More Claims From NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice 271
eldavojohn writes "Russell Tice, former NSA employee & whistleblower, has revealed yet more details claiming that wiretapping was combined with credit card data to target civilians. He also suggests the CEOs of major companies hold the truth: 'To get at what's really going on here, the CEOs of these telecom companies, and also of the banking and credit card companies, and any other company where you have big databases, those are the people you have to haul in to Congress and tell them you better tell the truth.' Will Congress follow his suggestions?"
This adds to information revealed by Tice last week that the wiretaps targeted journalists in particular.
Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
People are saying this guy was just a mid level analyst. Does he have any hard evidence or is he just drumming up publicity to sell a book?
Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama hasn't been flat-out lying about his desire for a government that obeys the law, then does anyone know why he supports this kind of BS?
So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.
Corrupt CEOs (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any doubt left that the corporate aristocracy in this country is rotten to its core?
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
p>So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.
It's been only a week. Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Yeah, you drank the coolaid (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing has changed. The Obama administration is continuing to advance the same legal arguments the Bush administration used.
In all fairness we might consider withholding final judgment for a while, but so far all indications are that the 4th Amendment will continue to be ignored and the executive will continue to assert that it has limitless unbounded inherent powers which are subject to no review or check of any kind.
Heil Obama!
Re:Hard evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Does he have any hard evidence
What if he does? How long before "certain elements" of the media and body politic start accusing him of treason for how it was acquired or the fact that he released it?
Still More Surprises (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been a likely scenario for quite a long time. The transactional data cooperation most likely predates Bush #43. It is the simplest reason for the decades of wanton privatization of transaction processing and personal data warehousing.
The collective shrug of the shoulders in Congress should surprise no one. Most of all, it should come as no surprise to anyone hanging around slashdot.
The notion that your daily life is somehow private should have died about 15 years ago.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?
Good thing Obama filibustered that thing like he promise.... oh, never mind.....
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you know how slow things move with the government?
Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.
This is going pretty OT, but it's going to bite him in the ass when he's running for a second term and people are asking why he didn't change everything he promised.
We need investigations (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what someone would say if he were flogging a book.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a partisan hack who did not like the previous administration.
and
This is exactly what someone would say if it were true and he were loyal to America rather than the party in power at the time.
Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so that means ... that there's nothing to look for? How does that work?
It means the savior is a calculating (some would say lying) politician like any other, all claims to "change" notwithstanding. There is still a large contingent of followers who refuse to accept this and provide all manner of rationalizations.
Re:Once again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said this before and will say it again
Well, Mr. Coward, you do post more often than anybody else at slashdot. Your UID must be what, minus five hundred?
To have the level of overarching view this guy claims to have, he'd have to be Director of NSA (DIRNSA)
You, perhaps?
I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career.
Why would you expect us to believe that?
This guy is full -o- shit.
He's putting his name on his accusations, you aren't. Who do you think is more credible?
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll only bite him in the ass if the only thing his administration is known for by then is his campaign promises.
People forgive not being perfect if they perceive you are not just doing 'the best you can' but actually having an effect.
The folk who won't forgive him regardless, frankly are the same folk who will be gunning for him no matter what.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
obama this and obama that.
1) he's human
2) humans are corruptable
3) presidency always ALWAYS corrupts (its too much power for any single human being to weild)
draw your own conclusions.
I expect nothing 'new' from obama. the machine is what matters and he's only a small cog; a figurehead. the machine LIKES power and will never give it up once it has it. have we not seen that play over and over, in history?
obama won't be as evil as bush but he's human and will be corrupted by the power he received. its not his fault but ours for giving TOO much power, essentially unchecked by The People, to our own government. the gov no longer works for us, it thinks we work for it. its already broken beyond repair, sorry to say.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would we assume that? This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.
For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it. He's a politican. Politicians lie. They are, in large part, corrupt, morally bankrupt, bought and paid for, and self-serving. And the higher up the ranks you go, the more likely that is the case. In fact, that may be the only way to get to the top spot anymore. I would love to live in a world where that's not the case, but I don't, and neither do you.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I don't believe he is in possession of stolen classified information. He probably doesn't want to spend tens of years in a federal prison and/or be fined up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"Hard evidence" for this sort of wrong doing would fall under the above category, and comes in neat little binders warnings written in large very unfriendly letter. Whistleblower status would not protect him from prosecution from violating federal laws.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:3, Insightful)
So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in.
Not to make excuses for politicians, but it's not as if the entire intelligence community gets changed with each changing administration, especially not within the first few months.
Obama does still have to work with these people to keep the nation safe. Most of the people working in the CIA, NSA and whatnot did not start when he did. Making dramatic changes immediately and offending them from day one would be a pretty stupid move.
Re:Duuh, looks like he's lying (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not saying, "Look in Area 51 and all will be revealed." He's saying, "Haul these CEO's in to testify." Now, there are real questions of whether the technology is even plausible for interstellar travel - there's pretty good physics that says you can't get from one star to another in reasonable time with reasonable energy expenditure. But the technology for spying on us? Come on, there's enough technical expertise even within the community reading this thread to build, link, and mine the databases as it's suggested the NSA, phone and credit companies have done. And I'm sure some of us have pitched such designs to the government - direct knowledge, I know at least one guy who has, and got a contract from the pitch, pre-9/11. There had to have been hundreds, even thousands of pitches to and within the government to set up more of this stuff after 9/11. Now, on what reasonable basis do you believe the Bush administration wouldn't have bought some of these pitches? Our confidence that such programs are in place should approach unity. Talking to the CEOs whose cooperation would be required to pull this stuff off is a good place to start uncovering them.
Re:Once again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I, like so many others posting on this thread, value my anonymity and exercise it at will.
We have also assigned a value to your anonymity.
Re:Why does Obama support this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's time we contain the optimism and start looking a little more critically at our new president. I voted for him and I believe he's the most intelligent and charismatic leader we've had since I've been alive, but thus far his pattern of leadership has been (perhaps with the exception of Gitmo) to simply give everyone whatever they're asking for. Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.
And let's not forget that Obama was the one who supported the FISA amendment which, in addition to granting the telecom industry immunity from lawsuits for breaking privacy laws, also allows the government to wiretap without a warrant or court approval for up to a full week. Of course, it's hard to say where he'll stand on it now that he's president, because he was against the bill when running against Clinton, yet supported it when running against McCain and I can't tell that the bill changed during that time.
Re:Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, all we could do now is prosecute them and possibly throw them in federal PMITA prison.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do the repugnant republicans insist on calling President Obama "the savior"??
They really are the only ones to do so.
I suppose it IS handy that they make sure we know they are semi-fringe nutcakes, just like the ones that insist on using his middle name every time they use/say/type his name.
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
He's credible and yes has plenty of proof.
The guy is basically a hero - he stood up and respected his oath to the constitution as well as the NSA's own policies "Thou shalt not spy on Americans;" at great risk to himself - I know I would never want to be on the bad side of any of our Intelligence agencies.
He is already having to put up with FBI intimidation.
I know I don't want to live in a world where the sort of corruption and tyranny we've seen since 9/11 doesn't only increase in scope, but is unchecked and legitimized (attempts at legitimization with ex post facto immunity and other such things seem to be being considered).
I will really be watching Obama on this to see if his actions live up to his rhetoric.
People who value our heritage as Americans and our constitution who are in government service and who are willing to stick their necks out to do the right thing deserve massive respect. I hope that there are more people like Tice in these agencies, because our constitution and the laws surrounding intelligence gathering are extremely important to ensure that these powers aren't abused. We need intelligence agencies, as much now as ever - and I am sure that most of the people who work for these agencies are good, upstanding people - but with the way compartmentalization works it is very easy for some extremely shady stuff to go on (EG international drug trafficking, etc) - this is how it has been for a long time, and that's not going to change - but as far as spying on Americans and wholesale data collection without warrants - there are reasons why this isn't and shouldn't be allowed - when you add in the fact that journalists now know that they especially are targets for government surveillance it doesn't bode well for any sort of "democracy."
Re:Hard evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know this how?
Not saying you're wrong, mind you, though I don't think Bush was as evil as the left made him out to be. But how do you know this?
Re:Hard evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that Lincoln was the worst president that we ever had - indeed, I think he was among the better. This thinking is, however, based on an "ends justifies the means" analysis rather than a belief he should have done what he did the way he did it.
But, I am always amazed and saddened by the whitewashed version of history about Lincoln that is taught in schools. I suspect faced with a multiple choice test question of "Who said the following and subsequently affirmed it?":
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
that the vast majority of High School graduates in the U.S. would cross Lincoln's name off the list almost immediately while trying to determine the answer by the process of elimination. Of course, they would be very wrong to do so as Lincoln said just this (and affirmed it later) in the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on September 18, 1858. [google.com]
Although, such a statement must be taken in historical context, to pretend that Lincoln vigorously championed equality between races (as many seem to think) is a fantasy.
Just a bit of historical reality to consider...