Big Brother is Watching You

[billy.pilgrim]

Here's Michael,

after he promised not to wear his military uniform if confirmed for the civilian post, telling the world, no, the Constitution does not require probable cause for a warrant.

https://youtu.be/cGhcECnWRGM

[O Really]

So Snowden can say that the information he illegally released to the press was in fact about illegal operations. Fine. But I'm not particularly comfortable with a part time contractor with no legal training being the one to make a determination as to the legality of NSA operations. He couldn't have found even one real lawyer to bring suit over the issue instead of journalists?

Seems a lot like a guy who believes the man eating lunch at a cafe is an accused rapist so he shoots him where he sits. During the ensuing investigation, it turns out the man really was a rapist. Does the shooter now get a free pass because he guessed right that time? Or was the shooter still wrong at the time of the shot because (a) he had no authority to shoot people on suspicion and (b) nobody was in immediate danger from the lunch eater.

[Vrede too]

... He couldn't have found even one real lawyer to bring suit over the issue instead of journalists? ...

I doubt that any judge would allow such a suit over a highly classified set of programs. Supposedly:

... Snowden says he gradually became disillusioned with the programs with which he was involved and that he tried to raise his ethical concerns through internal channels but was ignored....

Idk what other options he may have had that wouldn't have gotten him imprisoned before he could get the info out.

Snowden response to Criminal Complaint

Snowden was asked in a January 2014 interview about returning to the U.S. to face the charges in court, as Obama had suggested a few days prior. Snowden explained why he rejected the request:

What he doesn't say are that the crimes that he's charged me with are crimes that don't allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to their benefit. ... So it's, I would say, illustrative that the President would choose to say someone should face the music when he knows the music is a show trial.

Snowden's legal representative, Jesselyn Radack, wrote that "the Espionage Act effectively hinders a person from defending himself before a jury in an open court." She said that the "arcane World War I law" was never meant to prosecute whistleblowers, but rather spies who betrayed their trust by selling secrets to enemies for profit. Non-profit betrayals were not considered.

Sounds like he would return to fight non-Espionage Act charges. Idk whether juries would convict him or the rapist killer.

[O Really]

It's fun for Snowden and his (many) supporters to say "I told you so" now that a court has ruled the operations illegal, but I don't think the legality was ever the primary issue. I think he and his (many) supporters just don't approve of those surveillance ops and would have tried to disrupt them whether or not it was legal. In fact, I think I read several comments along the line of "even if it's legal, it's wrong." So basically, Snowden shot a guy he didn't like and lucked out that the guy turned out to be a rapist.

[Vrede too]

It's fun for Snowden and his (many) supporters to say "I told you so" now that a court has ruled the operations illegal, but I don't think the legality was ever the primary issue. I think he and his (many) supporters just don't approve of those surveillance ops and would have tried to disrupt them whether or not it was legal. In fact, I think I read several comments along the line of "even if it's legal, it's wrong." So basically, Snowden shot a guy he didn't like and lucked out that the guy turned out to be a rapist.

There's a converse to that.

Snowden's (many) detractors don't think the legality was ever the primary issue. I think they approve of those surveillance ops whether or not they were legal. In fact, I know I read several comments along the line of "even if it's illegal, it's right." So basically, the NSA shot millions of Americans that didn't turn out to be rapists or criminals at all.

It shouldn't be "Espionage" if one is defending the Constitution. Charge him with theft or whatever and we'll see if he returns for a fully transparent trial.

[O Really]

There's a converse to that.

...

Clever response, but not one I'd necessarily agree with. I might go along with "the NSA took a bunch of shots and may have hit a few people not in the intended line of fire."

[Vrede too]

Clever response, but not one I'd necessarily agree with. I might go along with "the NSA took a bunch of shots and may have hit a few people not in the intended line of fire."

The privacy of millions was illegally invaded according to the Ninth Circuit.

Anyhow, your disagreement is fine. For me, I disagree with the "legality" - "just don't approve" contrast. I always felt and argued both.

[O Really]

The privacy of millions was illegally invaded according to the Ninth Circuit.

Well, yeah, but still very few suffered any actual harm. Still more like shooting a bunch of shots and hitting a few bystanders.

[Vrede too]

Minority Report:

A (Pasco County, Florida) sheriff launched an algorithm to predict who might commit a crime. Dozens of people said they were harassed by deputies for no reason.

[Vrede too]

Fake CIA Spy Almost Scammed His Way Into Immunity

His inept victims were national "security" officials, the Pentagon, and security and military contractors.

[Vrede too]

Top Secret Videos

Part clip-show, part workplace comedy, a cast of comedians turned NSA interns, spend their days providing hilarious commentary on the craziest 'Top Secret Videos' while bonding together over their monumental yet mundane task.

So-so show - some decent clips, but the "comedians" are lame and annoying. I like their tagline, though: "We're the NSA, the one government agency that actually listens to you."

[Vrede too]

Just another US national security state killing of an innocent without accountability:

Harry Dunn suspect was employed by US intelligence agency at time of crash, court told

[O Really]

I had an interesting example that had nothing to do with Big Brother, actually, but I suppose he could use it if he wanted. So we went down to the harbor to visit our favourite fishmonger. On the way out, we passed Harbor Fish and Chips and thought we'd like to go there sometime. I got home and Googled them to find out their hours and see the menu, and my Google locations said "You visited there today." Yeah, I walked past the place on the sidewalk, but did not go in. No big deal. But suppose instead of fish and chips, it was Miss Floozy's Brothel and suppose Lady O wanted to know why was I at Miss Floozy's. I of course would say, truthfully, that I've never been a customer of Miss Floozy, nor have I ever been inside the place. B-b-b but the phone. It says you were at the fishmongers, and you were there, right? And it says you were at the library and you were there, right? And Lowe's? And Albertson's? But your phone is lying about Miss Floozy? yada yada. Riiiight, that's the ticket.

[Vrede too]

I had an interesting example that had nothing to do with Big Brother, actually, but I suppose he could use it if he wanted. So we went down to the harbor to visit our favourite fishmonger. On the way out, we passed Harbor Fish and Chips and thought we'd like to go there sometime. I got home and Googled them to find out their hours and see the menu, and my Google locations said "You visited there today." Yeah, I walked past the place on the sidewalk, but did not go in. No big deal. But suppose instead of fish and chips, it was Miss Floozy's Brothel and suppose Lady O wanted to know why was I at Miss Floozy's. I of course would say, truthfully, that I've never been a customer of Miss Floozy, nor have I ever been inside the place. B-b-b but the phone. It says you were at the fishmongers, and you were there, right? And it says you were at the library and you were there, right? And Lowe's? And Albertson's? But your phone is lying about Miss Floozy? yada yada. Riiiight, that's the ticket.

I don't believe you, either, you dog . It's not just Lady O that can find out what nefarious things you've been up to. Unsecure "security" cameras:

Security startup Verkada hack exposes 150,000 security cameras in Tesla factories, jails, and more

Verkada, a Silicon Valley security startup that provides cloud-based security camera services, has suffered a major security breach. Hackers gained access to over 150,000 of the company’s cameras, including cameras in Tesla factories and warehouses, Cloudflare offices, Equinox gyms, hospitals, jails, schools, police stations, and Verkada’s own offices, Bloomberg reports.

According to Tillie Kottmann, one of the members of the international hacker collective that breached the system, the hack was meant to show how commonplace the company’s security cameras are and how easily they’re able to be hacked. In addition to the live feeds, the group also claimed to have had access to the full video archive of all of Verkada’s customers....

The hack was apparently relatively simple: the group managed to gain “Super Admin”-level access to Verkada’s system using a username and password they found publicly on the internet. From there, they were able to access the entire company’s network, including root access to the cameras themselves, which, in turn, allowed the group to access the internal networks of some of Verkada’s customers....

The company has also come under fire in the past for accusations of sexism and discrimination after an incident in 2019 where a sales director used Verkada’s office security cameras to harass female co-workers by secretly photographing and posting pictures of them in a company Slack channel. In response, Verkada’s CEO offered members of the Slack channel a choice between leaving the company or having their stock options cut.

The list of clients that use Verkada is broad: in addition to companies like Tesla and Cloudflare, the group gained access to Verkada cameras inside Halifax Health, a Florida hospital; Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; Madison County Jail in Huntsville, Alabama; and Wadley Regional Medical Center, a hospital in Texarkana, Texas. In addition to the camera footage, the group also says that it was able to access the full list of Verkada’s thousands of customers and its private financial information.

Opps.

[Vrede too]

Ignorant, abusive (racist?) FBI gets an "Opps" pass:

US judge tosses claims by Chinese-born professor over arrest

... Xi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from China with expertise in thin film superconducting technology, was accused in 2015 of stealing sensitive technology involving his research. Charges were dropped when investigators realized the information shared did not amount to trade secrets....

[GoCubsGo]

I had an interesting example that had nothing to do with Big Brother, actually, but I suppose he could use it if he wanted. So we went down to the harbor to visit our favourite fishmonger. On the way out, we passed Harbor Fish and Chips and thought we'd like to go there sometime. I got home and Googled them to find out their hours and see the menu, and my Google locations said "You visited there today." Yeah, I walked past the place on the sidewalk, but did not go in. No big deal. But suppose instead of fish and chips, it was Miss Floozy's Brothel and suppose Lady O wanted to know why was I at Miss Floozy's. I of course would say, truthfully, that I've never been a customer of Miss Floozy, nor have I ever been inside the place. B-b-b but the phone. It says you were at the fishmongers, and you were there, right? And it says you were at the library and you were there, right? And Lowe's? And Albertson's? But your phone is lying about Miss Floozy? yada yada. Riiiight, that's the ticket.

You can turn the tracking option off in maps. Probably won't actually stop it from tracking, but at least it won't show up in your phone.

[neoplacebo]

I have a piece of a sticky note over the built in camera of this ancient 2006 computer. Any time I use this computer I turn off all lights and wear a disguise that makes me look like a Republican. For the past four years or so it's worked pretty good. Both the computer and the disguise. But I'm starting to get suspicious.

[Vrede too]

I have a piece of a sticky note over the built in camera of this ancient 2006 computer. Any time I use this computer I turn off all lights and wear a disguise that makes me look like a Republican. For the past four years or so it's worked pretty good. Both the computer and the disguise. But I'm starting to get suspicious.

I have always thought that you are suspicious.


The Postal Service is running a 'covert operations program' that monitors Americans' social media posts

:confusion-scratchheadblue:

[neoplacebo]

I have a piece of a sticky note over the built in camera of this ancient 2006 computer. Any time I use this computer I turn off all lights and wear a disguise that makes me look like a Republican. For the past four years or so it's worked pretty good. Both the computer and the disguise. But I'm starting to get suspicious.

I have always thought that you are suspicious.


The Postal Service is running a 'covert operations program' that monitors Americans' social media posts

:confusion-scratchheadblue:

Hell, hominy, you know I'm way past suspicious. I'm guilty as the day is light. And as an original sinner I figure to keep it up.

[Vrede too]

Hell, hominy, you know I'm way past suspicious. I'm guilty as the day is light. And as an original sinner I figure to keep it up.

Careful.

Trump Justice Dept. Tried to Use Grand Jury to Identify Nunes Critic on Twitter

The Justice Department under President Donald Trump secretly obtained a grand-jury subpoena last year in an attempt to identify the person behind a Twitter account dedicated to mocking Rep. Devin Nunes of California, according to a newly unsealed court document.

Boo.

But Twitter fought the subpoena, as well as an associated gag order barring the company from talking about it publicly. Twitter executives raised skepticism about whether the Justice Department might be abusing federal criminal law-enforcement power to retaliate against a critic of Nunes, a Republican who is a close ally of Trump, in violation of the First Amendment.

Ultimately, according to a person familiar with the matter, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoena this spring, after President Joe Biden took office.

Yay!

What was going on behind the subpoena remains murky. The filing — a motion to suppress the subpoena and lift the gag order that Twitter filed in March — shows that the Justice Department sent the company a demand on Nov. 24 to provide identifying information about the user @NunesAlt.

Twitter appears to have immediately been suspicious about the legitimacy of the request. The user of that account, the filing said, “appears to be engaged in clear First Amendment activity, discussing stances on current events, government policies and one elected official in particular — Congressman Nunes.”

The filing provided examples of some of the account’s tweets, such as a photograph of Nunes with text superimposed over his face: “Believe in conspiracy theories. Even if there is no evidence.”

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until Democrats took control of the chamber after the 2018 midterm elections, Nunes used his position to put forward claims that supported Trump’s contention that the Russia investigation was a “deep state” conspiracy against him.

Turns out that Nunes was the “deep state” conspiracy, irony.

Twitter’s filing also noted that Nunes and his lawyer had separately filed a series of lawsuits in efforts to unmask pseudonymous social media users who criticized him, including an account that purported to be the congressman’s cow and the @NunesAlt account.

I knew that they would try to grill the cow.

When Twitter pressed the Justice Department for an explanation, the filing said, the government said the subpoena was part of a criminal investigation into a possible violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to use interstate communications to threaten to injure someone. But the government refused to point to any particular tweet that made a threat.

Funny that.

... The grand-jury subpoena had been obtained by the office of the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. At the time, the office was run on an acting basis by Michael Sherwin, who had been installed by Attorney General William Barr.

Lock Sherwin and Barr up!

... Twitter said in a statement that it was “committed to protecting the freedom of expression for those who use our service. We have a strong track record and take seriously the trust placed in us to work to protect the private information of the people on Twitter.”