There's something Orwellian here, but it's not what you think.

[Recursion]

It's that a journalist has now twice released documents that say the exact opposite of what he claims they say, and yet still gets the attention of a large part of the media and American public.

At this point I'm kind of enjoying the ride, and am very eager to see Greenwald's touted next release.

[jazzimov]

1. EXACTLY!

K&R

[Romulus Quirinus]

2. Have you ever considered that maybe you're reading things wrong?

I mean, you'd think that'd kind of be a big deal that other people would notice.

[Recursion]

4. Other people have

However, yes, I always consider that possibility when I have an opinion.

[Romulus Quirinus]

5. So why doesn't the administration or the media say that and make all of this go away? nt

[Recursion]

6. The administration is forbidden by law from talking about it

However, WaPo's reporting was basically in agreement with how I'm reading it.

[think]

3. Almost as Orwellian as ignoring whistle blowers who are saying the same damn things

as Snowden is

[leveymg]

7. Your post reminds me of an old made for TV SciFi movie, "Doppelganger", Everything's backwards.

[Recursion]

8. I wish I could count the number of times it's turned out that the public narrative is not just wrong

but specifically and almost perversely backwards.

[leveymg]

9. Care to share some of those?

We're listening . . .

[Recursion]

10. Three off the top of my head

"Columbus proved the world was round when everybody thought it was flat"

No, everybody knew it was round and also knew how big it is; Columbus lied and said he had proof it was smaller

"The Boston Tea Party was against increased taxes"

No, it was against a law that lowered taxes and made the uncustomed smuggled tea less competitive

"We live in such a violent time today"

Violent crime is at the lowest level it has been in the past century -- and probably the lowest level in history. You were more likely to be murdered in 1913 than 2013.

etc.

It's something I keep noticing.

[leveymg]

12. What do you conclude from this insight?

It seems that people are pretty gullible in your book. Is that why you endorse the NSA's 51 percent approach to "reasonable articulable suspicion" that someone is a terrorist - roughly the same as flipping a coin?

Also, you probably have concluded that $80 billion a year isn't too much to spend on the NSA, even if there isn't a single case of foreign terrorism that's been actually shown to have been prevented inside the US by this internal surveillance program that's been collecting data on all of us for more than a decade?

I guess you think we just wouldn't notice little things like that, and even if we did for a moment, we'll eventually lose interest and wander off toward the next side show act. About the last point, I'd say there's about a 51% chance you're right.

[Recursion]

13. I dislike the 51% rule and would like it changed

Though 51% is also called preponderance of the evidence.

Also, you make a few more unjustified assumptions.

[leveymg]

15. I've always been a fan of probable cause, particularly as it relates to the 4th Amendment, myself.

To guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed United States in 1791 ratified the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I really don't see why 9/11 should have changed any of that. Off to bed. Good night.

[Agschmid]

14. Do you have proof of the alternative?

even if there isn't a single case of foreign terrorism that's been actually shown to have been prevented inside the US by this internal surveillance program that's been collecting data on all of us for more than a decade?

[eShirl]

11. like a wise-cracker

a.k.a. a smart-ass

[NoPasaran]

22. That may or may not be racist!

Should I be outraged?

[Luminous Animal]

16. And yet, counting on low information readers, you neglect to point out

the exact opposite of what he claims.

You seem to think that you, an anonymous poster on a discussion, merely saying so, makes it true.

[Recursion]

17. Orwellian, again. Yes, that is what GG is doing

But obviously the person pointing that out is who gets accused of it.

Like i said, I'm enjoying the ride.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Still haven't taken the time to prove what Glenn Greenwald is doing.

I know it must be difficult when you can't even be bothered to type the man's name.

Orwellian, indeed.

[Recursion]

19. i had a high-traffic OP on this yesterday

Showing how the slides he released say the opposite of what Snowden claimed. I consider that case made.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Got it. You've got nothing.

[leveymg]

21. You've already acknowledged that a key part of your "case" isn't made.

You can't have it both ways. The slide you point to actually shows that under a loophole in the PATRIOT Act, NSA analysts have 72 hours to freely comb through US Person content before they even have to request a warrant, and that the FBI does not supervise that initial profiling process (SLIDE 1). You indicated that you now recognize that fact, and agree the loophole should be plugged. What's changed?

[Recursion]

23. No. You've kept asserting that

And saying "the slide supports this" but never saying where on the slide you see that. I've granted it for argument's sake, and asked whether the profile data had been previously cleared by FESC, et al, and received no response from you.

[leveymg]

24. Do you mean FISC? No, FISC has no role in PRISM profiling until the FBI seeks a FISA warrant at

the later targeting stage. Look again at Flow Chart 1 - the profiling stage (which involves no oversight) is everything from the top down until the second from bottom line after the PRISM manager decides the subject is to be targeted and the FBI confirms the subject is a non-US person.

That process is explained in more detail my previous OP, which I already linked.

[Recursion]

25. No, I meant FECSU, actually, and for some reason my Android kbd preferred "FESC"

And I don't see a link from you anywhere in this thread.

EDIT: found it on the old thread.

You say,

indeed, it is virtually certain that large amounts of US person data are available without warrants to NSA personnel, at least in the files of other agencies that analysts and contractors may access in the process of profiling suspected terrorists and other NSA targets. Under the law as it was changed by the PATRIOT Act, analysts have 72 hours to examine US person content before they have to seek a warrant.

Yes, I keep asking: are they analyzing lawfully-obtained data from other agencies (in which case I don't care) or actually conducting active surveillance on their own authority for 72 hours (in which case I do)? Your own language seems to suggest the former.

[leveymg]

26. The databases consulted at the profiling stage largely contain illegally obtained processed

and disseminated intel based in raw data intercepts that either predate FAA or are based on foreign intel sources that don't discriminate between US and NUSPs. The safeguards thus don't apply to the profiling step, just the content of recently acquired domestic voice and some email data acquired from the Providers.

Please clarify FESCU

[Recursion]

27. Gah. FECSU. I swear I'm going to throw this tablet out the window.

The FBI Electronic Communications and Surveillance Unit, which is tasked with keeping USPERs out of NSA analysis and in the chart stands between the data and its release to the NSA (and, as far as I can tell, does the actual gathering).

I have yet to see any document avowing that the NSA is doing any primary gathering to begin with, though obviously that's what the term "upstream" implies -- I'd like to know more about that, but I haven't seen any document that shows what you keep asserting.

Are we at least in agreement that they are searching through a database of historical intercepts, not intercepting live data, for that 72 hours? Yes, I agree that if those data were illegally obtained, that's problematic, and the database should be scrubbed for that.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. In another thread you were saying Orwell is outdated and without any meaning

for today. This post says the opposite from that one, but both highlight your lack of comprehension of Orwell's 1984, his other works (bet you have not read any) his own politics and life.
They do have home study courses for this sort of thing.

[Recursion]

29. Are you sure you're thinking of me?

I love Orwell, though I think he got some things wrong that Huxley got right

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Perhaps I am confusing you with a poster of similar politics who is using Orwell

to make a point opposite yours. It was astonishing to read 'meaningless science fiction....form 1948....today's world....Greenwald!!!!!'

[Recursion]

31. No, that definitely wasn't me. Though my own take on Orwell might bother you

Since I read 1984 and think, "well, Winston actually was willing to throw acid on a complete stranger's face at O'Brien's command; shouldn't he be locked up?"