Journalist Sues NSA For Keeping Keith Alexander's Financial History Secret 200
Daniel_Stuckey writes Now the NSA has yet another dilemma on its hands: Investigative journalist Jason Leopold is suing the agency for denying him the release of financial disclosure statements attributable to its former director. According to a report by Bloomberg, prospective clients of Alexander's, namely large banks, will be billed $1 million a month for his cyber-consulting services. Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the perils of state and corporate power being merged. Fascism, according to Mussolini.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who ever believes that state and corporate power are, or were ever separate is hopelessly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Corporations are created and defended by the political apparatus that calls itself "the state".
Re: (Score:2)
Open up a history book once in a while. Look up 'monarchy'.
Re: (Score:2)
Is America a great country or what?!
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Interesting)
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson. To state that the current state of affairs is Obama or Bush or any recent president's doing is very naive. People like you contribute to the problem.
Everyone knows that the government you see isn't what is calling the shots in this country.
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States,
Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."
J. Edgar Hoover,
The Elks Magazine, 1956
"Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century This group is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable."
Senator William Jenner,
1954 speech
"The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, November 1975,
from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File
Oh fuck it. God damn nothing but idiots on this site. Trusting, naive idiots spoonfed political propaganda that will always eat it up without question.
"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Funny)
But you sir are on this site. What weight then shall we give your post?
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Insightful)
There has clearly been success in creating a one-party state. The party just happens to have two faces, but inside, there is no significant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The party(ies) itself is a farce. There is no party in power. Only men.
Re: (Score:3)
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.
How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)
Re: (Score:3)
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific an
Re: (Score:2)
As a spectator, I wonder how many of the recent presidents I can think of will/have written or said anything as insightful and eloquent as any of the quotes above.
Expanding it out the senate - even with all those extra stuffed shirts to choose from, how many now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://whatthefuckhasobamadone... [whatthefuc...esofar.com]
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell do I have to enable javascript for that site and whitelist ajax.googleapis in order to see some fucking text? What a poorly-designed website.
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't aware that I was opposing useful technology simply because it might take away my job. You do know that's what a Luddite is, right? And you do know that not all uses of technology make sense, correct? Therefore, calling me a Luddite for criticizing a stupid use of Javascript makes absolutely zero sense.
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.
What has he done to change anything beyond stupid platitudes that tons of ignorant liberals lapped up? We charge people who drive by the scene of an accident as negligible so why should Obama not be held to the same standard?
I might consider them negligent, but I'm not really sure what considering them "negligible" means in this context, nor why they would be able to be charged with anything for it.
"Negligible: so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded."
We quite honestly do need to improve our educational system, since it seems to produce lots of people who accuse others of ignorance, while at the same time showing their own ignorance of the English language.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, ISIS is media savvy!
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point he's trying to make is that there's no such thing as "Obama's America" - he's just the latest in a long stream of presidents to dance on the strings of someone(s) far more powerful who are actually in control. Or get assassinated - that seems to be a pretty common theme among presidents that actually tried to take a stand against this tide.
Re: If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Obama's one of the best Republican Presidents ever. He's guided the country through a healthy if slow economic recovery. Convinced the democrats to implement the Republican health care plan. And continued the Republican lovefest with the patriot act and secret surveillance
Re: (Score:2)
And we could take solace in this, if not for the fact that this is now somehow considered a radical liberal agenda.
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension. He's corrupt to the core and no amount of "But Bush!!!" will change that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the REAL question is what WILL stop it. Saying that "This one is a bad person and did nothing to change it" doesn't work. Saying "The previous one did nothing to change it" doesn't work.
Voting for "The other party" doesn't work.
No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.
What must be done to change the status-quo with minimal violence or bloodshed is to unite people under common values, such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
Start focusing on what we have in common, not what divides us. Despite what those with power would like you to believe, we have much more in common than we have differences. Those commonalities are also those of a much more fundamental and essential nature than our differences.
Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.
I'd have no problem at all standing side by side in public protests and demonstrations with almost anyone from TEA Party member to PETA and/or LGBT activist and beyond who also was willing to postpone our arguments for our common interests in a free and open society without mass domestic surveillance & data analysis and a militarized police force performing military-occupation and wealth-confiscation roles more than any sort of community-based & controlled "officer of the peace" roles.
Look, people, yes we have beefs over stuff *BUT*, unless we unite and curb government power and size, it won't matter because very soon none of us will have any choices about anything nor any meaningful rights at all.
Strat
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.
How many people support DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, protest permits, stop-and-frisk-type policies, unwarranted surveillance in general, or assassination of citizens without trial? They only have to be a supporter of one of them to be a supporter of a police state, and I can't tell you how many people I've personally conversed with that supported a number of those as long as it makes them feel safe. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' freedom should be considered more important than safety, but I don't think most people see it that way.
And even if most people did see it that way, look at how many people changed their tunes directly after 9/11? If people are so weak and unprincipled that a disaster can make them give a bunch of power to the government, then all it takes is another disaster for the government to take advantage of, and we'll lose all that progress.
So either way, I'm not too optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Soccer Moms with Precious Snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I think DUI checkpoints are a good idea I support a full blow police state? Are you nucking futs? Drop that from the list and I am totally with you. btw: I also support random vehicle safety road checks, helps keep under maintained trucks from crashing into me.
If you want freedom from DUI roadchecks, then I want the freedom to pull your drunk ass out of your car and beat yo
Re: (Score:2)
I've been through this. [slashdot.org] They're unconstitutional, and it doesn't matter how much you support them. But like the TSA, the government simply violates the constitution to get what it wants.
If you want freedom from DUI roadchecks, then I want the freedom to pull your drunk ass out of your car and beat you within an inch or less of your life.
Absolutely no one is saying that you have the freedom to drive erratically while drunk. What I am saying is that I don't want more TSA-like nonsense where everyone is forced to be searched simply because some people are drinking and driving. If you want to pull people over who a cop *sees* driving erratically, then that give
Re: (Score:2)
In all the road checks I have been through (in Canada) they ask about drinking and that's it. No show my your drivers license or anything else.
Local story. Last weekend there was a big house party in a neighborhood (100+ young people in the early twenties). A neighbor cal
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to know.
But it would have nothing to do with the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints. What concerns me is not safety, but freedom. The idea that everyone can be stopped merely because some people drive drunk is, to me, absolutely unacceptable, in addition to being unconstitutional.
Would that be unconstitutional in the USA? Having a step daughter who was at that party (but slept in her van at the party), I was thrilled that the cops responded so quickly.
Someone who was the victim of a crime might be thrilled to know that the police are busting into everyone's home on a fishing expedition looking for evidence. Does that make it right? People who are victims or are directly related to the
Re: (Score:2)
Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant? If you deny them access they just shut you down right? So you let them in. Its part of the requirements of having that kind of business license. Don't want the spot checks? then don't own a restaurant. Submitting to inspection is part of the requirement of the license.
Couldn't the same be true of a drivers license? Cops don't operate road checks on sidewalk randoml
Re: (Score:2)
Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant?
If the constitution does not say the government has such a power, then they don't. That's the end of it.
In the US, many things are left to the states and to the people (it explicitly says that multiple times), so health inspections may be constitutional if the states handle it. However, the bill of rights itself has been applied to the states, so you can't just force people to surrender their rights when they get in a vehicle; that is 100% unconstitutional. That makes DUI checkpoints unconstitutional. There
Re: (Score:2)
So your saying that restaurant health inspectors are unconstitutional? Are you simply pointing out that they are unconstitutional? or do you agree that they should be stopped because they are unconstitutional?
I think that is overly simplistic.
Enforcement of many laws can not possibly be done simply by "being on the looko
Re: (Score:2)
So your saying that restaurant health inspectors are unconstitutional?
Why don't you read my post more closely? Particularly, the paragraph after what you quoted. Restaurants are also a public place (in the sense that basically anyone can enter them), so it's not even comparable to a car in any way, shape, or form.
DUI checkpoints, however, are absolutely unconstitutional.
If you think road checks are unconstitutional, why isn't the whole process of requiring a license?
You obviously know nothing of the US constitution. Many issues are handled by the states, but the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US constitution) were applied to the states via the 14th amendm
Re: (Score:2)
However I think the analogy of enforcing license compliance re: restaurants is valid. If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.
You don't need a license to walk the street or be in your home. The cops can't stop you and ask you if your complying with your walking license because there is no such thing. I believe cars
Re: (Score:2)
If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.
Not if doing so violates people's constitutional rights! Once again, this is specifically a violation of the fourth amendment. You are compelled to do no such thing, and especially not by using methods that require searching and/or punishing everyone.
This is what you don't seem to get. You think the ends justify the means. That it's okay to punish innocent people in your pursuit of catching criminals. It is not.
Operating a vehicle on a shared public road is as public as it gets.
The vehicle itself is not public, so this is irrelevant.
Whole different story if there was random road checks to check, for example, for possession of illegal substances. because it does not relate to license compliance.
Except, using your awful logic, they cou
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy != free country. And yes, there are no truly free countries in the world, but being free is something we should aspire to. The US is, after all, supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' So people here would look less like hypocrites if they stopped supporting rights violations and constitutional violations, whether it be to increase their safety or some other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about, and how does it relate to any of my points? Are you trying to convince me that the things I listed above are actually good because some of them supposedly keep us 'safe'? That's not going to work on me if so, because I believe fundamental liberties are more important than safety. And these things affect *everyone*, not just people who may die.
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving is a privilege not a right.
I knew one of you morons would show up. Even if it is true that driving is a 'privilege' *that does not mean your constitutional rights are null and void the second you decide to innocuously exercise that privilege!* The fourth amendment still applies, and the government has absolutely no constitutional authority to disregard people's rights just because they want to exercise something the government deems a 'privilege.' This logic is simply insane, and it's killing our freedoms.
It's the same sort of logic that allows for the TSA. "You implicitly consented to having your fundamental and constitutional rights violated by government thugs by trying to get on an airplane, so it's not a constitutional violation!" You're in good company, AC; government thugs all over the world drool when they see people using this awful logic to justify the erosion of people's fundamental liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: By getting in a car, you implicitly consent to giving up your first amendment rights, and your right to life. An officer murdering you for saying something he doesn't like is therefore 100% constitutional.
The possibilities are fucking endless!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you make a social contract you have to give up some freedoms.
The constitution is part of the social contract, you god damn idiot. Did you ignore all my points? Did you read my post about how exploitable it is?
The government can *only* do what the constitution says it can. It is that way *by design*. You *cannot* be forced to give up your constitutional liberties merely because you want to do something perfectly innocuous (i.e. drive around, get on a plane, etc.). Either respond to my points or don't bother responding; posting more authoritarian drivel that doesn't ev
Re: (Score:2)
If you're driving erratically
Do you know what a DUI checkpoint is? [wikipedia.org]
Like the TSA, they stop everyone without any suspicion and violate their rights, as if everyone is a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are created by arseholes who assert the right (with guns) to define the privileges and dole out licenses to exercise the same.
Just another bunch of racketeers.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Emphasis mine. Driving is a privilege. It can be revoked at any time for any cause that the elected government deems reasonable.
But your inalienable rights are not privileges. They cannot be revoked.
Police checkpoints by themselves do not violate any rights. But the methods of selection and screening at the checkpoints may.
Of course, I agree that associating checkpoints with free speech zones is a rather broad leap. It is wrong in the same way that the airport security lines by themselves do not violate any
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Security lines at airports operated by the government are unconstitutional. So unless you're suggesting that we eliminate the TSA, I can't get behind what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.
But I think that's wrong.
You and I may not agree with this, but I think that MOST people are quite happy to trade-away their civil liberties for the illusion of security. Particularly those who are convinced that since they "do nothing wrong", they have nothing to fear from such violations.
It's a very sad commentary on our democratic peers, but
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Interesting)
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
A SWAT team per city / county, a few of which might have a light armored vehicle, is an "occupation" army?
You don't suppose you might be overstating things a bit, do you??
Were you in Boston on April 15-20th, 2013? Occupation army isn't too far off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/radley-balko
Re: (Score:3)
No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.
The answer lies in recognizing that even though we oppose it in principle we are supporting it through funding.
If political leaders are misuses your money and the voting system is provably inadequate in changing this behavior than you are left with 2 options:
1) Leave the country and become a citizen in a less corrupt one
2) Follow the principles of Agorism and starve the beast with local barter or using Bitcoin instead and avoid paying taxes as they fund policies you oppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented. Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops. And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down
Re:If true. If. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, sedition would be vilified. Look at Mr Snowden. Enemy of the state, now exiled in Moscow. He's one of many, and as there are no controls, and the game of extortion is played at the highest level like a bad poker game, the chances of clarity, openness, and even "just the right thing" are nil.
Martyrdom doesn't work with 72 virgins, and it doesn't work when corporate America controls the press-- especially Murdoch. Who has the WSJ by the printing press short-hairs? None other. Most of us just duck low, shaking our heads.
Re:If true. If. (Score:4, Insightful)
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented.
I assume you think that you're making a joke, but it is worth pointing out that government by assassination never works.
You think good guys have more money to hire hit men than bad guys? Or, you read so many honorable-mafia-killer novels that you think hired killers won't work for bad guys, only for the good guys? Or, you think that the kind of people who like to assassinate public figures have an unerring ethical sense, and can instinctively tell good from bad?
Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops.
This, basically, is a way to guarantee that the worst possible people end up in power. 'Cause once you get onto that Roman-Emperor assassination train, the ones that are ruthless, power-hungry, and have no morals will be the ones hiring the killers. Either directly, if they're bold, or through "grass roots- it's the people who support me" intermediaries if they're not.
And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"
The message that will be sent is "if you want to survive, be paranoid, trust no one, kill quickly and ruthlessly".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to become ungovernable. This nearly happened at the time of the declaration of independence, but then some arseholes formed a constitution which people fell for, hook, line and sinker.
Viz. a newly legitimated political class.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems to me what you need is a political party that opposes this shit. Whenever Ds and Rs agree on anything, it is a pretty safe bet that the public at large do not.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no we in "we didn't buy..."
Those who refused to accept "Befehl ist Befehl" weren't "we". They were the dominant political elite from the victor's side. No we about it.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension.
On the other hand, the current expansion and disclosures are resulting in the public demanding and end to it. I, for one, am never quite sure what to attribute to a politician for intent: whether his stated intentions, his actions, or the result of his actions.
Re: (Score:2)
What's Occam's Razor got to say about the fact that I didn't vote for Obama*? My comment was about politicians in general, as you may have noticed from the lack of me saying "Obama".
* I wrote in "Ron Paul", though he wasn't running for president, knowing that my state and district would vote for Obama over Romney. If I'm going to waste my vote anyways (it's pretty clear what my district and state were going to vote), I might as well make some kind of statement.
Who? (Score:2)
Oh sorry, wrong person [oktoberfest.ageg.ca].
Like paying for a Lobbyist (Score:3)
A million is worth admittedly less these days, I get that, but I have the same feeling now.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends how many people attended, and how much you charged per plate.
Re: (Score:3)
So what do you propose the real reason is? Hush money? Delayed payment for corruption activities while in office? Rich people who get a rush from making ex-presidents sing for their supper, and can pay a million bucks with their pocket change?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A million a month as an extortion payment to keep secret the secrets uncovered whilst commander of the starship anal probe, inserting back entrances all over the places, ain't bad at all, especially when applied to many corporations. As a bonus protection provided for all those political secrets kept off the books. Of course that protection really only works for allied powers, for the opposition of course, the target is just chock-a-block full of secrets and getting a hold of that particular pinata and bea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when Reagan was making a million a speech as a former President, and thinking There's no fucking way he's worth it.
A million is worth admittedly less these days, I get that, but I have the same feeling now.
A million is nothing to a corporation that needs to know what governments are capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because someone who knows all the nation's secrets (and everybody else's) should be selling that information to private corporations.
Brilliant idea.
If this information is classified, how the hell can he provide it without breaking the law?
Bad summary of two separate issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the summary munged Alexander's laughable salary request and a lawsuit by a journalist is a bit baffling.
First issue, the lawsuit. The NSA refused to provide under Federal Law. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that this agency is ignoring (or at least attempting to ignore) Federal Law. The right answer is to disband the NSA and hand SIGINT over to the Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely. While we are disbanding things, we should also revamp the CIA, FBI, DHS, and TSA removing most of their powers and executives that also ignore the law.
Second issue is that Alexander thinks he's brilliant enough to make a million a month telling people what most IT Security professionals can do for a much better rate. I'd do better than he does at securing a company, and I'll do it for much less. In fact I can think of a few dozen people I'd recommend for much less, and for a million a month I'd have a full staff doing audits _and_ consulting. You don't need to be a former General to be intelligent about security, you need knowledge.
In other words, if Alexander can get a million a month for consulting it sure as hell is not for security. It would be for cronyism.
Re: (Score:2)
uhm, you forget all of these agencies report to the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here." All of the corruption and mismanagement in the government, including disregarding the laws and the constitution all stop at that address. It's time for the population of this country to become engaged and actually elect leaders who will fix this mess by disbanding those agencies and restoring the rule of law in this country. Or what the fuck we'll just elect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uhm, you forget all of these agencies report to the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...
Yes, but doesn't the guy at 1600 report to the corporations and special interest groups? Truman probably didn't, but Obama, (along with most presidents since Kennedy), probably does.
Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (Score:4, Insightful)
The TSA does not need to be revamped; it needs to be destroyed. Anything less than complete elimination is unacceptable. Government thugs should not be in airports; the end. Same with the DHS, which should never have been created in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many trains and buses were hijacked last decade? Any? How many terrorists have the TSA caught in the last decade? Any?
You're pissing your pants over a boogyman that doesn't even exist.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as the TSA's ability to keep weapons off a plane they seem to suck at that given what I have brought through without trying like a 4" lock blade pocket knife with a nice heavy brass handle, an almost full box of 7.62x54r ammunition, about a dozen 12 gauge
Re: (Score:2)
So, will you be the one keeping about 2,000 guns off of planes this year?
No one will, because it's none of the government's business. Unless private companies want to try to secure their planes to prevent that from happening, it's none of your business. Oh, wait; you're an authoritarian, so you think everything is your business, and you will happily sacrifice the constitution and people's liberties in the name of safety, all the while denying that it's even a constitutional and rights violation, and appealing to fallible authority figures to 'prove' that you're objectively corre
Re:Bad summary of two separate issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm....so it would be okay with you if you bought Joe-Bob's Magic Pills and they caused your brain to bleed? I find that it is your constitutional right to try unregulated drugs from your pharmacy. Get back to us with any side-effects you don't like so we can be sure not to make the same mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about, and how it relates to the TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Like robbery and murder are "none of the government's business"?
No, violating people's liberties simply because they could be criminals is not the government's business. It's not even constitutional.
Lacking fundamental defects in your understanding of the Constitution and law doesn't make you "authoritarian."
You have a number of fundamental defects in your understanding of the constitution.
No.
Yes. You admitted it yourself, by supporting the TSA. Or is this the phase where you deny that it's even a constitutional/rights violation, and then cite some court decision where the judges altered the constitution with invisible ink and ignored the spirit of the constitution to support their
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're an idiot who thinks that the free market is capable of solving things, and that it isn't the job of government to protect its citizens.
Wrong. I'm just someone who thinks that the government has no constitutional authority to violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.
Do you disagree with this, or are you going to make the claim that it is constitutional, all the while completely ignoring the actual constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
The right answer is to disband the NSA and hand SIGINT over to the Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely.
The NSA is run by a four-star admiral and a four-star general before that. It is a branch of the military already.
You're thinking of armed forces intelligence like the Military Intelligence and Naval Intelligence guys. I can't think that they'd be much better if tasked with the same mission.
What needs to change is the mission, not the agency.
Only ONE? (Score:2)
Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
Only ONE of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's absolutely huge.
Think Goatse, because that's pretty much what they're doing.
Ummm.. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.militaryfactory.com... [militaryfactory.com]
Military pay grades are in the public record. Many sites (the above is just one) publish them.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.militaryfactory.com... [militaryfactory.com]
Military pay grades are in the public record. Many sites (the above is just one) publish them.
Presumably if the NSA is refusing to provide this information the person in question may have been paid more, perhaps significantly more, than the normal pay grade scale.
Re: (Score:2)
It is important to note that base pay for that major is probably less then half of their total monetary compensation, and a large portion of that compensation is tax-free. BAH could be several thousand a month all by it's self.
A quick google search showed average compensation is about $101K/year
I feel the 0-4 is certainly worth it, in many respects.
Holy crap ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap, if that isn't the next sign of the dystopian future I don't know what is.
Private corporations getting the consulting services of the king spook of the spy agency which has tapped into the entire fucking world.
That scares the bejezzus out of me.
Because all of the secrecy of the NSA combined with the douche-baggery of corporations is straight out of a cyberpunk novel.
The surveillance state meets Wall Street. Oooh, they could privatize the NSA, that would be really profitable.
Time to stock up on Guy Fawkes masks.
And the difference between him and Edward Snowden (Score:2)
He going to charge you a shit load of money to tell you secrets. Edward gave them away.
Once again being a patriot is all about how much money you can charge.
Throw the arrogant asshole in prison (Score:2, Insightful)
Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
Hasn't congress already warned this asshole that selling classified information is a felony? [[http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/06/26/1929246/former-nsa-chief-warned-against-selling-nsa-secrets]]
While Alexander probably didn't actually say that, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) hits the nail squarely on the head, "Without the classified information he acquired in his former position, he literally would have nothing to offer to you."
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a really good question. Are these vulnerabilities in software/firmware, or in the actual chip microcode (or both)? I guess the only way to know would be from whistleblowers. There's no realistic way to find a decently hidden back door in microcode. You would have to brute force the pass code.
Re: (Score:2)
All the layers and data about the 'safe' encrypted message would be kept. Just using encryption would ensure further investigation and long term logging.
The consumer hardware is connected to a very tame 'internet', with tame telcos, tame VPN providers, tame crypto providers and issues like the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
The n
Re: (Score:3)
Form 278 [Re:What is the story here ] (Score:5, Informative)
Typically financial disclosures, such as the ones covered by OGE Form 450 [oge.gov] (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report), are not public information and are exempted from FOIA requests
The form in question isn't the 450, which is confidential (hence its name). It's form 278, "Public Financial Disclosure", which is public (hence its name.
From http://www.oge.gov/Financial-D... [oge.gov]
Public Financial Disclosure
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. The statute and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics's (OGE) regulations specify which officials in the executive branch file an OGE Form 278. Unlike confidential financial statements filed by some mid-level employees, the OGE 278 is available to the public. Reviewing officials within each agency certify and maintain these reports. Agencies do, however, forward reports of Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and certain other reports to OGE for additional review and certification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please forgive my ignorance in though having skimmed the provided links and not seeing any significant information beyond what was in the summary, I did not thoroughly ingest the embedded Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to find the info you pointed out (it must be my browser settings, but even when I do click through into the Writ, "Form 278" does not appear to stand out in such bold font as it does in your copy/paste above, but rest assured I did read "Form 278" many times, but sadly it didn't seem to prov