Big Brother is Watching You

[rstrong]

"I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange."
- Time reporter Michael Grunwald, in a tweet

[O Really]

Interesting take on "Edward Snowden's Real Impact"
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... mpact.html

[rstrong]

Interesting take on "Edward Snowden's Real Impact"
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... mpact.html

His key gripe seems to be:

"This is all because a thirty-year-old self-appointed arbiter of propriety decided to break the law and disclose what he had sworn to protect."

But that describes pretty much all whistle blowers.

The NSA has been shown to be systematically breaking the law, or at best, as the Daily Show put it, "not that we're accusing you of breaking the law, we're just a little creeped out that you didn't have to." (Plus the latest revelation that they've been "accidently" breaking the law a couple thousand times a year.)

In reporting this, Snowden is a classic whistle blower no matter how much this guy tries to deny it.

So far Snowden's claims have been confirmed or credible. The government's counter-claims haven't merely been repeatedly proven false; they've turned into high farce: The "independent" investigator appointed to audit the extent of NSA surveillance is none other than James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who was recently caught lying to Congress about the extent of NSA surveillance.

We're still waiting for Snowden to release anything that would surprise other governments.

[homerfobe]

It wouldn't take much intelligence at all to figure out that you're full of shit.

That's why you're good at figuring out things, not much intelligence. Go figure.

[homerfobe]

As usual, you are full of shit. No surprise, there.

Oh, ain't you so intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that utterly intelligent reply?

Butt Rockets are your favorite toy, aren't they? I bet you also use them as Throat Rockets. And probably in that order.

Hey, it's your name. Don't blame me for your idiocy. And no, you're not my favorite toy, especially shitty toys.

[O Really]

If the NSA really were tracking calls and emails, even metadata, wouldn't they incur the same "storage and access" problems faced by NICS? I guess not - at least unless the NRA started opposing them.

[O Really]

Apparently "Big Brother" is majorly incompetent and has antique systems. I'm reconsidering the nice things I previously had to say about NSA's work.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... snhp&pos=1

[O Really]

If one didn't expect someone would monitor, one wouldn't bother to encrypt, right? In the electronic spy business, it isn't even worthy of a yellow card to "get caught." It's all about staying a step ahead of what others are doing. Break their encryption before they break yours. Outlast, outwit, outplay. During the cold war, my group got Christmas greetings from a Russian, ummm, "fishing boat" with antennas all over it. They knew what we were doing; we knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, outside the business, people see events in a different context. Expect some well-practiced "harummphs" from the usual Congressional suspects.

[O Really]

Like the nuclear arms race, your rationalization seems more appropriate for every nation trying to keep up with what the US is doing.

It does. And they are. It would be nice if the US could be like Switzerland or some other country that manages to avoid getting involved in everybody elses's issues and doesn't feel like it has to constantly show off the size of its dick, but unfortunately, that train has long sailed.

[O Really]

From the first article "The Accelerating Assault on Journalism" -

"U.S. soldier Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning's 35-year sentence represents the harshest punishment issued to date for providing media with evidence of government wrongdoing (Forbes, 8/21/13). She is the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act, ratifying the new reality that those who give the press information that the government wants to keep secret will henceforth be treated as spies."

Ah, if only life was so simple. We could all pick up our torches and pitchforks and run to the barricades in defense of poor little mistreated Chelsea, who after all only did a favor to us all in disclosing her "evidence."
Interesting word, "evidence." If she were presenting evidence in a court, the evidence would have to be direct and not hearsay, relevant to the claim, and substantiated as authentic and accurate. Further, the claim would have to be specifically related to unlawful. In my world, you can't just claim your employer treated you badly, you have to show s/he did something unlawful, like grabbing your ass. For evidence, you have to show that s/he actually grabbed your ass. You can't use the fact that you heard s/he grabbed someone else's ass to substantiate your own claim, unless that person also comes forward.

Undoubtedly some parts of her document trove contained such evidence of somebody doing something unlawful. Had she limited herself to those items, I might also hold a pitchfork. For example, I found disclosures of abuses at Abu Gharib to be a good thing. But how many of the "hundreds of thousands" of State Department messages do you suppose would meet the "evidence" test? And how many of those that were disclosed without actually showing anything unlawful did actual or potential damage to US international affairs?

And of course, Chelsea didn't disclose in court. She picked Wikileaks, whose primary purpose probably isn't to investigate and resolve issues to the benefit of the US. She also didn't get the "evidence" legally (she may have had legal access, but the downloading part wasn't). She made no apparent effort to make sure what she disclosed was in fact unlawful, or that any unrelated but potentially damaging parts were redacted. Etc. and yada. So to summarize - She steals classified information, sends it to a foreign entity who makes no pretense of acting in the best interest of the US, knowing the disclosure could cause damage to the US. I'll save my pitchfork and torch for the next article about the Mosques.

[O Really]

There is more to the first article.

There is. But I ran out of time. Maybe I'll toss more gas on the fire later.
(Note to NSA: "gas on the fire" is just an expression. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/add ... o+the+fire)

[O Really]

Here's the request for warrant for Rosen's records..
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/kim/warrant.pdf Description of probable cause starts around page 7.

Classified information was leaked by someone who had access and knew the restrictions on disclosure. That information, with the knowledge it was classified, was accepted by someone who had no authorization to receive or use the information. That person publicized the classified data. Telephones in the DoS showed a call or calls from Jin-Woo Kim to Rosen coinciding with times when Jin-Woo Kim was accessing confidential information. Disclosing confidential information is a crime. Jin-Woo knew he was unlawfully disclosing. Rosen knew he was unlawfully receiving. Given that, is "co-conspirator" such an outrageous claim?

Read the request for warrant. Would you have rejected it if you had been the judge?

[rstrong]

Linked from my link above:

Eric Holder on Fox News’s James Rosen: Weaselly garbage

Wow. Can you imagine the circus if Snowden had leaked those files to Fox News instead of The Guardian? They'd be calling him the universe's greatest patriot, broadcasting revelations from the files 34 hours a day, and demanding Obama's impeachment a minimum of 12 times between each commercial break. While denying that the NSA even existed before 2009.

[O Really]

Your naming of James Rosen as a criminal, just as DOJ did, is contradicted by the fact that he has never been charged.

Linked from my link above:

Eric Holder on Fox News’s James Rosen: Weaselly garbage

I didn't name him as a criminal. I said disclosure of classified information is a crime. A crime was committed by somebody, ostensibly Jin-Woo Kim. But the docs didn't get published by Jin-Woo Kim. Whether Rosen himself did anything criminal may yet to be determined, but is it unreasonable to think he might have intentionally been in on the whole scheme? Are we to believe that he was just standing there phone in hand, never heard of Jin-Woo Who, and got a bunch of classified information dumped on him? So - having the opportunity to browse the request for warrant, would you have rejected it if you were the judge?

[rstrong]

I didn't name him as a criminal.

:?: Yes you did:

...Rosen knew he was unlawfully receiving...

See, this is why one would leak to foreign journalists like the folks at The Guardian. They can publish, because for them, publishing NSA secrets isn't a crime.

(If you accept that a non-US citizen violating the NSA's secrets is a crime, then you would have to accept that the NSA violating a non-US citizen's secrets is also a crime. A concept that everyone from the NSA to the Justice Department to the White House denies.)

[O Really]

If Rosen was in cahoots with Kim to steal and disclose classified information, how is he not under reasonable suspicion as a co-conspirator, aider, or abettor. It would seem a compelling argument that he knew what he was getting, and that Kim's theft was illegal. Proving that in order to sustain charges might be more difficult. But it is indisputed that a crime occurred, and apparently Kim was the one who did it. It is indisputed by phone records of the DoS-owned phones that Kim spoke with Rosen. It is indisputed that Rosen published the information. You're going to seriously argue that it's an "assault on journalism" to dig deeper into that relationship to see if Rosen is criminally involved? Nevermind whether or not there actually is an "assault on journalism" - is this really an example? Or is it an example of willful and knowing violation of the law?

[RonJ]

Snowden suspected of covering electronic tracks

...The disclosure undermines the Obama administration's assurances to Congress and the public that the NSA surveillance programs can't be abused because its spying systems are so aggressively monitored and audited for oversight purposes: If Snowden could defeat the NSA's own tripwires and internal burglar alarms, how many other employees or contractors could do the same?...

Generally speaking...none. There is a huge difference between a systems administrator and the thousands of normal employees...like a 1000:1 ratio.

[Mr.B]

"RonJ.....the pizzers ain't come on the scene yet; expect to catch hell over your avatar!"

"Hehe... look forward to it."

"As an aside, please tell us about your intimate experience with Obama's sexual practices. Is he any good at it?"

Strike one!

[RonJ]

O Really's link, just 2 posts after the post of mine you're responding to:

How Snowden did it

...A typical NSA worker has a “top secret” security clearance, which gives access to most, but not all, classified information. Snowden also had the enhanced privileges of a “system administrator.” The NSA, which has as many as 40,000 employees, has 1,000 system administrators, most of them contractors...

40 to 1, not your "1000:1 ratio." Math much? Then, there all the things that non-system administrators can do in the clearly sloppy NSA.

As an aside, please tell us about your intimate experience with Obama's sexual practices. Is he any good at it?

I do math just fine but the article is wrong. There's not that many system administrators unless you include the army of folks running around fixing PCs and the like, but they're hardly "system administrators". A great number do only hardware and have no idea what on the systems. I think over time we're going to learn that Mr Snowden embellished more than he actually released....but the public is so easily convinced of a "big brother" conspiracy that any story will be accepted as truth.

[O Really]

...but the public is so easily convinced of a "big brother" conspiracy that any story will be accepted as truth.

I would agree with that. Probably have said something similar.