its authority, but their own evidence indicates they have.
It is time to bring these people under control.

In the absence of presidential leadership on this, Senator Partick Leahy (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) will be conducting hearings into the NSA's behavior.

The NSA has actually been under supervision since the FISA act was passed. The Senate Judiciary Committee is not who the NSA is required by law to report to. They report to the Intelligence Committees. And this report was an internal audit report anyway. All of these are compiled into official reports and passed on to the Intelligence Committees every month.

Dianne Feinstein's statements on this topic.

Stanford Prison Experiment
A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University

There is a long write up about the shortcomings of that experiment here. One of the contentions made is that it's the nature of the people involved in the actions that contribute heavily to said actions. This also addresses the lengths to which people will go within what they are assigned or are expected to do. The NSA is not tasked, expected, or allowed to target American citizens. They are allowed to target foreigners for foreign intelligence purposes. The correct correlation between this experiment and the NSA actions would be how aggressively and to what lengths the NSA goes to get foreign intelligence from foreign targets - the job they are tasked to do. Consequently, the proper experiment to correlate to what you think the NSA is currently doing would be to perform the Prison Experiment and find that while the guards were ruthless in their treatment of prisoners, they also started dealing drugs on the side or beating their wife at home.

I think the Milgram Experiment is also instructive.

The main lesson there was that people will do anything when they feel it is directed by someone in authority.

Partly in opposition to that experiment, and ironically partly as a result of what its findings revealed about human nature, university research is now subject to new rules of ethics, and close scrutiny from ethics boards.

I don't see the correlation here between the two. This experiment could represent anyone - a person doing what their boss tells them at work to, a kid doing their homework because their parents told them, and someone following the speed limit because it's the law. Are you implying this experiment somehow describes a situation at the NSA where everyone is breaking the law because their director told them to? Because if so, a more accurate experiment would be to give 40 people a gun and instruct them to shoot someone, feeding them each one of the 4 phrases every time they refused. You would also instruct them that the law is that you can't shoot someone and that you would go to jail for a long time if you did shoot someone. I bet you would find a lot more people would be unwilling to listen to said authority figure if they knew they were breaking the law and there were real consequences.

 

[kallipolis]

Re: NSA data mining shared with the DEA

You keep bringing up Timothy McVeigh, yet that has no bearing on this matter or the NSA in general.

Timothy McVeigh's terrorist actions in Oklahoma City killing United States citizens evidence the fact that white skinned, United States citizens can, and do commit acts of terror against their fellow Americans; precedent and evidence sufficient for the NSA to exclude none from their surveillance activities....