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.
And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely nothing to nobody.
The United States of Apathy.
That happened when ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The PUTUS lied to the congress
The congress lied to the people ... and the people ... becomes sheeple
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Inaction is no worse than active support.
NSA spied more than China ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the NSA spies more on America than China according to the heat map
I thought my eyes had fooled me, and I ended up re-read that sentence 5 times ...
What the fuck is going on ?
Did we elect the WRONG president ?
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Let happen?! Inaction??? The Hell, my friend, we all but demanded this happen. We have a bad habit of believing liars in America, so long as they have the right party letter after their name. It's long past time we wake up and realize they all, Dems and Reps alike, lie to us for their own profit. We've opened Pandora's Box and it's highly likely it cannot be closed.
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, as with most cases, there was no right president to elect.
Most of this sort of thing is no longer under the President's or even Congress' control as you'll find out if enough of Congress actually get together and back a bill to end this. Martial law will certainly be the result. Like most large events in history, they are not recognized in their time but someone will look back at the decade just past and say, "The experiment called American Democracy died here."
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoiler alert: It ends badly.
The only way to end without losing everything to hyperinflation and confiscation by the police state is to vote third party. ANY third party. Honestly, even the Socialist Party would be better than this. At least they wouldn't cloak their socialism or national socialism in the guise of capitalism.
Re:That happened when ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but c'mon guys, he didn't lie about anything IMPORTANT. Like, y'know, whether he fucked or just fingered an intern...
What REAL Americans would do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contact your Representatives and DEMAND that the PATRIOT act be repealed. It is wrong that it ever became permanent and was supposed to only be a temp measure.. IT is being abused and is an abomination to everything that america holds dear.
Write a LETTER and an email you your representatives now and demand they repeal it. Without the PATRIOT act, Everything crumbles at their feet.
"Impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion.." (Score:5, Insightful)
"She [NSA spokesperson] added: "The continued publication of these allegations about highly classified issues, and other information taken out of context, makes it impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion on the merits of these programs.""
Oh. Oh really? Well, that's really a shame, given that you should have conducted a reasonable discussion on the merits of these programs BEFORE implementing them!
People might even be okay with these programs depending upon the nature of what's being done and the rationale for it. People already accept things such as the need for police to conduct wiretaps if the case is good enough for a judge to issue a warrant. But we're in a democracy. If you don't even talk to the people about this kind of widespread sweep, and get feedback on whether it is acceptable to them or not, then of course they're fricking angry when they find out how far you've gone without consulting them. This thing has long been suspected by plenty of people. It's not a big surprise. But why the hell are you surprised that it's a freaking mess to try to sort things out after the fact becomes official? I mean, I know the "act first, ask for forgiveness later" approach might be deeply engrained in the intelligence community, but you're talking about wholesale monitoring of people's communications. Of course there is going to to a be a lot of misinformation and confusion when you don't provide any information yourself about it. Deal with it. Properly. Please. Correct the inaccuracies.
This is one of those situations where if you don't get out in front of the thing with some factual and specific information promptly, then nobody is going to believe you even if you do tell the truth.
How can public relations people working for an intelligence agency be so clued out about how to handle this? Oh, there's misinformation? No kidding? And you think not saying how the program actually works will cure the problem? Bizarre.
I don't get it; why the need to lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Urm, we're supposed to live in a democracy, right?
If there are real threats, (and seems to be plenty of them), that this technology can efficiently and effectively combat, then explain it to the people who vote and also pay for the damn thing.
Don't give me BS about how that will somehow "compromise" the security of the system; specific facts (like the names of agents) compromise security, not generic information about what information you are gathering, on whom.
These people lie to avoid oversight, is all. That way leads to tyranny.
If they cannot explain why this is in our interests, then it's not.
Re:Oh another fucking goldbug (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too Late To Stop It (Score:3, Insightful)
It's clear that the US government doesn't care about our laws of Constitution.
Well, let me quote Obama on PRISM:
"I think it's important to recognize you can't have 100 percent security and also 100 percent privacy, and also zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."
Sounds good, doesn't it? Except for that "we're going to have to make some choices as a society" bit. Because we already did. It is called "Constitution", and it is not the job of the government to put different choices into place without asking back first. We have made some choices as a society. The government may ask nicely whether we want to change some of those choices. But they are in no position to just ignore them.
Bush II's excuse to ignore the constitution was that he felt the office was handed him by God. I have no idea what Obama is thinking, though.
Nixon was impeached for pulling this kind of crap on the people and their constitution. But today the U.S. has become a fascist state where you only get to vote on the political affiliation of your dictator.
Re:Data crunching perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't _have_ to read / listen to your communication -- it's kind of like a spam filter, the PRISM software assigns a score to the particular piece of information based on the number of keywords that occur in it (a 'blind' answer presumably provided by an API provided by the various 'partners'), where it came from, who you are, etc.
If the score is high enough, they get a warrant and _then_ they read / listen to your communication (assuming you're a Yank, otherwise they just request it.) The problem is that one imagines false-positives to be rather abundant -- and the NSA doesn't just 'forget' if your communication turns out to be of no concern. Indeed, you're liable to discover that, although they were wrong, the fact they got a warrant with your name on it / requested it at all will add additional weight to the scores assigned your future communications, leading to additional warrants / requests.
There's no magic genie here that whispers to the NSA, "hey, look at this!" It's still largely guesswork, and those guesses are likely often wrong. But hey, if you want to stay in the "for the greater good / won't happen to me" camp, then enjoy -- but don't be silly enough to think the system has anything resembling accuracy, and that all those it flags deserve the scrutiny.
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
play the lullabies now that they got a Communist in the White House
Hate Obama as much as you like (I'll join you) but calling him a Communist means nobody should take your ranting seriously. Just for laughs, care to say why calling him a Communist makes any sense, even as ranting hyperbole?
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time news 1/100th as damaging as these came out under Bush, there was an outcry.
Mostly among non-republicans. Now that a democrat is in power, fewer democrats are speaking out when said democrat abusing his power. It's what happens every single time.
And when Bush was in office fewer Republicans were speaking out against him. I have no use for the hypocrisy on either side, but don't pretend it doesn't happen on both sides. Many Republicans use Benghazi in every other sentence these days, but from those same people I heard lots of rationalizations about why we invaded a country that not only didn't have WMD's, but for which there were very good reasons to believe ahead of time didn't have WMD's.
Re:Lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democratic senator Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
NSA Director James Clapper: "No sir, not Intentionally."
How do you reconcile Mr. Clapper's response with the Verizon court order?
"It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,"
Mr. Clapper LIED. There's no way around it.
Re:Not A Lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear, hear!
As a native born citizen, I get a little tired of the notion so popular these days that only citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections. Unless you're here with a diplomatic status, everyone in the US is subject to its laws while here. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Guess what? Our most important laws are called the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights.
Re:Too Late To Stop It (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too late to stop this or even do anything about it. The only actions that can be taken would be to physically destroy the facilities that handle this data gathering and store the harvest.
I assume you must be either a failing agent provocateur [wikipedia.org] or a nitwit. Congress still controls the purse strings for the government, including NSA, and the other agencies that have become embroiled in scandals, such as the IRS. Congress can cut their funding if it comes down to it. Attempts at violence would only inflame things at this point, not help. I also have little doubt that those facilities might have at least a little protection, don't you think?
It seems clear that the whole story isn't coming out. Selective leaking that doesn't include the context, full details, FISA court findings, results of the program, and other information, can inflame rather than inform, and could constitute just as much of a lie as people assume of the government leadership. The only ones likely to get something even remotely close to resembling the whole story are the people in Congress. It could be that this is highly valuable, and complies with the constitutional protections overseen by the FISA court. Or maybe something bad is going on, but Congress needs to look at it and perform oversight. It was the Church committee that reigned in the CIA - some would say neutered to the point that it helped set the stage for 9/11. And it was 9/11 that helped drive this, isn't it? Oversight must be done by Congress, carefully, and deliberately. You should probably make sure that you cripple or destroy America's enemies before thoughtlessly crippling NSA and destroying its datacenters.
Benjamin Franklin said Americans had a republic, if they could keep it.
This is the time work on keeping it by:
- Letters to congress put in the post box
- Voting for a change of representation at the ballot box
- Some time on the soap box.
- Some government employees sitting in front of the jury box.
Suggested topics:
- IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful political opposition groups
- IRS suppression of legitimate peaceful religious groups
- Possible involvement by the FBI, EPA, and OSHA in the above
- IRS seizure of 60,000,000 medical records they are not entitled to in breach of the 4th Amendment
- Unprecedented Justice Department investigation of reporters
- Stonewalling by government officials before congress and refusing to turn over documents
- Attempts by the administration to disarm the public by outlawing weapons seldom used to commit crimes - semiautomatic rifles
- The very wide dragnet by the NSA when considered with the above
Slashdot has had stories on much of that recently. Search for IRS, or AP, etc.
It is legitimate for the NSA to monitor people in direct communication with terrorist groups, and other terrorists*. And make no mistake, there are terrorists out there [slashdot.org]. But this, considered in light of the above is cause for concern. Congress better be doing some good oversight.
* Genuine terrorists trying to bomb, shoot, poison or otherwise kill innocent people, typically in large numbers, with a very broad understanding of innocent.
Re:NSA spied more than China ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we all know what will happen... (Score:5, Insightful)
"And no, it's not a pat phrase to distract."
Funny how it is a conservative media buzzword at the moment. My dad who listens to Rush, Hannity, et all non-stop has started using "Low information Voter" to describe basically everyone he doesn't seem to agree with. Basically it is an odd Ad hominem attack against a generalized group of people one takes issue with.
Reminds me of when the Liberals where slinging around phrases like republitards or conservatives slinging around phrases like libtards. Perhaps more crude and organic, but never-the-less pat phrases which are generalizations. The phrase seems pretty pat when it is a recent and popularized conservative media buzzword to run-down a entire groups of people, but then again your experience may vary. One group calling the other group "Low Information" is pretty much a nice tidy label for your political opponents which entirely ignores the fact that almost everyone is "low information".
"Odd that I can pay attention to both Canadian and American politics at a level where I know what's going on. High consumption of politics isn't required, at most 35mins a day, on the most highly trafficked political sites will get you up to a "medium" level voter."
Do you know whats going on? That is a fairly large assumption. I take the opposite view myself. I don't know most of what is going on. Getting truth out of propaganda is a tricky business. If you think 35 min a day gets you to a medium level of knowledge of politics... then you definitely have a low bar of expectation of actual understanding. Even more so given that you are relying on this knowledge from a few "highly trafficked political" sites. It often takes me many hours of research to look at what folks are saying and verify if it has any merit at all. Even after checking things out I often am not certain what the real story is. But then again, l tend to be skeptical about what is being fed to me.
Being fed your political regurgitations from some websites informs you up to a certain level, but real understanding is much harder to come by.
"They're the people who don't really have an interest in politics at all, but are easily swayed by blasts of information for either or both parties. Which fit their viewpoint."
I think you could say the same thing about partisans. Are partisan voter generally more informed in your estimation? Seems to me that most people don't have much of the actual information. I get pat stuff from both sides of the political aisle all the time which makes no sense what-so-ever. In the end it turns out to be just propaganda and not real information.
In my view, partisans usually don't have much interest in politics other than getting all bunched up about this or that thing every so often. Partisans are the ones who have drunk the coolaid and don't seem to have much ability to think outside of their info food chains. If they get a piece of information... they spend a huge amount of effort to make it fit their world view.
Low information voter is simply not being used to describe swing voters as seems to be your assertion.
Here is what Rush Limbaugh said for your edification.
"Low-information voters are clearly people that don't have all the information available to make a voting choice. That's all they are. And they're all over the place. And most of them do vote Democrat. Most of them did vote for Obama. It's not a comment on their intelligence. It's not that they're stupid or don't understand the issues. They just haven't had it all explained to them."
So... if these voters had things "explained" to them somehow make them better voters? Probably not. It depends on who is explaining and whether the information they are using is actual and not propaganda. I prefer to not digest pre-digested information from a few top political sites which are almost entirely partisan propaganda machines. The information is out there, but it usually is not found on highly trafficked political sites.