42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
No they can't. That is the tesponsibility of the FBI, they have the law enforcement responsibility. NSA is responsible for foreign attacks.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:19 pm
@glitterbag,
Not sure why you posted that to me, but:

1) you are quite right in stressing the need for contextual knowledge, ergo human intelligence, which is something computers can't help you with. The point Hawkeye was making was precisely that technology is largely a lure if it is not harnessed by and carefully tailored for human intel.

2) The State department travel advisory site is like any such site: erring on the side of caution. If you trust them, you'll never go anywhere worth going.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:22 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
The point Hawkeye was making was precisely that technology is largely a lure if it is not harnessed by and carefully tailored for human intel.


Surely you mean Christian etiquette?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:42 pm
@spendius,
No, I'm talking intelligence gathering here, on a technical not moral plane.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:43 pm
@spendius,
You,
Quote:
Surely you mean Christian etiquette?


Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 06:43 pm
@Olivier5,
Sorry, I just hit reply instead of reply all. I didn't mean to address anything you said. However, many Americans are posted abroad and need the type of info the State department provides. We don't get to carry our American freedoms when visiting other areas. When I had to travel I was able to get the appropriate vaccines and I knew what to avoid. The American Olympic teams are being warned not to wear any clothing outside the compound that screams USA.

When I first started working at NSA, we were not allowed to travel in certain areas outside the US. Even after retirement, there was normally a time limit of anywhere from 10 years to never being able to travel to certain countries. Most Americans don't want that type of restriction placed on them however they also
don't carry the same amount of risk that DOD employees face when they travel.
And they shouldn't.

All Government employees are aware of the risks when they travel on business. We even sign a waiver making sure we know that our Government may not be able to protect us if attacked. No one travels figuring they will come home in a box, sadly it happens.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 09:02 pm
@glitterbag,
More relief from the NSA.
Quote:
U.S. frees tech companies to give more spying data
Reuters By David Ingram
2 hours ago

US looks at ways to prevent spying on its spying Associated Press
US, tech firms agree on spy agency data disclosure AFP

Obama Says NSA's Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Data Will End The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. technology companies may give the public and their customers more detail about the court orders they receive related to surveillance under an agreement they reached on Monday with the Obama administration.

Report: spies use smartphone apps to track people

Companies such as Google Inc and Microsoft Corp have been prohibited from disclosing even an approximate number of orders they received from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They could give only an aggregate number of U.S. demands that combined surveillance court orders, letters from the FBI, subpoenas in run-of-the-mill criminal cases and other requests.

The deal frees the companies to say, for example, approximately how many orders they received in a six-month period from the surveillance court.

Apple Inc quickly seized on the agreement to disclose that it had received fewer than 250 demands related to national security during the first six months of 2013 - a number the company previously was barred from giving and that it said was "infinitesimal relative to the hundreds of millions of accounts registered with Apple."

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with U.S. law enforcement and spying agencies since June, when leaks to the news media by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden began to show the depth of U.S. spying capabilities.

President Barack Obama's administration, however, was wary of disclosing data it believed might help suspected militants in other countries avoid surveillance.

The dispute wound up in front of the surveillance court, a secret court in Washington, D.C., that oversees national security investigations. Five companies asked the court to grant them the authority to disclose data about the court orders they receive.

The agreement, which was filed on Monday with the surveillance court, brings an end to the litigation.

The five companies said in a joint statement: "We filed our lawsuits because we believe that the public has a right to know about the volume and types of national security requests we receive. We're pleased the Department of Justice has agreed that we and other providers can disclose this information."

The companies were Facebook Inc, Google, LinkedIn Corp, Microsoft and Yahoo! Inc. Apple filed a brief supporting the five companies.

The agreement applies to all companies and gives them options on how to present information.

NUMBERS OF ORDERS

A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

"Permitting disclosure of this aggregate data addresses an important area of concern to communications providers and the public," Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a joint statement.

The agreement does not cover what the NSA might gather covertly in bulk outside the United States, only what it gets directly from the companies.

The agreement carves out some other exceptions. The numbers companies can give are only ranges: sometimes in increments of 250, and sometimes in increments of 1,000. Apple said the national security orders it received totaled between zero and 249.

If a company introduced a new communications platform, it would need to wait two years before telling the public about a court order for information about that platform. The silence is designed to lull suspected militants into using, or continuing to use, new forms of communication.

Obama had pledged greater transparency about U.S. surveillance programs, most recently in a speech he delivered at the Justice Department on January 17.

After months of negotiations among the tech companies, Justice Department lawyers and intelligence officials, a breakthrough came about the night before that speech, according to a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

At that meeting with White House officials, James Cole, the deputy attorney general, described details of a possible compromise, the official said. The reaction within the administration was positive, and during conference calls the following week, the companies agreed to the proposal.

The companies said in their statement on Monday that they would consider lobbying lawmakers on other, unspecified fronts.

"While this is a very positive step, we'll continue to encourage Congress to take additional steps to address all of the reforms we believe are needed," they said.

(Editing by Howard Goller, Andre Grenon, David Gregorio and Cynthia Osterman)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 10:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
multiple reports go into detail about how NSA hacks into computers and taps fiber optic networks with out any court order order or knowledge to tech companies, and you CI think it means something when NSA gives tech companies permission to talk about requests? They largely dont happen, because NSA does not need to go to that much work to get what they want. perhaps Microsoft and others will become successful in freezing out NSA with new encryption schemes, but I would not want to bet money that they are ever successful.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 27 Jan, 2014 11:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Don't assume anything for me, hawk. You're the one who has never answered my questions. Your assumptions about most things are WRONG! I've proved that enough times for you to have learned that lesson. TNCFS
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 07:30 am
Most of the people pissing and moaning about what and how the NSA does what it does...

...are the same people who, when other attacks come, will be pissing and moaning about the government not doing more to protect us and the rest of the world from people intent on spreading terror.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 07:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
What difference does that make? So they're all hypocrites. So what? We all know that anyway. Marx taught it. Years and years and years ago.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 07:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Most of the people pissing and moaning about what and how the NSA does what it does...

...are the same people who, when other attacks come, will be pissing and moaning about the government not doing more to protect us and the rest of the world from people intent on spreading terror.


Or they might be pissing (pissing? really?) and moaning that instead of targeting known extremists, the NSA are collecting huge amounts of data about who likes playing Angry Birds.

Quote:
US and British spy agencies routinely try to gain access to personal data from Angry Birds and other mobile applications, a report says.

A National Security Agency (NSA) document shows location, websites visited and contacts are among the data targeted from mobile applications.

It is the latest revelation from documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

In a statement, the NSA said it was not interested in data beyond "valid foreign intelligence targets".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25922569
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 08:14 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Most of the people pissing and moaning about what and how the NSA does what it does...

...are the same people who, when other attacks come, will be pissing and moaning about the government not doing more to protect us and the rest of the world from people intent on spreading terror.


Or they might be pissing (pissing? really?) and moaning that instead of targeting known extremists, the NSA are collecting huge amounts of data about who likes playing Angry Birds.


Izzy, the alternative is ONLY TO COLLECT DATA ON PEOPLE WHO INTEND TO COMMIT TERRORISM.

Is that what you are advocating?
JPB
 
  2  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 08:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
No, they'll be pissing and moaning about the government not doing the right things to prevent an attack and pissing away billions in resources and manpower on the wrong things. If another attack comes then all of this has been for nothing. Which, so far as anyone has indicated to date, all of this has prevented nothing.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 09:02 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

No, they'll be pissing and moaning about the government not doing the right things to prevent an attack and pissing away billions in resources and manpower on the wrong things.


Ahhh...so you are asserting that you, a poster here in A2K, knows more about what is and what is not "doing the right thing to prevent an attack"...than people whose training and occupation actually qualify them for that kind of decision?

Rather presumptuous of you, wouldn't you think?

Quote:

If another attack comes then all of this has been for nothing.


Wow...you want to make decisions like the one you suggested above...and you cannot even get this thought correct???!!!

If another attack comes...it comes. More than likely it will.

The purpose of intelligence operations is not prevent attacks with certainty...but to do as much as possible to prevent them. Anyone who thinks they will work with certainty...or who suggests, as you do, that if an attack happens, it means the work was worthless...

...simply is not thinking very clearly in any real sense of that expression.


Quote:

Which, so far as anyone has indicated to date, all of this has prevented nothing.


You have absolutely no idea of what has or has not been prevented...and I doubt very seriously any of these agencies will every expose their operations by satisfying your supposed need to know.

You owe much of your safety, JPB....to people you are derogating. You ought to grow the spine occasionally to say "Thank you."
JPB
 
  3  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 09:32 am
@Frank Apisa,
You sound more like Archie Bunker every day, Frank. First, you go off on folks who disagree with you on the constitutionality of the NSA metadata capture as "America haters" and now you willfully ignore all of the testimony and investigations that have clearly demonstrated these programs as a) expensive, b) likely unconstitutional (stay tuned), and c) not implicated in preventing any attacks that wouldn't otherwise have been prevented without these "tools".

What do you mean, "get this thought correct"? You aren't the arbiter of "correct" thinking any more than I am. You started by saying that you know what the complainers will complain about should another attack come. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT SAY. You're guessing. You're denigrating anyone who disagrees with you, while accusing them of denigrating others -- which is not what people are doing. I have a lot of disdain for the meta-data capture program, but I believe that the people involved believe in the value of the project. I certainly hope they do anyway.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 09:40 am
@izzythepush,
The reason Apisa is so idiotic is that he cannot see that his own arguments logically call for a doubling of NSA funding. Nay--a trebling. In fact the whole sum of government spending even though that would not be enough to guarantee that the lives Apisa claims he is so concerned about are saved.

One cannot go wrong when one is on the side of saving lives. It's not unlike lying in a Matron-warmed fluffy cocoon in a quiet, sanitised room sucking on a syrup lathered comforter and simpering with self-satisfaction.

That's why Apisa is so funny. Asserting him to be good for a laugh is not good enough for me.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 09:48 am
@spendius,
The Christian etiquette I mentioned would insist that there should be more to life than fighting the government we have have elected.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 10:15 am
@JPB,
Well, perhaps secret agencies (sic!) really should take over the all work usually done police forces: to prevent crime.

Knowing what everyone everywhere pretends to be doing sometime - that certainly will reduce the crime rate.
And I'm sure that there are some uninhabited islands where those people could be imprisoned, alternatively in some friendly states as done before by the CIA.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 28 Jan, 2014 10:26 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

You sound more like Archie Bunker every day, Frank. First, you go off on folks who disagree with you on the constitutionality of the NSA metadata capture as "America haters" and now you willfully ignore all of the testimony and investigations that have clearly demonstrated these programs as a) expensive, b) likely unconstitutional (stay tuned), and c) not implicated in preventing any attacks that wouldn't otherwise have been prevented without these "tools".

What do you mean, "get this thought correct"? You aren't the arbiter of "correct" thinking any more than I am. You started by saying that you know what the complainers will complain about should another attack come. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT SAY. You're guessing. You're denigrating anyone who disagrees with you, while accusing them of denigrating others -- which is not what people are doing. I have a lot of disdain for the meta-data capture program, but I believe that the people involved believe in the value of the project. I certainly hope they do anyway.


I am not the Archie Bunker type...and I do not sound like I am.

I am pointing out that the people who are being most vocal about condemning what the NSA is doing...are, IN MY OPINION, the ones most likely to complain that the government is not doing enough to protect us...if an another attack came.

I am suggesting that your proclamation that if another attack came...this "would all have been for nothing"...is an absurd contention...and I gave my reasons for why I am of that opinion.

And I am pointing out that people like you are being protected by people you scorn.

If you do not like any of that...TOUGH.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 252
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 07:31:17