So, the big lie Snowden told is an important one

[Recursion]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023136667

Sitting at his desk as an analyst, he did not have access to arbitrary Americans' communications. Any request had to be approved by NSA management, FISC, and an FBI desk whose job is to keep surveillance away from US citizens. And even then it was the FBI that collected it, not the NSA.

DUers, you've been ratfucked, to use the technical political term.

[zappaman]

1. Happy to be the first to REC this.

[Swagman]

151. and the big truth Snowden told was that

the US spies on friend and foe alike and it spies on countries like Germany (the one we know of to date) and breaks their sovereign laws with impunity and as always so many Americans think the world is all about them.

And they are totally oblivious to the fact that more people on this planet now hate Americans and America with a vengeance (whether justified or not) than love America but let's continue to rabbit on about Snowden's fibs and discuss whether that Julian Assange is an 'egotist' and pontificate on their motives and ignore the fact that the US continues to rape the world for it's wealth, invades countries on lies and kills tens of thousands of their citizens.

[Thinkingabout]

169. Would you believe in certain situations information is shared between many nations, remember the

Russians shared information on the Boston bombers? Don't think for one minute USA does not other countries monitoring us by Germany as well. China is very busy hacking into corporate computers in order to develop and sell to the US ideas and thoughts.

[dionysus]

225. if you don't think other countries spy on friend and foe alike, then you'd be naive.

just sayin.

you don't think MI6 keeps tabs on us? or Mossad? or the German equivalent? seriously?

and that's our friends.. what about what the KGB is called nowadays? they don't spy on us?

China doesn't spy on us either I bet....

[truedelphi]

228. But other countries don't send their Chief Executive out on around the world

Jaunts, so that Chief Executive can tell the prime ministers and the presidents that they should not be spying on their citizens.

Something that Obama has been spending an inordinate amount of time doing. In fact, he had just read the riot act to Chinese officials when Snowden's publication about PRISM hit the airwaves, causing more than a bit of consternation and embarrassment at the Oval Office and State.

[Maximumnegro]

289. I thought the messenger wasn't important

it's the message we should be focusing on, except of course when it's convenient.

So you acknowledge that spying SOP for international relations but Obama Obama Obama.

[leveymg]

296. RECURSION is missing a set of important steps and pieces here that make a mash of his theory

As we discussed on the other OP, his interpretation is missing a set of important steps and pieces that make a mash of your hypothesis:

1) The PRISM Tasking Process flowchart describes an NSA profiling process that does not involve the FBI at any level until the very end, when the FBI ESCU determines the suspect is or is not a US person.
2) The first step in the PRISM process is conducted by software that searches a series of interlinked databases and assembles a predictive profile. The scoring on that profile determines the subject as a potential target. Bill Binney describes that profiling process here: http://civic.mit.edu/blog/schock/the-government-is-profiling-you-william-binney-former-nsa
3) Until the FBI determines that the subject is a US person, the subject is presumed to be a non-US person, and the profiling part of the system affords no 4th Amendment protections in the warrantless search of an array of databases, including those of other US and foreign intelligence services.
4) During this tasking (profiling) stage, the analyst also has access to a near real-time take of the subject's internet activities and chat. No warrant is required for the analyst to carry out this human component of the profiling process. That is described at greater length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820
5) The analyst has 72 hours to search across NSA and outside agency databases, as well as real-time monitoring, from the time an anticulable suspicion is raised. During that investigation, supervision is minimal, and the analyst does not have to seek additional permission or a warrant. This initial profiling step is probably the unsupervised analyst's activities that Snowden was describing.

Those facts that may have been unknown or underappreciated by Recursion, but he declined to reconsider his rather harsh conclusion:

There is no situation where a single analyst can just look at whatever the hell he wants. Snowden was lying about that. What's more, the NSA isn't doing any of the gathering itself.

I've developed this in greater detail at my OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134820

[treestar]

302. Other countries' executives do go around the world

They visit the US and go to the WH.

It is also possible that they visit each other. This post is America-centric.

[truedelphi]

337. BwaHaHaHAHaHaHaHaHaHA

A link to what you are saying.

I am probably one of the least American centric people on DU.

I had a penpal in Serbia when we were bombing the Serbs. I have lived in Europe, and discovered once there the superiority of their governments, and their health services and educational systems.

Anyway pls offer up a link of even one minister of state for some foreign nation going around and telling other nations not to spy on their citizens. Probably you can find a link to the British PM's doing so - but most other foreign governmental officials are far more concerned but the economic prosperity of their citizens, their health, education and safety then worrying abut what other nations are doing. Even though their TV channels carry one hour documentaries showing their citizens what life is like in Tanzania, or Senegal, while our nation's citizens get to learn about Honey Boo Boo.

[treestar]

338. You yet seem ignorant of the concept

That other nations have leaders who travel and that other nations have dealings with each other which have nothing to do with the US.

Maduro going to Russia, for example.

[truedelphi]

227. Plus there is NO fib. Snowden discussed how he could act the way any person inside an

Organization acts.

H e says he had th e ability to grab a hold of a person's personal information and target that person. He probably did have that power. What is in the slides that the Wash Po published is how the individuals inside the NSA should do their jobs. However, the individuals who are trusted at an agency are not necessarily dong things according to that chart. If you can get into the computer system, you probably have the power to do as Snowden says he could do.

The entire nation just realized that IRS personnel did not bother to follow their flow charted, administrative/operational chain of commands. They choose to target specific groups of people based on political affiliation.

It is apparent that once an individual has a job, as long as their computer is up and running, and their computer is tied into the data on their network, they probably have the goods on whatever information or individuals falls under their scrutiny. Many DU'ers realize this - which is why there have been two OP's in two days about how the NSA and CIA can use the data they are gathering to make book on the stock market, or in even more nefarious manners regarding the purchasing of a business or businesses.

[MineralMan]

248. Actually, no. That might be true in a business setting,

but not at the NSA, I'm very sure. I think you do not understand how the intelligence community compartmentalizes things. The only stuff Snowden had access to was briefing level materials that were widely disseminated. Beyond that, he would have had no access to any information that was not within his particular specialty as an analyst. As an IT worker, he would not have had administrator access to any material not needed for his job.

There's lots of speculation going around by people who don't really know what they are talking about.

[reusrename]

314. I think you are mistaken about this.

I believe he had legal access.

Why not?

That's the way the law reads.

For him to have legal access, the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence must give him verbal authorization. That's all that is required.

Has anyone asked those gentlemen if they ever gave him such verbal authorization?

[ellenfl]

332. so you think no one can illegally access your computer?

you need to watch 'war games' and 'sneakers' for a clue. it doesn't just happen in the movies.

[MineralMan]

333. My computer is not connected to an internal network

at an intelligence agency. It is somewhat vulnerable to outside access, although I employ a pretty good arsenal of protective software, and am very careful to avoid malware.

I think you do not understand how computer security is managed at the NSA and similar agencies. That's what I think.

"Do you want to play a game?"

Neither of those movies depict any real situation. They were fantasies, to be quite frank. I enjoyed them both, as entertainment. You could have used much better examples.

[ellenfl]

334. that's what you think? i think you're naive believing that some things are not hackable. eom

[MineralMan]

335. You might think anything you can.

[gholtron]

328. So how is that discribing NSA breaking the law?

I have the ability to murder or commit other crimes but that don't make me guilty of breaking the law. I never believed that traitor for one minute. All he and Greenwald are doing is sensationalize and making innuendos to drum up hype. I hope he rots in that Russian airport.

[truedelphi]

336. I have no doubt that he is breaking a law.

But I think he and Greenwald stand on the side of morality.

The law as it exists is absolutely the death of a free press.

[randome]

2. That helps put things into context better than my litany of unsupported claims by Snowden.

Thanks.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

11. And if he did get more access, the next question might be

Who was helping him and why?

This is why a trial is important.

[randome]

16. Good questions but he never got evidence to support his claims.

This entire sordid episode stems from Snowden's desire to be a more important cog in the machine.

More's the pity.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

18. So at this point it's not even a question

Thanks, good to know.

[randome]

43. The trial will be mostly secret, unfortunately.

I hope Snowden has a good lawyer. Shit, who am I kidding? He has Greenwald!
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

51. He probably has pro bono work from people like Michael Ratner (speaking of rat!)

Just kidding, Ratner is highly respected and I think he's Emeritis something of the CCR, Center for Constitutional Rights.

He headed over to Moscow when Snowden arrived. Haven't heard much from him since.

[MADem]

86. Glenn Greenwald of the CATO Institute has been suspended by the NY bar. He'll have to find someone

who is qualified to defend him.

[BlueCaliDem]

232. Greenwald?? GeeGee as his defense attorney??

[kentuck]

3. It depends on which desk he sat at.

If he sat at the desk with the IT team that kept the computers running, he may have had access to all the hard drives?

[randome]

12. I would think that personal data is kept well away from the casual office employee.

That would be data security 101. And if Snowden had any kind of access, why didn't he get evidence to support his claims?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MineralMan]

249. And that's the real question.

Nothing he has released has been any more than briefing documents. Those merely discuss programs, and have no meat in them. All have been seen by large numbers of people who are outside of the intelligence community. That's who they're designed to inform. Among those who have seen these documents are members of Intelligence Committees in Congress. They're aimed at non-intelligence people, and only disclose the existence of programs and a small amount of the mechanics.

Snowden didn't have access to any materials beyond those, or he'd have collected them, too. He's lying.

[randome]

251. 'Non-intelligence people'. That's a good point.

Short-hand blurbs and one-sentence summaries. That's what PowerPoint does.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MineralMan]

254. Looking at the documents closely, it's clear that

they are nothing more than documents trying to explain NSA and other operations to people who don't know much about any of it. I can see them projected while someone attempts to explain what those people are looking at. I've done presentations like that myself, on non-intelligence things. Glazed-over eyes are the response.

And, in this particular case, I'm seeing a lot of people talking about the released documents without ever having bothered to read them. I know that because nobody's mentioning the oversight and safeguards actually described in the very documents being discussed.

Eyes glaze over and no information is conveyed.

PowerPoint Has the Power to Cure Insomnia!

[tallahasseedem]

282. +1

[Recursion]

13. The NSA doesn't do the collection or storage. FBI does.

If NSA security have him access to historical data, that is a management problem we can look at. But at this point I don't believe him about that.

[kentuck]

48. He worked for Booz-Allen...

..which worked with the NSA.

[cantbeserious]

4. Believe What You Choose To - I No Longer Trust This Government

eom

[gcomeau]

37. Based on the leaks?

But this is what the LEAKED DOCUMENTS say themselves... so if you don't believe them...?

[treestar]

44. I know right? Duh, this was supposed to expose the truth to us

So that didn't work if those documents are not credible either.

[randome]

63. Because Snowden "saw things"! He said stuff!

Why do you hate the 4th Amendment?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cantbeserious]

236. One More Thing - NDAA, Massive Illegal Surveillance, VRA, Wall Street, Rendition Guantanamo, War ...

eom

[Maximumnegro]

291. LOL by 'Government' you mean Obama admit it

because if THIS was the straw that broke the camel's back on government practices for you then I guess you were asleep during the Bush admin.

[cantbeserious]

309. By Government - I Mean Executive, Legislative And Judicial Branches

Collectively, they represent the 1% and not the 99%.

[Kolesar]

5. "ratfuck" referred to the way Nixon campaigned

In the bush/Rove era, there is a theme of "politicizing everything", and Snowden certainly gave us that.

[Recursion]

32. TY. i fixed it. (nt)

[Kolesar]

35. It's great now!

I had learned the term from an article in Salon.com. I think it was by Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote the editorial "What I did not find in Africa", disputing bush's WMD/uranium claims

[zeemike]

94. Which could mean that this OP is ratfucking us.

After all it is political to support a surveillance state in order to protect our political leaders.

[KittyWampus]

126. No, ratfucking is when a rightwing operative attacks the left FROM the even further left.

The ideologue purists and reactionary screamers are ripe pickings for ratfuckers.

[zeemike]

141. Or then that right wing operative

convinces the left to attack the left by convincing them it will harm the party if they don't...
There must be 50 ways to ratfuck....and they know them all.

[Swagman]

161. yes it is to protect US leaders of all polticial persuasions and their

corporate pals who fund them and the average citizen is basically fucked but many (even on DU) will denigrate the Snowdens & Assanges of the world and scream to hign heaven even as those screams are recorded for posterity by a secretive state agency that one day may decide those who scream loud about anything are a danger too.

[Recursion]

164. The slide he leaked showed *4 levels of safeguards* to keep Americans from being spied on

4 levels. 1 at NSA, one in the judiciary, and 2 at the FBI, one of which is specifically tasked with nothing but keeping surveillance from targeting Americans.

Snowden has managed to actually make me feel much better about the surveillance program.

[zeemike]

183. If they collect the data you are being spied on.

What if they have a program that searches the data base for patterns of behaviour...is that spying on you?...no one is actually looking at it...just a computer.
I find that really chilling...right out of some dystopia si fi book.

[Kolesar]

239. You should withdraw from all use of the internet to protect your information if you are so concerned

I doubt it. You just sound bored. Spend the night typing some incomplete nonsense.

[zeemike]

242. Well sure...

And you should give your money away if you don't want to have it stolen...
And stay off the streets if you don't want to be robed.
Yep it is your fault if some one does a crime on you because you asked for it.

[nebenaube]

256. yes... because that wouldn't be suspicious... n/t

[frylock]

340. did you see what she was wearing? she deserved to be raped.

[Kolesar]

341. Yeah, I can always expect the stupidest, off topic distractions from "frylock" eom

[frylock]

342. take a gander at this bit 'o wisdom for a larf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3139257

[Kolesar]

343. Are you a shut in? eom

[frylock]

344. yes, i am. will you be my friend?

[sibelian]

6. I have no idea why you expect us to find that reassuring. nt.

[flamingdem]

7. .

mmmm yeah baby shag me

[Iliyah]

66. May I ask

what animal is that?

[flamingdem]

74. It's a mole rat

you like?

[Iliyah]

83. LOL

Its ugly as hell. But alas it is one of God's creatures, and as a animal lover, yes.

[flamingdem]

103. I think it's kinda

sexy in a Rovian way In fact it's not as ugly as a hairy rat, one feels some sympathy for it kind of like a kid with buck teeth!

[BenzoDia]

8. Well, there are more leaks coming. But so far he looks to be full of it.

[Galraedia]

67. Why doesn't he just release all of it?

[BenzoDia]

84. My guess is that they want to prolong the experience.

Release it all and it's old news in a week.

I think also that they are taking steps to make sure that what they release won't cause anyone harm.

Just a guess though.

[sheshe2]

101. Yup, draaaag it out slooooowly..

More unrest and more in fighting.

They keep tossing in kindling, one branch at a time. They want the home fires burning!

Good thought, BenzoDia!

[Grassy Knoll]

120. It's like controlling your bag of Cocaine.....

why do it all, then go to bed, when you could save some for breakfast.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

9. Is this some kinda joke? He said he had that authority, the GOV says no he didn't

yet, he produces TOP SECRET docs demonstrating his reach, while the GOV say's everything is a secret, and you then have the lameness to think that you can pretentiously and self-righteously insult all DUers by saying we have been raped?!

[Recursion]

15. The doc is what proves him wrong

Frankly I can't understand why he released it since it blows his claims all to hell.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. yeah, right... I'm sure it's just all in our heads, eh?

The whole world is just not well informed, now able to accurately read the documents as well as you I suppose?

[Recursion]

30. Well, it's certainly not in the leaked documents

If all that leaves is your head, so be it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

33. there's that misdirection recursion

again

[Recursion]

36. They deliberately falsified slides so someone would leak them?

Is that the 11th dimensional chess level we're at?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

42. haha, but not the first time I heard that one from the deniers

Naomi Wolf: "My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be..."

but i hear ya... we should probably wait until all the facts are in... id hate to judge a whole program on a single slip-up, right?

[Swagman]

168. we heard all this over G.Bush's service records didn't we ?

rearrange the truth by presenting false documents to a credible source and despite what is in the documents still being the truth, the damage is done, the source destroyed and we all move on.

[Recursion]

203. But... seriously? They gave Snowden false documents so he could leak them?

That's really what you're suggesting?

[jazzimov]

60. No, you just need to actually read them

instead of letting someone else tell you what's in them.

[jazzimov]

40. Have you read those docs?

They directly disprove everything he and Greenwald claim.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

50. right, it's just all in our global collective heads, is all...

ic now, thanks for clearing that up for us

[Recursion]

52. Again, its not in the docs. So where is it if not your head? (nt)

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

59. Not just my head remember... the whole world's collective heads

And again, it's not just based on the currently released docs (more to follow) but also the first hand accounts of former NSA employees, not just the 'evil' Snowden, ok?

sheesh... why is that so hard for some to wrap their heads around

[Recursion]

79. The world is pissed that we're spying on them. I would be too

But that is our spies' job, you know?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

82. Actually

NO, it is not our spys job to spy on EVERYONE across the globe.

That would only be a TOTALITARIANS wet dream.

Targeted spying is TOTALLY different than what we are now discussing, and people do NOT approve. (surprise)

[jazzimov]

106. Here's just one example:

The first FISA document that was leaked by the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C.
2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer.

You should also read a later FISA order leaked by the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document

[Recursion]

110. Yeah, that's true. it supports what I'm saying

Everything we see leaked ends up contradicting what Snowden claimed.

[Number23]

149. Wow. Have you made this into an OP?

[Recursion]

153. Second that. You should OP it (nt)

[truedelphi]

223. No initially it does not. I agree. However, those intelligence officials

Who frequent Sibel Edmonds fine site (boilingfrogs.com) have explained that any of this meta data can be re-constituted at any point in time. Since this stuff is expected to sit on servers for the next decade at least, do you really want them to have that ability?

Maybe everything you have done over the last ten years is something that the DLC is in love with. So what happens if Jeb Bush gets in office in 2016? Or someone even worse than Jeb Bush.

Those of us who are more radical have natural concerns. Trans Canada has suggested to the Nebraska police that protesters of Trans Canada be treated as terrorists. Monsanto feels the same way about anyone protesting Monsanto.

[Whisp]

73. I felt like that when I learned Santa was fake. You'll get over it. n/t

[sheshe2]

109. Santa's a Fake !!@#*/;'-??!*>

[jazzimov]

87. Again HAVE YOU READ THEM?

You still haven't answered my question. They directly contradict what Snowden and Greenwald said.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

96. I now believe you are being deliberately obtuse so good night

I have repeatedly made my point that any fair minded reader can see, and even though I thoroughly appreciate the frequent opportunities you provide for teachable moments, I am tired, and must get up early for work tomorrow.

good night

[jazzimov]

108. And it's clear to me that you have not read the docs

and would rather to choose to believe lies than to read the source yourself.

Good night!

[randome]

38. It's like that leaked document last week that showed the meticulous procedures the NSA employs.

Some speculated that the NSA itself leaked it because it puts them in a good light.

Greenwald is utterly clueless and Snowden utterly naive.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Recursion]

41. Yeah, I thought of that too

It's almost like we're being very slowly trolled.

[truedelphi]

19. Please quit using Common Sense. According to Patriot Act subsection G14 Three 81,

no citizen is to employ common sense,or any other kind of sense. Listen to your governmental authorities; obey your governemntal authorities; applaud your governmental authorities.

That is all.

####

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

45. D'oh! You're right...

I don't know what came over me

[gcomeau]

55. He could start using his ability to read as an alternative.

"The government" is not refuting his claims here. HIS OWN LEAKED DOCUMENTS ARE.

If you don't believe them then the entire basis for the giant outrage party half the forum has been throwing vanishes into thin air.

[truedelphi]

218. Specifically what? Name it. n/t

[gcomeau]

219. Read. The. Op. -eom

[truedelphi]

221. Oh for Sweet Patootie's sake -

I have heard at least two retired intelligence officers state that Snowden was both CIA and NSA. And also, Snowden delivered the goods.

The fact that someone on DU says it is a lie doesn't make it so.

[gcomeau]

224. Not "someone on DU"

Snowden's OWN FUCKING SLIDES

Read the freaking OP.

[truedelphi]

226. I did read the OP and I did observe the slides.

However, think about it. He has the proven ability in some position to take away as much data as he did.

When i was 21 years old, I was an underwriter for a moderately sized insurance company. I had the goods on anyone who had insurance at that company. I had abilities the file clerks who worked on my floor did not have; I had abilities the typists didn't have. I could request a file and review it (or not!) and then cancel that person's insurance. Maybe because I saw in your file you had too many car accidents and too many DUI's, or maybe because I didn't like you.

We underwriters collectively agreed to grab ahold of any application requesting "umbrella protection" that involved Washington DC persons. Anyone who applied for "umbrella protection" on account of working in the Nixon White House was denied. No one in my group told our bosses. Those Republicans were all denied. We underwriters had agreed on a very few short sentences, something to the effect that "Due to concerns about the stability of the position you hold, our company declines to insure you at this point."

Okay, sothink about this. Yes, our bosses could have found out that us super radical underwriters were denying decently paying insurance policies. The year was 1973. It was not obvious that Nixon's personnel would be resigning or out of jobs soon. But we did what we did because we wanted to.

If this example is not enough to make you think about it, then here is another one - there is an entire operations code for IRS personnel regarding the fact that they are not to target specific groups according to party affiliation, or according to political stance. Yet those of us reading the news over the last few months have come to learn that certain rogue elements inside the IRS have indeed targeted specific groups, although that is not what the administrative/operations manual tells them.

I think that this is something many others here on DU understand. Right now, at this moment in time, there is an excellent OP up (by HiPointDem) about how there is a strong possibility that NSA and CIA personnel are playing games with their info, for their own profit on the stock market using information they have at hand. Granted this is speculative - but this is the second OP in as many days in which someone is saying what I am saying - that once you are inside the halls of power, the office of information, the storage center for data, you have the power. I had it. My colleagues had it. We used it in a way none of our bosses suspected, but in the end, if they ever found out about it, I bet they were glad we denied all those umbrella policies to Nixon's personnel.

And if you want to say -well look there are safeguards, and an insurance agency isn't what the NSA is - then how is it that Mr Snowden did what he did and is still a free man? And if what he is telling us is not significant, then why is there all the outrage??????

Also if what he is saying is not true, then why the hell is he being considered the most treasonous bastard of the last five years? And that categorization of Snowden is scarey on its own kmerits - if he is a traitor, and the entire definition of a traitor is that they give aid or information or comfort to the enemy - then that means that you and Iand everyone else are the damn enemy! Except of course, the military and the Top Members of society and Top Political Class personages

[gcomeau]

260. Think it through.

However, think about it. He has the proven ability in some position to take away as much data as he did.

Yes, that would be tautologically true. I fail to see the point. He took the data he took. So? He said he had access to the president's e-mails.Do I see on of the president's e-mails in his data dumps? No I do not. Do I see a phone call or an e-mail from a single American citizen in his data dumps? No I do not. If the NSA can access them at will, and Snowden could access what they could, WHERE ARE THEY? Those would be the actual proof, anyone trying to uncover that kind of activity would go for those as the ironclad evidence. so where are they?

I see powerpoint presentations created within the NSA for the NSA.

If he took what an NSA analyst could get their hands on without a warrant... then... what the hell am I supposed to conclude from the fact that he hasn't dumped a single shred of information that he claims the NSA has open and unlimited access to?????? Why would I give a shit the NSA has powerpoint slides? Slides that DO NOT SAY what Snowden claimed they said when he started all of this?

Answer me that.



Fascinating story about your IRS hijinks. So tell me this, *IF* you had wanted to leak that you were doing this to the world could you have actually produced a copy of the files you were modifying to show you were really doing it? Bet you could have.

"Also if what he is saying is not true, then why the hell is he being considered the most treasonous bastard of the last five years?"

Are you joking? The details of how the NSA executes their intelligence gathering are CLASSIFIED and he's advertising them to the fucking Chinese. They don't have to be illegal to make that a traitorous act.

The development of the new stealth strike fighter isn't a crime, and the existence of the program isn;t a secret... but leaking the technical schematics to the public would be a big fucking problem. You do understand that right? Conducting intelligence operations doesn't work quite as well when you advertise to the entire fucking planet exactly how you're doing it. Telling the entire world which servers the NSA is monitoring and where in China they're targeting their operations and etc, etc, is a flat out betrayal of the nation. No two ways about it. Period.

[gcomeau]

47. Are you just not paying attention?

The docs Snowden leaked say THEMSELVES that his earlier claims were full of shit. If you don't believe them you don't believe the leaked material is true and your entire basis for your bout of outrage dissapears!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

56. very close attention, actually

and i am making my judgements on the TOP SECRET docs released thus far (stand by, more to come) AND his (among others) first hand accounts.

You seem to be making your judgements solely on what comes out officialdom.

Which history has shown is not a very credible source on these types of issues.

just an FYI

[gcomeau]

61. For fuck's sake

"and i am making my judgements on the TOP SECRET docs released thus far (stand by, more to come) AND his (among others) first hand accounts.

You seem to be making your judgements solely on what comes out officialdom. "

The slide in the OP that we are talking about is FROM SNOWDEN Captain Perceptive. Not "officialdom".

Now what were you saying about what close attention you were paying???

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

71. the feeling is mutual

but we NOT only have those docs, but ALSO (pay attention now) first hand accounts that differ than what officialdom claim.

now those docs also say that the NSA has DIRECT ACCESS to the information form the most important internet properties on the planet.

we we add all this up (Docs, and first hand accounts from MULTIPLE sources - not just 'evil' ES) the world, and plenty of Americans are gonna be PISSED, threats of RAPE or not.

good night

[Recursion]

102. The document Snowden leaked contradicts his claim of first hand experience

You really seem to be ignoring that.

[truedelphi]

229. And all the article and slides from Wash Po indicate is how

Individuals at the NSA should conduct their information handling. We already know from the IRS scandal that what employees at these agencies should do and what they actually do are two separate things!

[Recursion]

300. Well, hell: it's "just policy" that keeps local police from kicking my door down

Yes, I know the government can easily fuck up my life if it breaks the law.

[Zorra]

54. No. Not a joke. It's propaganda. nt

[gcomeau]

58. From SNOWDEN???

These are HIS LEAKED SLIDES.

Gah.....

[Recursion]

92. it's like a Monty Python sketch (nt)

[Number23]

150. Some of these people around here...

Lord, have mercy....

The phrase "confirmation bias" was MADE for some of these folks...

[pnwmom]

68. The documents did NOT demonstrate his reach -- they contradicted what he was saying.

If you actually bother to read them, rather than just listening to Greenwald's and Snowden's commentary.

[Galraedia]

85. What proof do you have of Snowden's claim that he could...

"wiretap anyone from a federal judge to the president"?

[OilemFirchen]

122. Perhaps it's buried in here:

“Not all analysts have the power to target anything. But I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email,” Snowden had said in an interview earlier this month with the Guardian newspaper.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305859-dni-nsa-cant-tap-domestic-phone-calls-without-a-warrant

[Recursion]

125. If that is true, this document he leaked is wrong

But if the leak is wrong, why do we believe other things he says?

In genuinely mystified why he leaked this.

[OilemFirchen]

159. I'll go out on a very short limb here.

Despite the contentions of both the Snowden Fanboys and some of those who've exercised a bit of due diligence, I don't believe that Snowden's all that bright. He's been promoted as a wunderkind, first by Greenwald, then by the media echo-chamber, then by the gullible... until it's become accepted truth. But there's really no evidence of it.

By all appearances he was a network admin for a DoD contractor. Not to diminish the avocation but, frankly, those are a dime-a-dozen.

And it would appear that what he's "revealed", though classified, is likely orientation material - maybe a bit of other low-level chaff sloughed from elsewhere, but prolly not. It's entirely possible that he thought he had his mitts on super-spy intel without understanding the first thing about it. That's evidenced by the fact that nothing he's released has been earth-shattering and that some of what he's released contradicts his fantasies about his work-related abilities.

Someone else sorta alluded to it: A guard outside a Top Secret meeting room doesn't know what's going on inside just because he sees who comes and goes. He may think he's on the inside track, but he's still nothing but a grunt with a badge.

[fujiyama]

194. I agree to some extent. His claims seem to be exaggerated

but that begs the question - why the uber-secrecy and paranoia by our government in the first place? Why is Susan Rice the only government official to admit he hasn't caused any harm to our national security. Why are Schumer and McCain freaking out and issuing threats to Ecuador over trade and claiming Putin is causing damage to US-Russian relations?

It's for us as a people to understand and decide whether we want this apparatus in the first place. That's where Snowden is right.

[OilemFirchen]

204. I wouldn't attempt to explain why politicians do a damned thing, ever.

I think, though, that there is an overriding concern that Snowden is a loose cannon, even if he has nothing of substance to offer. The mythos surrounding him has clearly swayed a substantial number of people in the U.S., so it's reasonable that
within international governments, his celebrity and their zeal to strike out at American hegemony may lead some to gullibly accept his fantasies as nefarious plots.

OTOH, I may be completely wrong, and Snowden actually does possess documents injurious to the U.S.

In either case, caution is likely warranted.

Anyway, bureaucracies are, by their nature, secretive and paranoid. Especially within the intelligence community, where their default position is suspicion.

[OilemFirchen]

180. Looks like I owe Galraedia a couple of apologies.

I was under the impression that he or she was doubting that Snowden had made the claim. Now I see that I misread the comments.

Sorry!

[99Forever]

10. The "big lie" was ...

... told by Obama's boy Clapper.

Carry on pretending it ain't so.

The only people you are fooling are a bunch of fools.

[Maedhros]

128. What we have here are differing interpretations of the leaked documents.

The Guardian's analysis concludes that oversight is insufficient, and posters on DU claim otherwise.

What the Guardian's analysis has going for it is the multiple persons, from U.S. Senators to former intelligence agents, that corroborate Snowden's claims. Greenwald goes into detail about how the oversight process isn't all that it's claimed to be (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy), but at this point the pro-surveillance posters are simply disregarding anything he writes.

What is incontrovertible is that the surveillance program is much, much larger and broader than we thought, and the intertwining of service providers, government agencies and private security contractors is much more insidious that we thought. The only prudent course of action is to thoroughly and transparently investigate the entire program and its funding. How much the Administration fights this will tell us a lot.

[Recursion]

220. Fair enough

The Guardian's analysis concludes that oversight is insufficient, and posters on DU claim otherwise.

And the Guardian keeps releasing documents describing safeguards that their analysis describes as absent.

Let me be clear: it's entirely possible that those safeguards are absent or mere fig leaves, but so far all I have to back that up is the Guardian's saying so.

but at this point the pro-surveillance posters are simply disregarding anything he writes.

Bluntly, yes, because he keeps releasing documents that don't say what he claims they say.

The only prudent course of action is to thoroughly and transparently investigate the entire program and its funding. How much the Administration fights this will tell us a lot.

More or less agreed.

[Maedhros]

298. I don't take away the same points from the Guardian's analysis that you do

The way I read it, there are safeguards that are theoretically in place, but the implementation of those safeguards is flawed. That, to me, is the issue. Of course they are going to design a program that appears to have the proper checks and balances, but as Greenwald and others have argued, those checks and balances are more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" brand of oversight. Other former intelligence analysts have corroborated this assertion.

In my opinion, the entire idea of a secret court is antithetical to democracy. I honestly do not believe that the Al Qaeda threat is so overwhelmingly insidious that we have to resort to such measures. To ramp up the intensity and scope of the surveillance by orders (plural!) of magnitude is unwarranted; cloaking all of the decision making behind a wall of secrecy makes the program more insidious than the threat we are allegedly countering.

[Recursion]

299. I see your point

The way I read it, there are safeguards that are theoretically in place, but the implementation of those safeguards is flawed.

And what I'm asking for is some evidence of that other than "analysts", especially given how anal USG is with secrecy.

those checks and balances are more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" brand of oversight

Which is still gratuitous from a legal standpoint for foreign surveillance.

In my opinion, the entire idea of a secret court is antithetical to democracy. I honestly do not believe that the Al Qaeda threat is so overwhelmingly insidious that we have to resort to such measures.

I don't think Al Qaeda is the sole justification for foreign surveillance, particularly given that the legal framework for this predates Al Qaeda's formation by about 20 years.

[Maedhros]

306. I agree - the FISC is a Cold War construct.

But it's hard to argue that "terrorism" is the justification for the unparalleled expansion of the surveillance program and the concomitant contraction of Constitutional rights.

I think it is important to look at the NSA program in context. At the same time the electronic panopticon is being implemented, fundamental elements of our republic are being dismantled:

* The office of the President can now pretty much ignore Congress when waging war (e.g. Libya).
* Indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects (e.g. NDAA, "Due process does not mean legal process&quot
* Unitary executive power to kill American citizens without trial
* Secret collaboration by government and corporation (e.g. Cheney's energy policy meetings, the current Trans Pacific Trade negotiations, Booz Allen integrated into national security operations).
* Militarization of police forces
* Targeting of political activists for political crimes (e.g. raiding a house because the inhabitants had "anarchist literature&quot

Personally, I think "terrorism" is a nothing more than a convenient justification for expanding the security state.

[99Forever]

244. A rubber stamp secret court isn't "oversight," it'a...

... a fig leaf.

Fools think it's an Armani suit.

[SidDithers]

14. And the ratfucking gleefully continues...

in thread after thread after thread.

Good post.

Sid

[dkf]

17. Sigh you still don't get what he was saying.

[PSPS]

21. I rate this a combination of #10 and #13 on the apologists' hit parade

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this

[Recursion]

22. And this is #1 from the hair on fire brigade

Because that's the only argument I've seen, over and over: "you're just an apologist"

How about addressing the actual facts I posted?

[cheapdate]

69. Is anyone here able to form a coherent reply to your OP?

[Recursion]

72. dkf and kentuck make good coherent arguments I disagree with

Just to call out some good guys on the other side.

[cheapdate]

247. Saw that. Thanks.

Reason and persuasion sometimes get buried here, these days.

[Tarheel_Dem]

217. Because they're unable to. Greenwald hasn't given them the go ahead, but he's given....

them plenty of names to call those of us who are skeptics.

[flamingdem]

23. Please ask a question then, or link to something refuting the OP

That could be interesting where your list is not.

[rwsanders]

64. Great list. Make it more generic and I'd bet you'll be able to use it again and again and again...

as each of our freedoms slips away.

[Whisp]

24. GG got ratfucked too then. Or was he part of the ratfucker team n/t

[Recursion]

25. it's an interesting question in terms of the drama

My own belief is that GG is a little too eager to believe his own histrionics. But maybe we'll find out some day.

[flamingdem]

27. How might ratfucking extend to heads of South American nations?

Or Putin?

Tomorrow Pres. Maduro of Venezuela will fly his private Airbus to Moscow for a meeting of gas producing nations.

Will he ratfuckify his nation by returning with Snowden? He's already offered the possibility of asylum.

One problem has been the lack of direct flights to Venezuela or Ecuador.

Maybe Maduro should be given all the necessary facts before such a decision.

[Recursion]

39. Twisting the eagle's tailfeathers plays well domestically in a lot of countries

I could definitely see why he would like those optics.

[flamingdem]

46. Except that the USA is Venezuela's numero uno trade partner

or close to that - my bet is that there's another plan in the works.

Putin seems interested. He might be cooking up a plan.

[Recursion]

49. This will make a great movie in a few years (nt)

[longship]

26. Correction: I believe that originates with Donald Segretti.

And the Nixon crowd. But Segretti is where it enters into the lexicon. Hired by Dwight Chapin, a WH staffer under Nixon to do dirty tricks.

In other words, before Rove came to power, ratfucking was Republican standard procedure. It's what brought down Nixon. All of us politically conscious at the time saw it; and heard the word then.

[Recursion]

29. TY. Correcting (nt)

[longship]

31. No prob, friend.

[Vietnameravet]

28. Maybe we can eventually get the truth from his Chinese and Russian friends..

Hope he enjoys his new life in the Moscow Airport..

[flamingdem]

34. Snowden may leave with Pres. Maduro when he returns to Venezuela

That's a private direct flight. That way there's no stopover in Madrid or Havana.

It might happen. It might put a shine on Maduro's anti-US credentials, though he may be looking for closer relations with the US, we'll see.

[madrchsod]

145. i`m sure we will.

obama and the guy who runs china just had some informal talks about each other sending spies to gather info on each other.

[truth2power]

53. And that's why he was charged with espionage. Because he didn't disclose,

nor did he have knowledge of, anything of consequence.

Got it!

[Recursion]

57. intel workflow is of great consequence

And, again, he's exposed a lot of our international espionage assets.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

62. more officialdom speak & feel free to believe it, just don't act surprised that others have concerns

and major doubts when taking the totality of the evidence now before us.

FYI: blowing the whistle on illegal programs is NOT the same thing as revealing 'espionage assets' such as persons or places.

[Recursion]

65. is it illegal to spy on other countries now?

Since when?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

77. The massive, suspicionless spying is UNPRECEDENTED, and is why many folks object to it.

IF it was TARGETED, you wouldn't hear hardly a peep from the rest of the world, or DU.

That is a huge difference from what you are trying to paint.

[jazzimov]

119. No, it's not. Why would you say such a thing?

Ever hear of the Cold War?

Do you have any proof or even any evidence that it is "unprecedented" as you claim?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

124. lol - yeah, sure... we spied on the whole world back then, too... on all our Ataris, eh?

All you base belong to us

Good night, I don't have time for the nonsense anymore... maybe tomorrow

[jeff47]

152. Yes, we did. You might wanna consider cracking open a history book some day.

And btw, the government could afford much better equipment than we Atari owners.

[MineralMan]

253. Yes, we did, but not with Ataris.

Think Crays and other super-computers. Go read the Wikipedia article on the National Security Agency. It's accurate and informative. The links in the article are also interesting reading.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

257. We were more targeted, and did not have the tech capacity

[MineralMan]

258. You'll pardon me, I'm sure, if I discount

your opinion as uninformed.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

261. Likewise

You simply parrot officialdom, and that's it.

You assume you know me, and what I have read/know on this subject, when you know nothing.

So, you'll have to accept that I discount your opinion as not only ignorant, but also biased.

Have a great day.

[sibelian]

80. I don't want your country spying on mine, thanks.

I'm not going to be awfully worried whether or not you think it's "legal" or "illegal".

[Recursion]

81. I'm sure you don't

But it's what we pay the CIA and NSA to do.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

91. I do not think so, we pay them to do TARGETED spying.

And this whacked TOTALITARIAN idea will only hurt us in the end (in more ways than one).

[sibelian]

93. Why?

Why are you paying the CIA and NSA to spy on my country? What is your "excuse"?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

100. very good question, I even started a whole thread around that very question

though not one responded with a good answer other than, hey look... a terrorist!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023133264

[jeff47]

165. Well, that appears to be caused by your mistaken belief that we spy only to catch terrorists.

Every country spies for a whole host of reasons.

For example, France got caught spying on US in the 1990s for industrial espionage - they were stealing US company secrets in order to give them to French companies.

The fact that you have not heard about past spying doesn't mean the current spying is unprecedented.

[jeff47]

156. Largely because you're paying your intelligence services to spy on us.

In addition to gathering specific information, every first-world and most second-world countries are spying on each other.

[truedelphi]

230. I don't think you understood truth2power's subtle sarcasm. n/t

[KittyWampus]

133. Espionage= leaking classified/sensitive documents that he stole to foreigners. How hard is that for

you to grasp?

[truth2power]

246. I know what espionage is. And there's that subtle shift in meaning, again...

He didn't leak to foreigners (although, as a consequence, foreigners learned about it).

He put the knowledge of what the NSA is doing into the PUBLIC DOMAIN, where it belongs, because it's an offense to a democratic system of governance.

[Mojorabbit]

70. Anyone who uses the term ratfucked

has lost all credibility in making their point.

[Recursion]

75. A paradoxical claim (nt)

[truedelphi]

222. Good point. Unless it happens to be rat mating season and that Du'er is

Sincerely trying to breed rats.

[KoKo]

255. Agree...it was a Republican Tactic... Odd to see it here. n/t

[baldguy]

323. And insisting that Obama is a Nazi like the Snowden apologists & Greenwald fans do, is what exactly?

[Galraedia]

76. I have been trying to tell people this for days...

He claimed he could wiretap "anyone from a federal judge to the president". This is FALSE! It's not even an exaggeration, it's a flat-out lie.

[OilemFirchen]

135. I've never done this before...

but, since you made this hilarious claim twice in this thread, I'll repeat the answer again... as well:

“Not all analysts have the power to target anything. But I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal email,” Snowden had said in an interview earlier this month with the Guardian newspaper.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305859-dni-nsa-cant-tap-domestic-phone-calls-without-a-warrant

[jeff47]

158. Yes, that's what Snowden claimed. Unfortunately, the document he leaked today contradicts that. nt

[OilemFirchen]

163. It was never a believable claim anyway.

I do remember an ample amount of mocking at the time, but it's not really become part of the narrative. Not sure why, but it's part of the wayback machine.

Also this, quoted from memory:

"I've been a spy most of my adult life."

[Purveyor]

78. Du'ers and most of the EU "ratfucked"? LOL. We and they know better. Keep trying. eom

[TxVietVet]

88. It was explained one night on MSNBC.

A NSA and intelligence person (I don't remember his name) stated the same thing as mentioned in the beginning of this post. Now, I would like to know who talked him into doing this and who is paying his way? Answer those questions and we may find out what the agenda is because someone is going to jail. Hopefully, it will be more than Snowden.

[Cha]

89. Snowden is a sneak and a snitch.. why wouldn't he lie?

Mahalo for your research on this, Recursion.

[Iliyah]

90. Thanks Recursion!

I see the naysayers have a list of their talking points listed hereinabove - LOL

[Whisp]

95. Paul Revere is dead. Long live Santa... oops. n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

98. fortunately, for us... COURAGE is CONTAGIOUS

Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!


think about it...


good night

[Whisp]

104. so is gullibility.

the teaparty should have taught us some lessons on that.

[Lonr]

116. RE "so is gullibility"

Indeed, that's how we ended up with a POS law like the Patriot Act to begin with...

[Whisp]

118. hmm, you look familiar....

[Recursion]

148. Bwah

[Lonr]

97. On the other hand...

[ProSense]

99. Don't forget the fake travel document.

Assange stands by Edward Snowden as Ecuador's Correa reprimands consul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134665

OMG-gate got off to a rocky start.

[dsc]

105. How do they know that when they don't know how many documents he has?

If they don't know what he has, how can they know what he doesn't have?

[Recursion]

107. Huh? This is the document Shown leaked.

It describes the surveillance process. It contradicts basically everything Snowden said.

[dsc]

111. Snowden never said he had authorised access to the info

he said he had access to it. Again, since they are claiming not to know what he has, I fail to see how they can know what he doesn't have.

[Recursion]

114. Hell, local police can illegally tap my phone if they want

If we're going to sit around imagining ways the government can make our lives hell illegally, we'll be here all night.

[dsc]

117. the fact is access to this info should be mointored

the fact they apparently have no earthly idea what Snowden has is what is really scary.

[jeff47]

171. No, he said he had access to the computers that had access to it.

The information was not stored in computers Snowden had access to. Thus he could not have spied "on a whim" like he claimed.

[Recursion]

173. The NSA isn't even doing the gathering; it's the FBI

So any access he had would be to data that already passed the 4 levels of safeguards against spying on Americans.

[Iliyah]

112. It wasn't posted here I don't think

but Russia had a tv segment where they cheered Snowden as a hero.

As I mentioned before, I'm praying for Snowden's safety. Some group or individual is/are behind this and I believe the national security team are getting closer in exposing them.

[baldguy]

113. The real question that needs to be answered: Who's behind it?

Someone recruited Snowden at least several months ago, before he started at Booz Allen. They financed his flight, by at least $10,000s. (You don't fly half way around the world, stay in a fancy HK hotel for a week, and the fly half way around the world again on a moment's notice, without laying down substantial amounts of cash money.)

Who paid him? And who paid Greenwald?.

[Galraedia]

136. WikiLeaks paid for Snowden’s travel from Hong Kong to Moscow

I'm not sure who paid to get him to Hong Kong though.

[Recursion]

138. Snowden did, according to GG (nt)

[baldguy]

146. And Greenwald is JUST SO RELIABLE, isn't he?

[Whisp]

115. truth won't matter much when the lie had such a long life.

no matter what evidence, some will believe that Obama is spying on them through their televisions and whatever other device he has available to him and nothing is going to change their minds.

I think this was the whole purpose. Just another lie scandal.
Benghazi is still real to some
so is the IRS thing
And all the others, alllllll the other, SS taken away from gramma. The list is long.

[MannyGoldstein]

121. Clapper: I gave 'the least untruthful answer' to senator's question

Good luck with this.

[Recursion]

123. So which part was untrue? (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Clapper admitted that he lied, while Snowden leaked the truth

So far, for anything verifiable, Snowden has been correct when his story has been at odds with the NSA's story.

[Recursion]

137. no, this slide he leaked contradicts what he said

Its the opposite of what you're saying. Nobody could just look at the comm data of whoever they wanted. The NSA isn't even doing the surveillance.

[MannyGoldstein]

157. That's a single slide, for a single program

It's possible that he lied like Clapper, but:
a. I suspect that an expert would need to read it to totally understand it.
b. Snowden himself previously said that the *process* blocked him from monitoring everything, not the *technology* - he was on his honor to not listen in, but could if he violated procedure.
c. Let's see what else shows up from our Secret Police.

[Recursion]

160. Of course the technology doesn't block it. Hell, local police are *capable* of tapping your phone

and Internet, but the laws prevent them from doing that.

[MannyGoldstein]

162. The local police can't tap your phone from a terminal on their desk

as Snowden claims he could do.

In all likelihood, local police could not tap your phone under almost any circumstance without breaking into your home, no matter what technology they possess.

[Recursion]

166. Huh? They just put a jack into the transceiver box near your house

It's absurdly easy to do. Even easier now that the last mile has gone digital for 90% of Americans.

[MannyGoldstein]

170. Digital telephony is typically encrypted

So the digital last mile makes it almost impossible.

And because it's encrypted, the NSA is specifically allowed to save it forever. Neat, huh?

[jeff47]

174. No, it isn't.

Cell phones are encrypted. Land lines are not.

[MannyGoldstein]

185. Cable-based land lines typically are, I believe.

e.g., http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/spey001/spey001.pdf

[jeff47]

189. Cable companies have found it's easier to not deal with encryption.

Whether or not your particular cable "phone line" is encrypted depends on where exactly you live. You should not expect it to be encrypted.

[Recursion]

191. ^^ That's a more complete answer than mine

Good point.

[Recursion]

190. Yeah, cable does a VOIP conversion and is encrypted (but law enforcement can get the keys)

If you get your phone through a cable company, it leaves your house as Internet traffic. If you get digital phone service from a Baby Bell, it leaves your house as digitized phone traffic. OTOH, law enforcement can get the encryption keys from Comcast any time they want (never trust a third party to encrypt your data for you).

[Pirate Smile]

127. Kick & Recommend

[dkf]

130. Yes he did by direct access of the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit archive.

You are detailing all the protocols that are supposed to be used by the software and end user which are detailed on slide 2 under the NSA umbrella. He found a loophole for admin types in all the branches, FBI, CIA, NSA, to get access prior to the NSA programs and screens.

[Recursion]

132. So there's a data management problem?

OK, let's fix that.

[dkf]

142. Good idea. He told you he had access to raw sigint. I don't know why you disregard that.

[Recursion]

144. Because i don't believe him (nt)

[dkf]

154. They said they instituted new procedures to prevent this, including a two man access system.

That validates what he was saying was true. This is how he found all the docs he did which were obviously not supposed to be in his scope.

[Recursion]

155. No, they instituted new procedures to protect the powerpoint slides that describe the system

Which, I'll remind you, are the only classified data he's demonstrated he had access to.

[dkf]

182. How's about the Verizon warrant?

Or the UK docs?

[Recursion]

187. How's about it?

What did it actually do? Did Verizon hand over all phone records, or did the warrant authorize FBI to get any records it asked for? The difference between "all" and "any" is important here.

If Verizon did literally hand over all of their call data to the FBI, then these leaked documents are wrong, and the government is lying to its own personnel (or the slides are outdated, or it's for people with insufficient clearance to know about it).

If that warrant is what gives the legal framework for the rest of the requesting, it's less of a concern.

[dkf]

193. I'm sure you've read it for yourself by now.

Fine I guess he isn't a security risk then having no access worth speaking of. The thousands of docs he is reported to have must be a lie and all this discussion is a waste of time.

Why does the government want him again?

I know you are too smart to believe that.

[Recursion]

195. He could well have thousands of documents that describe this process (and others) in great detail

And, I'll be clear, I believe the government has a huge problem with classifying too damn many things to begin with, and conducting too many programs in absolute secrecy.

I have no idea what he has. I doubt it's literally nothing.

[dkf]

197. I read they suspect he may have docs detailing the entire NSA process.

All foreign intelligence exposed. Wow. Why they aren't trying to make a deal to secure him is beyond me.

[jeff47]

176. If he had such access, why not leak something from it?

He could leak a phone call between himself and Greenwald that was set up to demonstrate his access.

But he didn't.

He's made a lot of claims, but the documents he has released aren't backing up those claims.

[dkf]

188. Why would you believe a recording of Greenwald and Snowden was the govt?

OP would be the first one to call BS on that.

For all we know he has that type of data on one of his 4 computers and hasn't released it yet.

[jeff47]

192. Because of all the decorations the NSA would add to it if the claims were true.

They'd slap a TS on it, and you'd expect all sorts of routing and source information not available to a "normal" telephone subscriber.

For all we know he has that type of data on one of his 4 computers and hasn't released it yet.

Because he wanted to contradict all his claims first?

[dkf]

196. No this wouldn't have gone through the NSA but would be the raw sigint held at the FBI.

This isn't an expose of the NSA's surveillance of Greenwald or Snowden. If they were tapping Greenwald prior that would be a scandal though. That would be more likely now than before.

[jeff47]

198. My point was Snowden claimed he had such access. So why didn't he use it?

It would have provided extremely good proof that his claims were true.

Instead, he's leaking documents that contradict his claims.

[dkf]

211. His own access wasn't the point he was trying to make.

His problem was with the scope of the surveillance. But he was also flabbergasted at what he was able to acquire I am sure.

[jeff47]

214. And proving his own access would bolster that claim.

Instead, he's now been caught lying about that access. Which inevitably leads to "what else was he lying about?".

And since we can only see what he leaked, we don't know the full story. And being caught lying is a critical blow to his story.

[dkf]

215. I doubt he thought the point of this would be to validate his access.

He didn't want you to take his word. He wanted to show you Government documents. Maybe he also felt it would be unethical to drag an innocent person's records into this. That would be an invasion of privacy after all.

The Government response is all I need to validate his claims. I don't understand why you can't see what I see as fairly obvious.

[jeff47]

216. If that was true, those government documents would not be contradicting him.

The latest government documents demonstrate Snowden's claims about access are false. It would be extremely odd to both make his claims and only want to show government documents.

Maybe he also felt it would be unethical to drag an innocent person's records into this.

Which is why I was talking about Snowden releasing the information about a call between Snowden and Greenwald, where both parties were aware of the supposed government snooping.

The Government response is all I need to validate his claims.

Of course. To do otherwise would require actually reading those government documents Snowden supposedly wants to show us.

If we did that, we might discover Snowden's claims don't line up with those documents he's trying to release. And then we might feel bad about anointing Snowden as our savior.

[MannyGoldstein]

167. Well, that settles it. (nm)

[nycbiscuit]

131. umm...

But that is looking at it as if he were an analyst. Analysts have to request data. He was IT. His job was to maintain the flow between the boxes on that flow chart. If he had access to the right access point in between, he'd be able to see it all.

[Recursion]

134. So if he's telling the truth about that, there's a data management problem.

The NSA shouldn't have trouble fixing that.

[ohheckyeah]

147. People have been saying for days that there is a data management

and security problem. You're just a little late to the party.

[MannyGoldstein]

172. So you should post an apology at the top of this thread.

Snowden seems to have not lied, and nobody's been shown to be "ratfucked" - at least not by the folks you targeted.

[Recursion]

177. Yes, he did: even granting what I just granted,

he only had access to data that had already passed the four levels of safeguards against surveilling Americans, two from the FBI, one from the NSA, and one from FISC. NSA only gets the data after it passes those checks, and it gets them from the FBI, not on its own. So, no, he could not get data on arbitrary Americans, though he could initiate a request for it, and the four safeguard levels would kick in.

Are they 100% effective? Obviously not, which is what Clapper fucked up talking about. I will be willing to guarantee that there is data in there that shouldn't be. But Snowden could not get communication data for arbitrary Americans from his desk, and my basis for saying this is the very documents he leaked.

[dkf]

281. Again, he told you anyone from any of the services with his level of technical access could

Get to the sigint.

This wasn't what he could see from the NSA area, it was his access to the whole shebang. The lack of attention to security when collecting all signals all the time is appalling.

[randome]

283. He said he personally could access the President's email.

He said he "saw things".

Why would anyone take him at his word if he can't show evidence of that kind of access?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

287. Do you really want him showing all of Obama's info ? Really?

I almost hope he does have it. But then that would be blackmail.

[randome]

293. Blackmail? Good God, that's what Snowden's been doing for a while now!

He wants the NSA to change according to his dictates. What is that if not blackmail?

And yes, I DO want him to show evidence to support that crazy claim of his.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][font]
[hr]

[dkf]

301. If they mistreat him and his info gets released enmasse, I wouldn't be surprised to see that data.

I think that may be why he made that point.

[Recursion]

184. On a side note, in all seriousness, I did not mean to offend you with that term

I saw your OP and seriously, I love your posts and I never meant to imply that the vulgar term applied to you or other DUers, but rather to Snowden and/or Greenwald.

[MannyGoldstein]

186. Thanks.

I do appreciate that very much.

[jeff47]

178. No, he'd only be able to see what the analysts requested

He would not have been able to see all the data in the database.

[Coccydynia]

139. That would be the WaPo that found the WMD

In Iraq like a faithful stenographer reporting said existence?

Where did they get that PPT? The Gov?

[Recursion]

143. Jesus F'ing Christ! THIS IS WHAT SNOWDEN LEAKED!

This is the document he threw away his career to make public, and it shows that the NSA isn't arbitrarily spying on Americans and that several layers of safeguards are in place to keep Americans from being spied on.

[Coccydynia]

208. I didn't realize that what the PPT says

And what actually occurs are one in the same.

Having said that, excuuuuuuse me for not realizing that the patriotic WaPo would continue to publish documents from the poison tree.

So after what, three weeks suddenly the proof that was old news that Snowden was a liar is suddenly worth a thread? I would have expected this thread three weeks ago.

[Recursion]

209. WaPo only published this just now

You do bring up an interesting point: is the NSA following the safeguards that are in place? I'm sure any program gets abused from time to time. If the safeguards are not effective, that's a problem, but Snowden has offered no evidence of that. No memos saying "I know the policy says this, but really we want to just read everything everybody writes, so ignore the policy".

So after what, three weeks suddenly the proof that was old news that Snowden was a liar is suddenly worth a thread?

We only recently got to see these slides, and I'm pointing out that they entirely contradict the claims he made in the film.

Hence the title of my OP. This isn't a generic "Snowden is untrustworthy" smear: I'm pointing out that the very documents he has leaked contradict what he has been claiming.

[Coccydynia]

210. Don't worry about the world's worst person in the world.

He'll be Bradley Manninged and everyone can breath easier knowing we're safe and sound from the evil doers.

[Recursion]

212. I know my posting history isn't obvious, but I haven't been Snowden-bashing

I haven't called him a traitor or any other names (though I did mention some questions I had and still have about his resume). So far I don't think this is comparable to Manning.

[Coccydynia]

235. He is going to suffer the fate of Manning, sadly.

I don't really know who does and doesn't bash Snowden. I don't think he was doing it for any self-interested reasons. I think he was trying to do the right thing.

Bummer for him.

[OilemFirchen]

262. In his online chat...

Snowden dismissively said that analysts are prevented from overstepping by stuff like "laws" and "policies". That's from memory, but it's the gist. It induced a belly-laugh because that's pretty much the way everything works and, but for thieves and scoundrels (like Snowden), it works because people are usually honest and, moreso, afraid of losing their jobs and/or going to jail.

Elsewhere, it was explained thusly:

"Yeah, sure. There's a policy that you're not supposed to piss in the breakroom coffee pot, but really... what stops anyone from doing it?"

[Recursion]

264. Right. I mean, local police have a "policy" against not kicking down my door when they want

But, I mean, they have that battering ram and shotgun right in their patrol car.

[OilemFirchen]

272. Indeed.

Okay, so you feel all safe and cozy now. But what happens when there's, say, a Sherrif Santorum, or Police Chief Cruz?

[treestar]

326. There are plenty of those

locally, to be sure. They still know they can only get away with so much, in this day and age.

[madrchsod]

140. well not all DUers

i had my doubts after the first day of this crap.the problem i had with this story was everyone knows each other spies on each other. what might have not been known is the technological level that the us possessed. then after snowden and greenwald really started talking i had this funny feeling we were being conned.

[Swagman]

175. and the reason why they have rushed to arrest and detain him is ?

..probably illegally overloading a garage with cardboard boxes.

[Recursion]

179. Well, first off, I don't see much of a rush here

Secondly, the specifics of intelligence workflow is pretty sensitive (surely you can see that, right?)

Finally, he also told China which of their computers we have been surveilling, and that really pisses off the people whose job it is to surveil them.

[MjolnirTime]

181. some seem to like a Rat with a slow hand

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

199. Then why is the government so upset with him?

[Recursion]

200. Well, telling China which of their computers we've hacked didn't make anyone in the government happy

Plus, just on a mundane level, he embarrassed a lot of powerful management types.

Finally, they would probably like their intended targets to know as little about the surveillance as possible, and this workflow here actually does reveal some important information about how the surveillance happens.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

201. Management types and politicians.

[Recursion]

202. Bureaucrats are bureacrats

and bureaucratic infighting is some of the most ridiculous and petty bullshit in the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

205. I weep over their embarrassment.

[cali]

206. uh no. numerous people from John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi to Obama

have said that they fear that Snowden has more classified information.

<snip>
The U.S. chief executive said that while the, "damage was done with respect to the initial leaks," Snowden was still believed to be in possession of further classified information.

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57591281/obama-concerned-edward-snowden-could-leak-more/

[Recursion]

207. Hell, *I* say he has more classified information

I would be flabbergasted if all he took was a single powerpoint presentation.

[gcomeau]

263. Is that a bad joke?

He told the Chinese where the NSA was targeting their intelligence operations in the country. Think they should be angry at that? Hell even if he was LYING think they should be angry at causing an international fucking diplomatic incident?

He released classified internal materials. They don't have to be illegal for that to be upsetting you doofus. If someone leaked the technical schematics on a stealth fighter would you ask why everyone was upset since the program was all legal so they should have nothing to hide????

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

267. My, my. You sound almost as upset as upset as the NSA and the politicians.

[gcomeau]

268. Stupid questions irritate me. -eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

269. Stupid policies like spying on the world irritate me.

[gcomeau]

271. Good grief...

...what the fuck did you think the intelligence services of every nation on earth have spent centuries doing with all their time? Spying on the guy in the office next to them just for practice?????

Grow the hell up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

273. Maybe it's time to stop them considering how much good it's done.

Of course, if you live in fear of whatever bogeyman the government erects through their spying, then it would be important to you.

[gcomeau]

274. Brilliant idea

We'll issue a memorandum fundamentally altering human nature to remove the need for nations to conduct intelligence gathering operations and that will be that. Bet we can whip that off in an afternoon. Won't that be nice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

276. It sure as hell beats what we're doing now.

It's human nature to spy? I must have missed that in my biology and sociology classes.

[gcomeau]

277. No, dealing with reality always trumps living in a fantasy world.

It's human nature to seek advantage. Other nations are looking out for their own interests, not yours. They're all conducting their intelligence operations to provide them with whatever advantages they can get from them.

That doesn't make them all enemies. Many of them will happily take the path that offers the greatest mutual advantage instead of trying to screw you over *when they can* (others won't)... but acting like the whole world is a big fluffy happy place filled with altruists you have no need to keep an eye on is fucking idiotic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

278. Funny that our allies aren't sending us bouguets of thanks for our efforts.

It seems our spying is not working out to be to our "advantage". Actually, the world is more "fluffy" than threatening. Most of the people throughout history have never experienced war. It's an aberration usually fostered by the bosses often brought on by spying. See WWI for an example.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/world/europe/eu-nsa/

[randome]

279. Look, James and Mary...

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[gcomeau]

280. Keep playing stupid. It's so productive.

Of course they aren't. Despite the fact they're spying on the US as well and everyone knows it there's a certain diplomatic etiquette involved. You don't go out and publicly admit you're spying and you get angry when you catch someone else doing it.

How many times have the Israeli's been caught spying on the US? And every time everyone was all upset and scolding. And then nothing happened because of course they were fucking spying and everyone knew it.


AND IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE THREAT OF WARS. Engage your brain.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

284. So, it's all just a charade mindlessly played to no purpose.

We know what they know and we know they know it. But, we'll all pretend that we and they don't.

Like a game of peek-a-boo played in kindergarten. Kinda childish, don't you think?

[gcomeau]

285. Now, when I said "keep playing stupid"...

...you get that that was sarcasm right?

No, maintaining diplomatic appearances in order to facilitate cooperative interactions instead of allowing real hypocritical outrage over activities every nation knows every nation engages in and understands the justifications for is not "childish". Neither is maintaining that you do have to express disapproval of anyone you actually catch in the act of not being discreet enough to keep it out of the public eye.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

292. I guess the Europeans didn't get the script because they are outraged.

[gcomeau]

294. No... they are "outraged".

Just like the US was "outraged" when it caught the Israeli's spying. You get angry at it, but you know you're doing it too and you know why it's happening and you expect it to be happening.

Are you not following along here at all?

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.9/german-intelligence-emails

Yeah, I''m sure the Germans are shocked and dismayed stuff like this happens!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

295. So, the administration's outrage at Snowden is just a charade, because everybody knows we spy?

And, the CYA comments and pursuit of Snowden are just diplomatic niceties.

[gcomeau]

297. Ok, I'm not even sure that can be attributed to "playing" stupid.

Am I to actually expected to believe that you cannot comprehend the difference between the entirely expected act of other nations conducting intelligence operations directed at you... and one of your own people betraying the nation?

No, the administrations outrage is not a charade. It is real and fully justifiable. As is that of everyone else pissed off at the contemptible little twit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

311. I guess Snowdon didn't read the script and stay in assigned role.

He coulda' been just another "good German" and gone along but he was foolish enough to take on the establishment and their games.

What a silly guy. One who evidently believes that democracy is actually possible in the "real world".

[TheKentuckian]

312. Probably each other's governments and industries not every individual citizen.

[gcomeau]

313. Which they are NOT DOING NOW EITHER.

[baldguy]

324. You should learn who Henry L. Stimson was.

[Cali_Democrat]

213. Snowden lied

But remember, it's not about Snowden......or something like that.

[Summer Hathaway]

231. Well, you know the popular cry

about how it isn't about the MAN, it's about what he said? (Which surfaced right after "the man" started looking not too savory)

I was told on a thread today that it's not about ALL of what he said, it's about SOME of what he said.

And the beat goes on.

[BlueCaliDem]

233. This DUer didn't believe that charlatan from the get-go.

I've been skeptical about Snowden since I learned of his connection with GeeGee. I was appalled by how many DUers here rushed to defend this bald-faced liar, and they didn't even know the guy. I guess they believe in the same shit as Libertarians Snowden and GeeGee, that government is BAAAAD -but only, of course, when a Democrat is in the White House.

[Hekate]

234. Well, well. To use the technical term.

DUers, you've been ratfucked, to use the technical political term.

Do tell.

Rec #65

[mfcorey1]

237. Snowden has done more damage than good. I have never championed what he did. It smelled

from the beginning.

[Bobbie Jo]

259. Smells worse by the day. nt

[Pholus]

238. And this is the key to showing NSA Surveillance is all on the up and up?

Then you can tell the Government they don't need the Utah and San Antonio data centers then, right?

[Recursion]

241. I'm sure they need a ton of datacenters

I've never understood why building a datacenter freaks people out so much. There are bigger ones in Fairfax County right now.

[Pholus]

243. So why do they need even bigger datacenters?

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2013, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't figure out why some people completely ignore how TIA was pitched to us and you are looking at a program which DEFINITELY has 75% of TIA's elements (including the very worst ones) and most likely 90%. I did an OP on that last week. Simply checking the buzzwords on the TIA wiki page against google news. 75% match. I don't care that you think that the President is fronting a harmless program here because when he opens his mouth the same words that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush used come rolling out.

The EXACT same words. For what appears to be the exact same program.

And as far as datacenters. This is not just a few petabytes you're talking about here. So it begs the question, what is the extant need? Again, look at the described scope of the TIA "Genisys" database and look at the numerous references in business publications about how the US Government is now one of big data's best customers. Put those two bits together and I guess it is obvious what is going in the new datacenters. In a nominal democracy, if the legality of the program depends on some fig leaf that says it's okay to hoover up every thing you can as long as a "warrant" is tied to actually looking, you've already lost because you are compiling dossiers on the entire citizenry.

Frak, not even the Stasi actually cared what was in their dossiers until someone ticked them off. The next MLK already lost to the next Hoover and neither of them know who they are yet.

And continue that for a moment. Consider how this program supposedly defends us from evil "Terrorists." I am disappointed that most people are not picking up on exactly how relative that term is when the USG is involved. I certainly don't think that a handful of anti-war Quakers end up being "Terrorists" but someone in the USG thought they were and placed many of them on a Terrorism watch list. So, how does your system defend them then?

Answer. It doesn't. I guess it boils down to "If you have nothing to hide, and you say nothing we don't want to hear, then you have nothing to fear."

Not a system that should belong in a free country. Not by a long shot. Check my sig for a true expert's take on this.

[backscatter712]

266. Google for Tyrants requires a lot of computing power... n/t

[FSogol]

240. Exactly. Fuck Rand Paul!

[Junkdrawer]

245. Are we being prepped for the emergence of Francis Gary Snowden by Putin?

[WinkyDink]

250. You DO know that FGP was piloting a spy plane, do you not? Ike finally owned up to it.

[Junkdrawer]

252. Yep. I think Putin suspected a Limited Hangout operation from day one and snatched him...

from the plane in black limos.

Is Putin correct? Who the hell knows. But I do find it suspicious that so few question the "he's at the airport" narrative. CNN posted a walk though of the airport as if Snowden deplaned like every other passenger, which is clearly not the case.

[Recursion]

265. Wow. Hadn't thought of that

[BobR]

270. I work in IT

I wonder if Snowden was able to get access that most people couldn't because he could use tools that would normally be used for system maintenance to access data? I know I could use a SQL Query tool to get data out of databases that may not be available via a front end without logging in and having roles/rights assigned. Perhaps this is what he meant by being able to get at anything. It's not clear to me where the data resides and who maintains the servers.

I also wonder if the data is encrypted precisely so that snoops like Snowden can't read it even if they do access the DBs. That would be the smart thing to do, especially for classified information.

Regardless, based on the slide and what he said, he definitely seems to have misrepresented what normal employees of the IT contractors can do and get access to. He seems like a narcissist to me, or he never would have put himself front and center in this story and instead let the leaked information be the central focus.

[randome]

275. I think they did say the metadata was encrypted.

I have no doubt you're right. If the data was so easy to get to, we'd have a dozen Snowdens running around instead of one.

He never had the access he claimed. The question for me is did he delude himself into thinking he had that access? Or did he simply lie? Maybe a combination.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[flamingdem]

290. I think his defense will be mental illness

Snowden's father is already emphasizing his late onset epilepsy.

[rhett o rick]

286. You are basing your certainty that Snowden lied based on the fact that the PP slide doesnt show

his access? The lack of evidence isnt evidence. Let's see the slide that shows Boos-Allen's connection.

[Recursion]

288. Huh? This slide shows where NSA gets the data in the first place

Yes, an NSA sysadmin (who may be organic or contracted) conceivably would have access to all the intercepts that had already passed the 4 layers of safeguards (though I keep coming back to the fact that NSA invented the software that lets you have a setup where the sysadmin can't see everything).

The point being he could only target the President's personal email (or yours, or mine) if NSA S2, FISC, his own supervisor, and an FBI desk dedicated to keeping Americans out of NSA surveillance all agreed that [e-mail] or whatever was not an American citizen

And, I keep repeating, NSA isn't even doing the gathering, but has to go to FBI for that.

[leveymg]

303. What about profiling? Could an NSA sysadmin access email or online chat?

Seems like he could, with no further supervision until a targeting decision is made.

[Recursion]

304. For 72 hours, it seems yes. That's a loophole we should fix

And, in general, if people are ignoring the actual procedures, there are potentials for misuse. That's true with police battering rams, also.

[randome]

307. I would think that even starting that 72 hour period requires a lot of sign-offs.

But we don't know, yet, and we should.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[leveymg]

308. Could it be, then, that Snowden was describing what he did during those 72 hours?

Why do you still conclude that he was necessarily "lying" about his experience?

[Recursion]

310. Because he said "anyone", not "anyone who pops on the PRISM profile"

That said, in either case, that avenue does need more supervision and somebody outside of immediate chain of command to sign off. 100% agreed.

[rhett o rick]

305. We have had testimony from a couple of Senators that claim they were told that the NSA had

access to records collected and stored on millions of Americans. In his interview with Andrea Mitchell, Clapper confirmed that. He said it was like a library. The dont read every book but only those they want to target.

You are making the assumption that the program works per this PP slide and there are no accesses not shown because those being trained dont have a need to know. Again, the lack of evidence isnt evidence.

[randome]

322. So you are saying, in effect, that PowerPoint slides are worthless, right?

That's what we've been telling you for some time now.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

315. WTF?

That slide does not say what you claim.

[Recursion]

317. So tell me what you think it means (nt)

[reusrename]

318. The analyst inputs his selectors into a tool, a form or template if you will.

The software automatically generates all these separate reports for all the different modules.

That's what I see.

He gets his Pending Stored Comms immediately and then sometime within the next 72 hours a warrant request is sent to the FISA court for approval, probably together with hundreds of other requests on the same warrant.

This scheme is very similar to how the robosigners that the banks used for foreclosures operated. Also, it's being done for the exact same purpose as the robosigners were used for the banks. The only difference being that the bank robosigners were illegal and it looks as though these guy have legal authority to do what they are doing. They only need verbal approval from either the Director of National Security or from the Attorney General.

What do you see?

[Recursion]

321. i see the data not being forwarded from FBI to NSA until after

Are you talking about a different slide? Because I still haven't seen a slide that had NSA doing any gathering.

[reusrename]

330. The voice and emails are seen immediately by the analysts, and the slide supports this.

The top box in the slide represents the form tool or template that the analyst must fill out. That form or template includes boxes for inputting all of the legal requirements that must be met for the analyst to take a peek at stuff. I imagine one of the requirement would be some sort of affidavit by the analyst (this is merely speculation on my part, the stuff about an affidavit) that gets tracked for later submission to the FISA court.

Then, immediately (or in a few milliseconds), the analyst request is approved by all of those other software function modules. There does not seem to be any other human input required. All of the automated FISA requests, together with all of the other record keeping functions, are automatically generated by the system software modules.

Snowden, by all accounts, was a damn good systems analyst and he also claims he had authority as an analyst to use this particular system. He would have been one of the many who would fill out the form or template to request email or voice content.

[Major Hogwash]

316. Snowden said, "I has the authorities . . "

I'm sorry, but it sounded like a LOL Cat cartoon right from the get-go.

[Rex]

319. Someones been ratfucked that is for sure.

nt.

[dkf]

320. Now do you believe him? Snowden's Real Job: Government Hacker

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023144494

[baldguy]

325. So he's not Paul Revere. He's Kim Philby.

[ProSense]

327. He's screwed. n/t

[dkf]

329. Now he knows way too much.

No wonder he thinks he may be killed.

[NoMoreWarNow]

331. that would explain a fair amount

thanks

[warrprayer]

339. I am Edward Snowden