42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If that's so, why did you even suggest I join Snowden in Russia?

You're an idiot besides not making much sense on most things.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

If that's so, why did you even suggest I join Snowden in Russia? [/quoe]

Because you seem so unhappy here in the US. I thought I answered that three times already. You having trouble following?

Quote:
You're an idiot besides not making much sense on most things.


Yes, ci...I understand that you have to think of others as uninformed, ignorant or as idiots who make no sense.

That probably makes you feel better about yourself.

I can understand why you would want to do that. Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I can decide on my very own whether I'm happy in my country or not; none of your business.

Making idiotic suggestions is in your stupid guessings.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I can decide on my very own whether I'm happy in my country or not; none of your business.


You certainly can, ci...but since you seem to go on day after day, week after week about how disgruntled you are with the American government, I felt as a friend that I should at least suggest consider moving away.

But you can just stay here and complain and piss and moan as much as you like. It is a free country.


Quote:
Making idiotic suggestions is in your stupid guessings.


Ahhh...both "idiotic" and "stupid" in one sentence.

You really have to get over that, ci. It is almost as childish as that "well I'm gonna put you back on ignore" schtick you are probably going to trot out again soon.
Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:45 pm
Merkel phone tapping fair game under international law, says ex-MI6 deputy
Quote:
... ... ... Intercepting the telephone calls of Angela Merkel would have been "politically unwise" and "certainly illegal under German law", according to a former senior British secret intelligence officer.

However, he says that under international law, tapping into the German chancellor's telephone conversations "would appear to be fair game".
[...]
Inkster says that while NSA surveillance programmes violated the domestic laws of countries subjected to espionage, it was less obvious that they violated international law.

"International lawyers hold a wide spectrum of opinions on the legality of espionage, and there was nothing in existing international law that expressly proscribed espionage," he writes.

He says it is clear that the NSA's own protective security was "not fit for purpose" in dealing with what he calls an "insider threat" – a reference to Snowden, a former NSA contractor. That has long been recognised.

But Inkster claims there was an implicit argument by newspapers publishing the Snowden revelations that the data was "so promiscuously distributed" that the NSA deserved to have its secrets exposed. That argument is self-serving and does not stand up to close analysis, says Inkster.

In his article, titled The Snowden Revelations: Myths and Misapprehensions, he says the NSA had no interest in the "private communications of ordinary citizens" in the US or elsewhere, and lacked the motivation and resources to monitor them "on a systematic or intensive basis". The term "mass surveillance" is a misnomer, says Inkster.

He says Snowden's revelations will undoubtedly act as a catalyst for some states to speed up their efforts to diversify their communications networks "to minimise dependence on US systems".

This is an issue that Merkel said she would raise with Hollande in Paris. But the process of avoiding having to rely on US networks "began some time ago", writes Inkster.
[...]


The question I've now is: is now "international law" supreme to a country's criminal code? Interesting legal approach ...

And if the term "mass surveillance" is a misnomer, where does it start? 90%? 100%?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:55 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
It seems that history shows "international laws" are broken at will by the US and other countries - all the time. Doesn't seem to hold much 'power.'
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 01:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Same thing could be said about freedom of speech, but I still defend freedom of speech.


Do you defend and trust the intelligence community to have at if finger tips the means to blackmail our leaders?

Do you defend citizens even citizens that have service this nation military with honor and who have no criminal charges against them being block from returning home due to some unknown bureaucrats placing them on a no fly list for unknown reasons????

All that is just fine with you as we can and should trust all government bureaucrats without question????

Do you think for a second that the kind of people who would used the power of government to cause pain to hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens by blocking lanes on a bridge would if given the access would not then misused intelligence information to punish their enemies.

At least the government of NJ does not have secret stamps to cover up their misdeeds.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 01:28 pm
@revelette2,
Sorry massive spying is a **** poor way of finding enemies as have been shown by the fact that all that information on phone calls have not found one terrorist plot to date.

Those data bases by existing however are a danger to all of us and given human nature and our history they will sooner or later be used by people who have access to them to attack political enemies.
revelette2
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 01:40 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
And if the term "mass surveillance" is a misnomer, where does it start? 90%? 100%?



I think what he is saying is that though NSA collects data it runs though a computer program, they only open and read a small fraction after the program identifies certain criteria. In proportion to how much data that goes through the programs, it is relatively very small and opened for good reasons (most of times, errors have been made)

Quote:
The NSA and its allies have been conducting mass surveillance on their own populations

The term ‘mass surveillance’ is a misnomer. Mass surveillance would imply that the states in question had been systematically monitoring the communications of their citizens and taking actions against them on the basis of the information gleaned from this process. In fact, what has happened is that the NSA and its partner agencies have been running huge quantities of communications metadata through computer programmes designed to identify extremely small target sets on the basis of very strict criteria; as Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) Director Iain Lobban put it in his public testimony to the UK Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC): searching the haystack for fragments of needles. Some errors have been registered – a judgment by the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court made public by the US government revealed that, since 2011, some 56,000 emails of US citizens and residents had been improperly read. As a proportion of the total email traffic fed through NSA computers, this number is vanishingly small. The NSA had logged and reported these errors – and the very fact of the FISA court judgment identified the errors suggests that the checks and balances built into the US oversight system are working correctly. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest anyone in the US has suffered any injustice or discrimination as a result of their emails having been read.


The NSA and its allies have been violating the data-privacy rights of foreign nationals not protected by US law

There is a growing international consensus towards the proposition that, as was affirmed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2012, the rights to privacy enshrined in the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply in cyberspace. But there is no global consensus on what constitutes personal data in cyberspace. EU data-privacy legislation, for instance, treats IP addresses as part of personal data, whereas the US Supreme Court has ruled that they are not. The US is operating on its own interpretation of the law, as it is entitled to do, citing the imperative of national security. From a more practical perspective, the NSA has no interest in the private communications of ordinary citizens and lacks both the motivation and the resources to monitor them on a systematic or intensive basis. There comes a stage in any monitoring process where machines can no longer do the job and humans have to take over. The staffs of both the NSA and GCHQ would have to be many times larger than they in fact are in order to monitor such large volumes of traffic, much less take follow-up action. Moreover, it is now clear that much of the non-US data searched by the NSA was in fact provided by the intelligence services of the countries concerned, with the authorisation of their governments, as part of a programme of collaboration on counter-terrorism.


source
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 01:52 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Same thing could be said about freedom of speech, but I still defend freedom of speech.


Do you defend and trust the intelligence community to have at if finger tips the means to blackmail our leaders?


I'm not into all that grassy knoll crap, Bill. If you do not trust the government to govern...that is your problem. I do.

Quote:
Do you defend citizens even citizens that have service this nation military with honor and who have no criminal charges against them being block from returning home due to some unknown bureaucrats placing them on a no fly list for unknown reasons????


I defend the government's right and obligation to govern. If there are specific instances of mistakes being made...I'd listen to them, but ALL people make mistakes at times...probably even you.

Quote:
All that is just fine with you as we can and should trust all government bureaucrats without question????


I didn't say "without question." But you are a conspiracy theory type...and I am not going to be that kind of person.

Quote:
Do you think for a second that the kind of people who would used the power of government to cause pain to hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens by blocking lanes on a bridge would if given the access would not then misused intelligence information to punish their enemies.


Grassy knoll. I think when people do something wrong...it can be investigated. But the thing being discussed here is Edward Snowden stealing classified documents and releasing them to people unauthorized to receive them.

I am not judging him...I am saying that he ought to stand trial on the charges.

Quote:
At least the government of NJ does not have secret stamps to cover up their misdeeds.


Whatever.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 01:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Sorry massive spying is a **** poor way of finding enemies as have been shown by the fact that all that information on phone calls have not found one terrorist plot to date.


You do not know that to be the case.

Quote:
Those data bases by existing however are a danger to all of us and given human nature and our history they will sooner or later be used by people who have access to them to attack political enemies.


You are way too paranoid, Bill.

In any case, this could be handled many ways. But Edward Snowden decided to handle it the way he did...and charges have been brought against him.

He should stand trial for those charges.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You do not know that to be the case.


Sorry Frank but that bit of information came from the President own panel so we do in fact know that as a fact.

Quote:
You are way too paranoid, Bill.


Was the people who Kennedy and other president send the IRS after for political reasons also paranoid?

Was the Rev King paranoid when he received a blackmail letter from Hoover suggesting that he killed himself?

Was Presidents beginning with Truman paranoid concerning Hoover?

Was the people of NJ sitting for hours in traffic jams cause for political reasons paranoid for that matter.

How about the citizens who find themselves on no fly lists for no known reason with some of them not being able to return home as a result paranoid?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
BillRM wrote:

Sorry massive spying is a **** poor way of finding enemies as have been shown by the fact that all that information on phone calls have not found one terrorist plot to date.


Frank,
Quote:
You do not know that to be the case
.


You don't either, but NSA hasn't shown otherwise, and most reports show they did not prevent any terrorist activity by their mass data collection.

We do know that IT'S AGAINST THE LAW~!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:12 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
You do not know that to be the case.


Sorry Frank but that bit of information came from the President own panel so we do in fact know that as a fact.


Really"

And there is no chance whatever that very important results have been obtained and the powers that be are willing to look foolish rather than further the considerable damage that may have been done by the alleged theft of classified documents.

There is that chance, Bill...so you do NOT know it as a fact.

Quote:
Quote:
You are way too paranoid, Bill.


Was the people who Kennedy and other president send the IRS after for political reasons also paranoid?


Paranoid people may have enemies.

You are way, way, way too paranoid, Bill.

Quote:
Was the Rev King paranoid when he received a blackmail letter from Hoover suggesting that he killed himself?


Paranoid people may have enemies.

You are way, way, way too paranoid, Bill.


Quote:
Was Presidents beginning with Truman paranoid concerning Hoover?

Was the people of NJ sitting for hours in traffic jams cause for political reasons paranoid for that matter.


Some were...some weren't.

You are.

Quote:
How about the citizens who find themselves on no fly lists for no known reason with some of them not being able to return home as a result paranoid?


How about 'em???
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:16 pm
@revelette2,
I see - like Clapper said: that isn't of any greater concern to most Americans than fingerprints.

(Taken fingerprints is different here as well: you must be accused of or be a suspect of a crime, and it only can be done for the purposes of establishing facts which are of importance for the proceedings. Taking fingerprints must be ordered by a judge or the public prosecution office.)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
BillRM wrote:

Sorry massive spying is a **** poor way of finding enemies as have been shown by the fact that all that information on phone calls have not found one terrorist plot to date.


Frank,
Quote:
You do not know that to be the case
.


You don't either...


Well...we finally agree on something, ci. Of course I do not...nor, it seems, do you or Bill.

That was my point and I thank you for helping me make it.

Quote:
...but NSA hasn't shown otherwise, and most reports show they did not prevent any terrorist activity by their mass data collection.


My guess would be that any information that shows the effectiveness of the procedure would NEVER be made public in any kind of detail...and any off hand references would be muted and maybe even stifled.

That certainly is the way I would hope the intelligence community would handle it.

Any damage that was done by Snowden is more than enough...no need to add to it by giving information on the efficacy of the work.

Quote:

We do know that IT'S AGAINST THE LAW~!


We know that you are claiming it is against the law...but that really is a decision the SCOTUS will make, not you. And the SCOTUS has not yet made it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No, Frank, you continue to ignore the primary issue; IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!

SCOTUS doesn't need to voice their opinion about our Constitution on "privacy rights." That's already been determined.

Quote:
Constitutional rights
The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

No, Frank, you continue to ignore the primary issue; IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!


Yes, what Edward Snowden is charged with doing...IS AGAINST THE LAW.

I am not ignoring that...you are!

But if you are talking about the surveillance, the question is still very much up in the air. There is a fairly decent possibility that, if the case moves through the courts, the SCOTUS will rule that the surveillance IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

And that will trump your opinion on the matter, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're repeating your bull shyt ad nausem!

DUE PROCESS means those who broke the law first must be charged and taken to court.

SCOTUS does not have the authority to break the laws of our land. No branch of government has the right to overturn the laws of our Constitution. They cannot take away rights established by our Constitution.

Quote:
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
BillRM
 
  1  
Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
My guess would be that any information that shows the effectiveness of the procedure would NEVER be made public in any kind of detail...and any off hand references would be muted and maybe even stifled.


Would you guess that members of the Presidential NSA panel would not have been told the truth and or would be willing to lied about the matter!!!!!

If NSA was willing to lied directly to a panel appointed by the command and chief then that alone would show that they are completely out of control

Their statement was that massive US phone records collections have not been shown to had stop one terrorist attack since it been set up.

Quote:


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-v21975158


A member of the White House review panel on NSA surveillance said he was “absolutely” surprised when he discovered the agency’s lack of evidence that the bulk collection of telephone call records had thwarted any terrorist attacks.


“It was, ‘Huh, hello? What are we doing here?’” said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, in an interview with NBC News. “The results were very thin.”

While Stone said the mass collection of telephone call records was a “logical program” from the NSA’s perspective, one question the White House panel was seeking to answer was whether it had actually stopped “any [terror attacks] that might have been really big.”

“We found none,” said Stone.

Under the NSA program, first revealed by ex-contractor Edward Snowden, the agency collects in bulk the records of the time and duration of phone calls made by persons inside the United States.

Stone was one of five members of the White House review panel – and the only one without any intelligence community experience – that this week produced a sweeping report recommending that the NSA’s collection of phone call records be terminated to protect Americans’ privacy rights.

The panel made that recommendation after concluding that the program was “not essential in preventing attacks.”

“That was stunning. That was the ballgame,” said one congressional intelligence official, who asked not to be publicly identified. “It flies in the face of everything that they have tossed at us.”


Despite the panel’s conclusions, Stone strongly rejected the idea they justified Snowden’s actions in leaking the NSA documents about the phone collection. “Suppose someone decides we need gun control and they go out and kill 15 kids and then a state enacts gun control?” Stone said, using an analogy he acknowledged was “somewhat inflammatory.” What Snowden did, Stone said, was put the country “at risk.”

“My emphatic view," he said, "is that a person who has access to classified information -- the revelation of which could damage national security -- should never take it upon himself to reveal that information.”

Stone added, however, that he would not necessarily reject granting an amnesty to Snowden in exchange for the return of all his documents, as was recently suggested by a top NSA official. “It’s a hostage situation,” said Stone. Deciding whether to negotiate with him to get all his documents back was a “pragmatic judgment. I see no principled reason not to do that.”

The conclusions of the panel’s reports were at direct odds with public statements by President Barack Obama and U.S. intelligence officials. “Lives have been saved,” Obama told reporters last June, referring to the bulk collection program and another program that intercepts communications overseas. “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information.”


White House stands by claim that NSA surveillance saved lives NBC NEWS


But in one little-noticed footnote in its report, the White House panel said the telephone records collection program – known as Section 215, based on the provision of the U.S. Patriot Act that provided the legal basis for it – had made “only a modest contribution to the nation’s security.” The report said that “there has been no instance in which NSA could say with confidence that the outcome [of a terror investigation] would have been any different” without the program.

The panel’s findings echoed that of U.S. Judge Richard Leon, who in a ruling this week found the bulk collection program to be unconstitutional. Leon said that government officials were unable to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk collection metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”


Stone declined to comment on the accuracy of public statements by U.S. intelligence officials about the telephone collection program, but said that when they referred to successes they seemed to be mixing the results of domestic metadata collection with the intelligence derived from the separate, and less controversial, NSA program, known as 702, to intercept communications overseas.

The comparison between 702 overseas interceptions and 215 bulk metadata collection was “night and day,” said Stone. “With 702, the record is very impressive. It’s no doubt the nation is safer and spared potential attacks because of 702. There was nothing like that for 215. We asked the question and they [the NSA] gave us the data. They were very straight about it.”

He also said one reason the telephone records program is not effective is because, contrary to the claims of critics, it actually does not collect a record of every American’s phone call. Although the NSA does collect metadata from major telecommunications carriers such as Verizon and AT&T, there are many smaller carriers from which it collects nothing. Asked if the NSA was collecting the records of 75 percent of phone calls, an estimate that has been used in briefings to Congress , Stone said the real number was classified but “not anything close to that” and far lower.


Tech leaders ask Obama to overhaul NSA NBC NEWS CHANNEL


When panel members asked NSA officials why they didn’t expand the program to include smaller carriers, the answer they gave was “money,” Stone said. “They were setting financial priorities,” said Stone, and that was “really revealing” about how useful the bulk collection of telephone calls really was.

An NSA spokeswoman declined to comment on any aspect of the panel’s report, saying the agency was deferring to the White House. Asked Wednesday about the surveillance panel’s conclusions about telephone record collection, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that “the president does still believe and knows that this program is an important piece of the overall efforts that we engage in to combat threats against the lives of American citizens and threats to our overall national security.”

Related:

 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 303
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/06/2025 at 12:47:47