The News Thread

[transmogrifier]

This is a forum for discussion, is it not?

How do you think Irish feels about this, you blatantly trying to involve me in one of your "discussions".

That's cold, man.

[Irish]

My problem is your alarmist rhetoric. You're being needlessly frantic and fearful. Like it or not, we signed up for this when we elected these guys.

"These guys" include a Constitutional scholar who campaigned on a promise to reverse the National Security practices of the Bush administration. Except he didn't. Instead, he embraced and extended them.

The Patriot Act has been around for a decade, and we've been wiretapping or otherwise using surveillance for long before that, but now that it has a name, it's suddenly the biggest monster around.

You do realize that this is about US citizens being spied on by their own government on a massive scale, right? It's quite a bit different from what the government claimed to have done before.

Remember the 4th amendment? The government doesn't have the right to collect information about you without cause, when you're not suspected of any crime. Especially if that information may or may not be incriminating.

From a technical perspective, this has nothing to do with wiretaps, btw. If you still think that, then you fundamentally misunderstand the issue.

And just so you're aware, the details of PRISM have now been declassified and the program is under the jurisdiction of all three branches of government. So yes, there is oversight. Is it enough? Maybe. Maybe not. Should it be more transparent? Absolutely. Should you be concerned that we're becoming a dictatorship? Not unless you think 250 years of democracy is magically going to disappear.

They put out a press release explaining the program (on a Saturday. That alone should tell you something).

The level of oversight hasn't changed at all. It's still comes down to a Congress that is regularly "briefed" (and apparently lied to) and a secret court which issues secret decisions.

If I'm alarmist, all you need to do is rub two brain cells together and imagine PRISM in the hands of a president as paranoid as Richard Nixon.

Get the picture yet?

[Robby P]

I respect David Simon's opinion but I remain unpersuaded by his argument. Just because an abuse of this power has not yet been uncovered does not mean that it has never happened or more importantly that it will not happen in the future. I think he's being disingenuous when he tries to compare the scale of a wiretap on public payphones in certain areas of Baltimore to the dragnet surveillance of hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens. And I think he's being naive when he claims that this surveillance program is subject to "judicial oversight" when its proceedings are conducted in a non-adversarial secret court with secret statutory interpretations heard by a rubber stamp court with its hand in the executive branch's pocket. There may be an absence of evidence that the government is using this information against us presently but that hardly means we should continue to allow them to collect it without at least questioning what limits are in place to prevent them from using it against us either now or at some unknown point in the future.

[number8]

I am shocked, shocked that the creator of The Wire is not alarmed by wiretaps.

[Irish]

Daniel Ellsberg weighs in:

In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-stasi-america

Kinda embarrassing all the good stuff is coming from UK papers.

[shaun]

Of course it's already being abused. If a goverment with blanket surveillance powers decides they don't want you in the way, they no longer have to get some spook to disappear you. Case in point, the Petraeus affair scandal. This is no longer tin foil theory with the amount of unchecked power they have.

Politico, however, hears that is likely an exaggeration and that concern over access to Petraeus’ e-mail was not what initiated the investigation. McClatchy hears similar information, noting that sources say “the FBI did not investigate the author for attempting to compromise Petraeus’ computer.” According to this version it seems that, as Reuters hears, investigators stumbled across evidence of the affair while investigating news leaks. Although it's unclear exactly why the FBI was monitoring Petraeus’ e-mail, a source tells the Washington Post, the FBI found e-mails describing the affair.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I read that article and it's very naive. It basically amounts to "the government would do this anyway because they can, so we have to trust them when they say they'll only use it to protect us". And that's bullshit. Like Irish said, imagine the fun Nixon would have with this!

Also, B-Side, the reason why they will not start arresting people for downloading movies or selling pot based on surveillance is because they don't care enough about those things. They wouldn't be worth the aggravation.

[Benny Profane]

[number8]

Smart guy

Simon Young, director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong, told GlobalPost that a decision delivered by Hong Kong's High Court in March of this year required the government to create a new procedure for reviewing asylum applications.

Until the government does this, he said, asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Hong Kong indefinitely.

"We’re still waiting to hear from government how they are going to implement this decision," said Young. "Until that’s the case, you can’t return anyone until the law’s in place."

In other words, should Snowden apply for asylum, then even if the US made a valid extradition request and Hong Kong was willing to comply he could not be deported until the government figured out a new way to review asylum cases — a potentially lengthy process.

[number8]

[transmogrifier]

Smart guy

There's something ironic about a guy who has exposed the shady dealings of one government putting his faith in the machinations of another to remain safe.

[Wryan]

As long as Alexander Skarsgard plays him in the movie, he can do whatever he wants as far as I'm concerned.

[Irish]

Snowden's whereabouts currently 'unknown.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22850901

[shaun]

If it's actually him, he's been posting on Twitter so he's probably still ok.

https://twitter.com/EJosephSnowden

[Sycophant]

I'm glad he posted a link to Rockwell's "Somebody's Watching Me." It's been too long since I've thought about/heard that song.

[B-side]

I respect David Simon's opinion but I remain unpersuaded by his argument. Just because an abuse of this power has not yet been uncovered does not mean that it has never happened or more importantly that it will not happen in the future. I think he's being disingenuous when he tries to compare the scale of a wiretap on public payphones in certain areas of Baltimore to the dragnet surveillance of hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens. And I think he's being naive when he claims that this surveillance program is subject to "judicial oversight" when its proceedings are conducted in a non-adversarial secret court with secret statutory interpretations heard by a rubber stamp court with its hand in the executive branch's pocket. There may be an absence of evidence that the government is using this information against us presently but that hardly means we should continue to allow them to collect it without at least questioning what limits are in place to prevent them from using it against us either now or at some unknown point in the future.

I swear you guys didn't read his article. He says a number of times that there will be overreach if there hasn't been already. He didn't say it was acceptable, and he certainly didn't say the way it's overseen is good. Really. Go back and read it again. He's responding to the (new) outrage and cries of tyrannical mass prosecution. He's not excusing it.

[MadMan]

I don't trust the government to do anything at this point. So why the fuck would I trust them to use gross amounts of spying powers/abilities wisely and to not go after innocent people?

[B-side]

So why the fuck would I trust them to use gross amounts of spying powers/abilities wisely and to not go after innocent people?

Because they have not only 310 million Americans to answer to, but also the international community if they were to do so. Again, I reiterate, the US is not an isolated third world country ran by a dictator. There is accountability.

[Barty]

Because they have not only 310 million Americans to answer to, but also the international community if they were to do so. Again, I reiterate, the US is not an isolated third world country ran by a dictator. There is accountability.

The government answers to the people like a master answers to a slave. All gestures of accountability are merely a show to keep the people from rebelling and speaking up too much.

[B-side]

The government answers to the people like a master answers to a slave. All gestures of accountability are merely a show to keep the people from rebelling and speaking up too much.

I wouldn't expect you to respond in any manner that would make you seem anything but hilariously cynical and overly paranoid. You speak as if you've actually experienced any of the sort of persecution and flagrant corruption that you pretend occurs here regularly. People in the Congo are less cynical than you, and they've experienced far worse horrors than you could ever even fathom.

[B-side]

Different take on the surveillance program and the revisions to the original article that nobody talks about

Glenn Greenwald is a very silly man, and people really shouldn't be taking him that seriously.

Anywho, I feel I should clarify that I am in no way content with the extent of the data mining and what seems to basically be a rubber stamp oversight committee. I don't think there's any grand corruption or mass disregard for the fourth amendment, but it's still kind of unnerving to think about.

[Grouchy]

I wouldn't expect you to respond in any manner that would make you seem anything but hilariously cynical and overly paranoid. You speak as if you've actually experienced any of the sort of persecution and flagrant corruption that you pretend occurs here regularly. People in the Congo are less cynical than you, and they've experienced far worse horrors than you could ever even fathom.

Except that Barty's right (as he almost always is in these cases, from what I can tell) and I'm not even sure what your opinion is anymore.

I swear, governments and politicians can prove again and again that they're not only power-hungry but completely willing to engage in criminal behavior and prosecution of civil liberties... and regular people come up with ways to justify them! It's insane!

[Irish]

Different take on the surveillance program and the revisions to the original article that nobody talks about

He doesn't address the Verizon angle at all.

I feel I should clarify that I am in no way content with the extent of the data mining and what seems to basically be a rubber stamp oversight committee. I don't think there's any grand corruption or mass disregard for the fourth amendment, but it's still kind of unnerving to think about.

These two statements would seem to contradict one another. What exactly do you think the fourth amendment is supposed to do?

[Yxklyx]

Man, Snowden wasn't even in the NSA (just contracting): "Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan".

So, we have privately funded individuals with this kind of access. Not only is the government collecting this info but it is in effect giving access to it to people who do not have to report to the US government. This is a ridiculously awful state of affairs.

[Robby P]

It's important to remember that a person's fourth amendment rights aren't abrogated at the point at which a prosecutor attempts to introduce incriminating evidence which was obtained during the course of an unreasonable search but rather that a person's rights are violated at the point at which the unreasonable search is conducted. A person doesn't need to show malicious intent or more importantly show damages to claim their rights have been violated. I think dragnet surveillance is, by definition, mass disregard for the fourth amendment.