NSA Surveillance Heat Map: NSA Lied To Congress 385
anagama writes "NSA officials have repeatedly denied under oath to Congress that even producing an estimate of the number of Americans caught up in its surveillance is impossible. Leaked screenshots of an NSA application that does exactly that, prove that the NSA flat out lied (surprise). Glenn Greenwald continues his relentless attacks with another bombshell this time exposing Boundless Informant. Interestingly, the NSA spies more on America than China according to the heat map. Representative Wyden had sought amendments to FISA reauthorization bill that would have required the NSA to provide information like this (hence the NSA's lies), but Obama and Feinstein demanded a pure reauthorization of FISA, which they got at the end of 2012." And if you don't mind that you might have your name on yet another special list, you might enjoy this Twitter-based take on the ongoing news.
Saw that movie years ago. (Score:3, Informative)
The Lives of Others [imdb.com]
There's a big difference,though.
Aside being complete fiction, the monitor was directly listening in, empathized with the folks he was spying on, was disillusioned with his cause and leadership and basically burned out with the whole job - IIRC.
With the NSA, they have mostly automated systems that are listening in on everyone in a mechanical way that doesn't allow for empathy and identification with the vict...subject, you have monitors that believe that they are "protecting" the US from its enemies (drank the Red, White and Blue Kool-Aids),and add in bureaucrats who have to cover their asses in order to keep their over paid cushy jobs (please, getting chewed out by a grandstanding toothless namby pamby Congress that would NEVER think of really doing anything for fear of being labeled"Soft on Terror" by the morons on Fox News and the idiots who watch it? Entertainment for the grillee! ).
The other thing is, where's the Jewish community? Why aren't they up in arms over this? Doesn't this feel like Nazi/East Germany?
Never forget indeed.
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely nothing to nobody.
The United States of Apathy.
People like to say that, but it helps when the media isn't in the tank with the government. Much like the media today is, and spinning for all it's worth trying to cover up *insert issue* though the last few things like the AP wire tap, and attacks against Fox News by the Obama admin seem to have gotten the press against them. This is followed by the realization of a lot of people that the government was/is/continues to target conservative groups. AKA "Where were the tea party groups in 2010? That's simple, being silenced."
Well not to forget that the low information voters are simply a curse on everyone. But even they've started to realize exactly what Obama is, worse than Bush. And for many people, that's rather surprising, unless of course you were paying attention and did digging on your own. A lot of people have realized that the current administration is actually worse than Nixon. What are we upto now? 8 or 9 scandals? I'm sure there's at least 3 to 4 more out there, especially now that the Obama admin is targeting whistleblowers.
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:5, Informative)
The only way to end without losing everything to hyperinflation and confiscation by the police state is to vote third party
And because of Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org] the only way for that to happen is to get Approval Voting [indiegogo.com]* implemented.
But the odds of that happening in time, against the hegemony, are asymptotic to zero. Since the last time it happened the two big parties have spent more than a century and a half ensconcing their rule in law.
* or more other more-difficult-to-understand-and-implement Condorcet method
Re:Call me cynical, but... (Score:5, Informative)
You're reading the heatmaps wrong. It doesn't indicate what each country has collected on itself. It indicates what the NSA has collected on each country.
Wrong question anyway... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong question anyway...
What is it with the apparent belief that the US Constitution is only supposed to guarantee rights for US citizens?
This seems to be an implicit assumption in the public reaction to the NSA spying scandals. The Constitution makes no such distinction; it is intended to limit the power of the government, period, regardless of who is affected. If this were not the case, the US government could do anything it wanted to foreigners: search without a warrant, detain them indefinitely without charges, torture them, even murder them.
Oh, right...
Sorry for the cynicism, but the point should be obvious: This is clearly not the intent of the Constitution. The US government is out of control, but too many Americans excuse this by saying "well, it's mostly them foreigners, so it's ok". It is not ok. Anyway, it is now beyond obvious that the US government routinely violates the rights of everyone including US citizens.
No apparent lie (Score:5, Informative)
Wait-- "NSA officials have repeatedly denied under oath to Congress that even producing an estimate... is impossible. "
They denied that it's impossible? So, it's possible.
This may be the worst-written summary ever, since it says exactly the opposite of what the headline says. Could slashdot find some people who understand double negatives?
Re:Not A Lie (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Citizenship is not mentioned and the clear intent of the Amendment is to limit the kinds of things the government can do. In a reasonably broad interpretation, it means that whoever the person is, regardless of citizenship, a warrant is required. In a reasonably narrow interpretation, "the people" means everybody who lives or does business in the United States. Remember that at the time this was written, the notion of citizenship was not sharply defined. There were many people living under the jurisdiction of US law whose status wasn't entirely clear. What people cared about was what the government had power to do in the States.
Re:Too Late To Stop It (Score:2, Informative)
They don't have to open it. They can use infra-red imaging to see the pen marks on the paper inside the envelope than use computer software to unfold the letter inside and read it plain as day.
Hey, did you see the hyper speed book scanner that the Japanese guy developed? Just riffle the pages under the high speed camera and the computer program unbends the pages to make them flat again.
captcha: papers (as in show me your _____ , maggot)
Re:whats going on (Score:2, Informative)
It's call dumping. An administration "leaks" all the stories they don't want to come out during an election cycle. By the time the next election comes around, nobody cares and it all seems like old news.
Re:Too Late To Stop It (Score:5, Informative)
They lie to the people, to Congress, to judges and even to each other. This crap started late in the GWB's second term
Ah, yes, another youth who hasn't read or lived through much history. Look up the McCarthy witch hunts, J.Edgar Hoover's spying on American anti-war protesters and civil rights activists, and the Kent State massacre just for a start. It happened at least as far back as Coolidge with prohibition; here [virginia.edu] is a book about the roaring twenties that was required reading in a general studies history class I took at SIU back in the seventies. It's well written and a good read.
I'd guess it's gone on even longer, and nobody my age is surprised by any of this. Disgusted, but not surprised.
Watch clapper face touch here (Score:4, Informative)
I've found the video, watch James Clapper act. Senator Ron Wyden, *ALREADY KNOWS* they are spying on everyone in America, he's a Senator whose been briefed. So Wyden knows Clapper is fucking lying to him/America.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/07/privacy-wyden-clapper-nsa-video
You thought you had a democracy, you thought things were agreed, set in law, and yet we find out, you were kept out of the loop. A country run by an elite. Mushrooms fed on shit and kept in the dark.
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Informative)
revisionist history much?
Not on his part. The world at large did not believe that Iraq had WMDs, which is why the UN did not authorize the use of force.
Even we didn't believe it. Recall that Cheney advocated a "1% doctorine." If there was even 1% chance that Iraq had WMDs, he thought we should invade. In other words, we were 99% certain that there were no weapons, but, "What the hell? Let's invade."
Fuck you and fuck anyone who defends those murderous scumbags. People died for their aggression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction [wikipedia.org]
Re:No apparent lie (Score:4, Informative)
Emphatic is the word you are looking for.
In English, a way to express a verb emphatically is through adding the helper verb "to do" - as in "Yes, I did say that." Emphatic moods are usually used in English if the verb is being used interrogatively (i.e. "Did you say that?") or negatively (e.g., "I did not say that" - as opposed to "I not say that.")
Still, it's proper to say "I never said that" as opposed to "I never did not say that" or "I did not say that never." If you want to sound full-on uneduamacated you would say "I never not say that." Emphatically proper: "Never did I say that."
For +1 pomposity you can expand "never" to its original form "not ever": "Not ever did I say that." Though "I not ever say that" sounds weird to me, but "I not ever did say that" sounds OK. "I not never say that" is basically admitting you never passed 8th grade. "I did not never say that never" is actually a scientifically documented way of reducing the IQ of those surrounding you by 10 points just based on the utterance of those words. Add "ever" after "never" to double the impact.
Spanish considers double negatives valid though, as an example of a language where the construct is supported.
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:5, Informative)
They had a warrant to search and seize. That's what made it legal.
Text of the fourth amendment:
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
There are a few critical details there. First the search has to be reasonable, but there isn't a clear definition there, although any reasonable person would clearly think that this is not a reasonable search. Next warrants may only issue upon probably cause supported by Oath or affirmation. That's a very important restriction. Warrants can't legally be fishing expiditions, there has to be probable cause sworn to by either a witness or investigating officer. There's absolutely no way they had probably cause for all of those people.
The warrants simply weren't legal warrants in the first place.
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:5, Informative)
They had a warrant to search and seize.
No, they didn't. They had a piece of paper which said it was a warrant. But a warrant is a recognition of an exceptional condition by a judge. As such, it cannot be issued for 120,000,000 people. It wasn't a warrant. It wan an attempt to change the law and call it a warrant.