NSA: We Mulled Ending Phone Program Before Edward Snowden Leaks 140
Mark Wilson writes Edward Snowden is heralded as both a hero and villain. A privacy vigilante and a traitor. It just depends who you ask. The revelations he made about the NSA's surveillance programs have completely changed the face of online security, and changed the way everyone looks at the internet and privacy. But just before the whistle was blown, it seems that the NSA was considering bringing its telephone data collection program to an end. Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.
Not everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions.
I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general.
The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.
Re: Not everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Or those who thought the US intelligence agencies were following the constitution.
It was suspected, but even most of the people who were considered tin foil mad hatters were lowballing the amount of surveillance.
Re: Not everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a "goddamned piece of paper" would curtail this?
The *only* force that prevents powerful institutions from abusing their power is public accountability. Any talk about oversight committees and the state of the law is pure air.
If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.
Re: Not everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Not everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.
Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.
For shame!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.
It's a bit like the Japanese and Whaling. Turns out that the whalers operate at a loss, nobody in Japan actually likes whale meat, etc... But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.
In short, they may have ended the program since then if Snowden hadn't leaked because the program wasn't justifying itself, but now they're having to defend their illegal and unconstitutional actions, thus they 'have' to continue and justify the program in order to
Re: Not everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
Who gives a crap about the phone shit. What it revealed was that US government executives routinely lie to the public and attack members of the public with slander and false arrest when members of the public try to expose the criminal activities of above the law government departments.
The US department of State, the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service and even the FBI at the highest levels all routinely consider themselves above the law. This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected and who will be selected to take the highest administrative positions in government not as agents of the public but as agents of the corporations who arranged for their appointment.
The US government has become an empty teleprompter reading mouthpiece for those corporations who pay to get their colluding and conspiring pet politicians elected. The Snowden leaks exposed the underlying reality of how far the Public Relations show of the US government differs from corporate controlled reality of government agencies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...This horrifically extends to the corporations that controls which politicians get elected ....
Not that I would deny that corporations attempt to influence government policy and the laws that are made, but .... Could you explain how you think corporations "control" which politicians get elected? Corporations don't vote, it's illegal for them to try to control the votes of their employees, and they have limitations on how they spend money for political purposes. Do they do it through mind control? Mass hypnosis? Could you explain? It looks to me like you are exaggerating their influence, not to
Re: Not everyone (Score:1)
Let's take a popular example. Koch.
I'm the past year, I'd talked with someone who just left a job there, and they would have large meetings and discuss how republican candidates were good because they would help the company. There was expected clapping, and agreement. If you didn't seem to agree, seemed skeptical, or possibly weren't enthusiastic enough, your manager would come talk to you, and suggest as to why they were good. Not directly controlling a vote, but with unspoken intent, and your livelihood,
Re: (Score:1)
Candidates who get more donations, buy more propaganda and get more votes.
The donor companies effectively choose who will get elected.
Re: (Score:2)
This holds especially true during the primaries when a truly tiny percentage of those eligible vote and basically allow the corporations to stack the elections, so no matter which team wins, they win. Foolish gullible Americans have already lost the elections before they have even started, just an empty show. The only real focus of the US government is to drive out all politicians who will actually represent their electorates and of course reading the speeches provided to them by their controlling corporat
Re: (Score:2)
The donor companies effectively choose who will get elected.
You believe nonsense.
How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum [freakonomics.com]
Robert Shrum, a senior fellow at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has been a senior adviser on many Democratic campaigns, including Dick Gephardt (1988), Al Gore (2000), and John Kerry (2004).
In politics there is certainly no linear relationship between amount of money and degree of success. Just ask the well-heeled Republican losers of presidential primaries past â" former Texas Governor John Connally, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, and former Mayor and front-runner Rudolph Giuliani. Or how about Howard Dean, who raised and spent nearly $40 million before crashing and burning in the 2004 Iowa caucuses?
Re: (Score:2)
This holds especially true during the primaries when a truly tiny percentage of those eligible vote and basically allow the corporations to stack the elections, so no matter which team wins, they win.
And the evidence for this is ???? Completely lacking? And once again we come back to the point of there something on the order of 30,000,000 businesses in the US. And you think they come to some sort of agreement and collude on picking political leaders? You don't think there might be some evidence of this sort of massive effort, do you? How are the many contradictory goals and philosophies reconciled? You don't suppose that even if this was happening that the many different efforts would tend to canc
Re: (Score:2)
Swift Boat to freedom ads can sum up how its done.
When the dust settles we realize what a lie it all was but it would be after say Diebold changed the election map.
Re: (Score:2)
How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum [freakonomics.com]
I hope you weren't scarred for life by John Kerry's loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how many businesses and corporations there are in the US? Apparently not. Maybe you should look that up and figure out how that many entities are going to come to a single position. It's nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just State, CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service. VA hospital execs lying. IRS auditors auditing.
The problem is truly that the US Government operates as a corporation which is beholden to its shareholders (who are not the voters, of course) and employees. It is going to do this because gerrymandering and its sheer size make it unaccountable to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.
If governmental employees think that "saving face" is more important than doing the right thing, they shouldn't be governmental employees any more.
Re: (Score:2)
If governmental employees think that "saving face" is more important than doing the right thing, they shouldn't be governmental employees any more.
Now this is a comment I agree with.
Re: (Score:1)
Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.
For shame!
As far as I know, they are still allowed to operate the program under the law. Hopefully, in June (or whenever the 215 provisions expire) they will no longer be legally allowed to operate. Then it'll probably cease to exist.
That being said, it seems weird that the top level administrators of the NSA have been bold face lying to congressional committees under oath and no-one in the Justice Department is interested in prosecuting them for perjury.... As far as I understand, that is a legitimate crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cutting their budget also has a profound effect.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true. They can either force the telecommunications companies to pay for the data collection, who will of course pass the costs on to their customers but is not a tax. Or they can become more self-financing, selling drugs and weapons is one traditional way for the 3 letter agencies to self-finance or they could do insider trading as they get all the insider intelligence. Since Reagan proofed that selling weapons to your enemies is a good election tactic they may go that route.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone already knows that the CIA and NSA fund blackop military and scientific projects by selling drugs, kidnapping young women (sex slave trade), assassinations-for-hire, etc. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
How many actual revolutions have improved things?
Re: (Score:1)
Historically? Only the French and American ones, and arguably Crimea. The rest usually end up in acrimony and many times military juntas (Egyptian Spring).
Re: (Score:3)
Which French Revolution?
The one that started in 1789 resulted in a Reign of Terror followed by a reactionary Junta-like Directory, followed by the Emperor of the French, Napoleon I?
I think the French probably would have been better off without the Revolution, although it did eventually work out for them in the end. Four Republics and four monarchies later.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks of the French Revolution as a success. All of the progress came from them getting tired of killing each other and everyon
Re: (Score:2)
As a revolution, the American one was a complete failure, not even getting within a few thousand miles of Parliament little well replacing the King. It did evolve into a successful war of secession though leading to an independent country.
As for the French, well the AC summarized it pretty well.
As others pointed out there has been a few successful non-violent ones but it seems as soon as the violence starts things go down hill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dam straight! There needs to be a balance:
* Too much authority with too little accountability leads to abuse of power
* Too little authority with too much accountability leads to bureaucracy.
You curtail abuses of Authority by having Accountability
Re: (Score:3)
If they are operating outside of the scrutiny of the public eye, it is *guaranteed* that they are doing something nefarious. That is how power works. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand human nature.
Which is, of course, why every citizen must be constantly monitored. If we're outside the scrutiny of others, it is *guaranteed* that we are doing something nefarious.
Re: (Score:2)
>> If we're outside the scrutiny of others
We're not. We're monitored at our workplaces (by performance and endresult in smart companies, by process in the rest). Whenever someone get's some power (puts on a cop uniform, gets keys to server room, etc), he is being monitored more closely while in power, as with power comes accountability. When you go home - noone is trusting you with any power, so no monitoring is necessary, so your comment does not apply. CIA, NSA, FBI, all the alphabet agencies are wo
Re: (Score:2)
I go home to utter and complete power over two children. I have *far* more power over them than any employer has *ever* had over me.
Obviously I, like every other parent, should be subject to 24 hour a day monitoring.
Re: Not everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
How old are you? Because I learned about ECHELON 15 years ago (in computer magazines at the bookstore), and there were already talks about intercepting and accessing pretty much everything, large data stores, keyword analysis, etc. And I was just a slightly-geeky teen discovering the Internet 'underground' back then. From France. Even the EU was publicly investigating ECHELON around this time.
Wikipedia tells me there has been some amount of public discussion about it for the past 20 years, and the program dates back to 50 years ago, so it's very easy to imagine much progress has been made since then.
Even back then, I wouldn't have called them 'suspicions'... No need to be paranoid to understand how obvious it was, in a large part at least, and not just from the USA of course...
One of the main issues with all our problems, is that people often 'forget' for how long they knew about them (even when nothing was ever really done to try and solve them), media always repaint them as 'news' for business purpose (and, it is easy to think, for more global manipulation), and new generations think they are new problems they just discovered themselves... It's easier to consider accepting to do nothing about recent problems, than understanding how everything and everyone has been so thoroughly covered in shit for so long and try to do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, someone please tell me what Snowden said that is shocking? I mean, I full expect the NSA to be snooping on Merkle's phone, and I understand that widespread electronic surveillance of the entire world is unlikely to have a "This is an American, so backoff" bit? I'll be honest, when I saw his first "revelations" I started tuning out, so there may be more shocking things in there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Not everyone (Score:2)
Re:Not everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.
There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.
Re:Not everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
The revelations did not change the way *I* looked at the Internet and privacy. It merely confirmed my well-justified suspicions. I think the same statement can be made by most people on slashdot, and by most technicians in general. The only people who were surprised were the technically ignorant.
There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.
There is?
Seems 99.999% of the population did exactly FUCK ALL after Snowden about their online privacy.
Even when the tinfoil hatters are proven dead-nuts right, people don't give a shit. Watch and see as they wet their fucking pants over the first lady Prez, in all her corrupt glory.
People are not just stupid. They fucking stupid. They're not even smart enough to know why they should give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between suspecting and being looked at as paranoid, and everyone knowing something as a fact.
It is sad to me that people who claimed this was happening before Snowden were all considered tin foil hat crazy. And after Snowden the plotical establishment have all taken the stance of "Well, duh. Of course that has always been happening". There was never a "Holy shit, our government lies to us" moment, just move on to "We have always been at war with Eastasia."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people who thought this before Snowden were considered crazy. Everyone knew about signals intelligence or suspected it to some degree.
What makes a tin-foil hatter is not necessarily their insight into what is happening, but what that *means*. This was supposed to be some sort of New World Order/Illuminati plot to rule the world and control our precious bodily fluids. Which isn't exactly what we got.
The NSA is expected to monitor communications. It is a signals intelligence agency. Anyone
Re: (Score:2)
While technically illegal, I don't know that anyone really cares as long as this information isn't used against normal citizens who aren't terrorists.
What? There IS NO CHINESE WALL BETWEEN THE NSA AND LEA AT ALL!!!
Sure you did.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure you did.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the NSA was considering terminating these programs due to cost, that's not the same as terminating them because domestic surveillance exceeds the NSA's mandate. It's kind of like saying that we don't jail people for homosexuality because the prisons would cost too much: while the argument does end the injustice in the short term, it leaves open the possibility of it returning in a way that a moral argument doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I have no doubt they considered ending it. Probably in a "how much power would we lose if" type scenario but consideration likely was there at some point.
Re:Sure you did.. (Score:5, Funny)
The moral? Snitches get stitches.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what bugged me also... apk (Score:1)
"domestic surveillance exceeds the NSA's mandate." - by TheGavster (774657) on Sunday March 29, 2015 @05:18PM (#49366701) Homepage
See subject & what I quoted from you above: Imo, it'd make it illegal due to that - however, I don't feel they care one way or another... why?
Legal or not, the entire thing is *REALLY* for blackmailing due to what you have noted the most - who's the REAL targets? Heck, anyone really IF they give a hoot about "their image" & on THAT note??
Who gives a hoot about that, the MOST???
POLITICIANS!
(Yes, many of them ARE imo, controlled thus, & 'dance on a string' to big money that sponsored their campaig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you know anything about government projects... anything at all... then you know that even the most successful programs are often cancelled, defunded, and split up for reasons that one can simply not apply logic to. I have no doubt that there were those in the NSA that were fighting vigorously to shit can this program... simply because it wasn't their pet project, or they wants its funds, or they hated the PM...
Re: (Score:3)
Since Snowden blew the whistle, now they're going to dig their heels in more, and continue to track everyone.
The world really does work by "toddler logic" and passive-aggressive bullshit.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
They were never going to to begin with. You're an ignoramus to believe otherwise.
This should be the common case, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
Big deal. If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're doing a good job. Just that "Oh, yeah, we considered cancelling that program" is a stupid comment which doesn't excuse anything. Most likely they kept the program more because you don't give up power and money once you have it, and they really didn't care about efficacy.
Re:This should be the common case, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Besides, I don't buy the line that Snowden "forced the agency's hand". I call bullshit. They could have done any number of things at that point: modify their program, reduce their program, or even eliminate it entirely. What they did instead was double down. That was THEIR decision, nobody else's. Trying to cast blame doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:1)
No but casting blame lets those that think of Snowden as a traitor add an extra point to their arguments, which they will eagerly do. "It's all his fault we're doing this. We would have stopped otherwise. Honest."
Fact is they would have continued regardless, for the reasons others have already mentioned. And none of them have anything to do with Snowden.
Re:This should be the common case, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That and they couldn't get Alexander to stop running around in his new 6 million dollar mockup of the Enterprise bridge making whooshing sounds long enough to discuss it with him.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are running a program which costs money or time, you should be considering whether it is worth running periodically regardless of whether it's a program to collect phone data or bringing donuts to the office. If you aren't revisiting that decision, you're doing your job badly.
Govvies don't operate that way. They measure their worth by the dollar value of the programs they oversee. This makes the incentives completely bass-ackwards.
Re: This should be the common case, though. (Score:1)
It's not even so much that. It's that if you budget responsibly then obviously you don't need your budget, so it gets slashed. Meanwhile the guy across the hall who has gone way over budget obviously didn't get enough money. It's fucked up and should really be the other way around... Punish people who can't manage their budget and reward the responsible ones for actually making good decisions.
I worked in the DoD as a civilian for several years and it was like this in every department I knew. It was a seriou
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. I contracted for govt for a little while and was apalled to find the same thing - If you don't spend all your budget, it means you didn't need it, so it gets cut next year. There was one project which had been hugely delayed (by beauracracy and incompetence unrelated to the project itself) and had a 2-year-old $10,000 server which was sitting in the corner unused, waiting for the project to get to the point where hardware was needed. They had to buy it because it was in that year's budget and if they h
"We mulled..." (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's right, programs get replaced by better more efficient programs. As an example I bet that the NSA hasn't sent someone up a telephone pole to physically tap a phone line in ages as that got replaced by co-locating at the phone company. Tapping telegraph lines also likely got canceled.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe it. They just want to distract your attention from Telegraphgate.
I mulled laying off soda before I got fat. (Score:5, Funny)
I also mulled laying off gambling before I went broke.
Therefore I am, morally speaking, thin and rich.
So now we're supposed to believe (Score:5, Insightful)
that it's stopped.
Mm hmmm.
(google "disinformation")
Re:So now we're supposed to believe (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So now we're supposed to believe
that it's stopped.
Mm hmmm.
(google "disinformation")
There's no need to "google "disinformation"" since you've just demonstrated it. There is nothing claiming that NSA stopped the program. You just made that up, it's a straw man you use to spread FUD.
Sadly your comment is all too typical of the quality of comments in discussions of this subject matter. But hey! At least your lying FUD is popular, whereas the truth seldom is.
How do you think that will work out in the long run, basing positions and policy stands on lies and misinformation? I'm betting not
uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to know that the value of american citizen's privacy never factored in, just the cost to the federal budget.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is nice to believe that they care about our privacy, the reality is that spooks only care about their budgets and information. Their focus on what they do, day to day, is about the same in just about any field. The talk about rights and The American People, comes from the political hacks running the agencies and Congress.
Sometimes, I am sure, someone speaks up about this or that privacy issue, sort of like someone always has to point out that "this is waterfall, not Agile", and the rest of them r
Sure they were... (Score:1)
And yea... we were going to end the surveillance program anyway... yea! That's the ticket!
And we were going to stop illegal wire taps and sneaking back doors into our commercial products.
Yea... because our girlfriend... Candice Swanepoel didn't want us too.
But Then We Said "Nahhhh!" (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds plausible (Score:2)
Reminds me of a sanitary control in a restaurant I witnessed, when the inspectors came in, the owner said:
"I was just going to change the fat in the fryer when you walked in."
Petulant Children (Score:2)
Intelligence officials were, behind the scenes, questioning whether the benefits of gathering counter-terrorism information justified the colossal costs involved. Then Snowden went public and essentially forced the agency's hand.,
So they could have said, "OK, you know what, you're right. The benefits of this program are outweighed by its costs, the American people have a right to be involved in the decision about surveillance, and we are going to shut the program down." They would have been the bigger men,
Forced hand (Score:1)
Forced their hand? So they have stopped? TA, sure, believe this.
"It depends on who you ask"? (Score:2)
I guess that's true, the rest is burocracy (Score:2)
They did think of getting rid of the data collection program, and they probably continue anyways.
Not because of some secret agenda or whatever thing conspiracy theorists think about but for lowly bureaucratic reasons.
The NSA maybe a technically advanced secret government agency, it is still an administrative service plenty of people who want to keep their job and think they are very important. It's the same thing as in all big structures, really.
And what happens when someone decides to stop a multi-billion
Clapper's Girlfriend (Score:5, Funny)
"He promised he wouldn't cum in my mouth! Promised!"
Searchable database of blackmail information (Score:2, Interesting)
Why else would they do something that produces no security benefit?
These programs are CIA-NSA-military's power : they can affect any political decisin anywhere on earth, their database tells them who to call and what delicate hints to drop into the conversation.
'Our' Congressional representatives stopped representing their constituents a while back, NSA has not been called to account. Neocons have taken over control of foreign policy.
NSA's database is part of the answer, I think.
Told my girlfriend the same thing about the cheati (Score:1)
I don't see what the big deal is? I felt bad the *whole time* I was cheating on her! Why is she so unreasonable?
Re:Told my girlfriend the same thing about the che (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the logic of the article is "now that she knows that I cheated I am forced to continue cheating forever, because F**K HER what makes her think she has a say. Because the guy who told on me is a traitor and we can't reward traitors. Also I'll send him to the hospital if he comes out of hiding"
That's the logic of the article.
Forced their hand? They're still collecting data! (Score:2)
So the principle is "the public must be denied all power!"???
How did Snowden force their hand, since they're refusing to end the data collection program? He forced them to keep it? Because now that the public knows, the public must be denied freedom at all costs? Because F**K the public, keep the public from having any say is the principle?
GOOD NEWS EVERYONE! (Score:2, Insightful)
NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The collection program is the tip of the iceberg. The comments and changes by Obama after the leaks leave the door wide open, only severing to deflect criticism and muddy the water with propaganda.
WTF (Score:3)
Such as the jailers instead of the prisoners?
Theodoric of Ft. Meade (Score:2)
"Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the intelligence traditions and superstitions of past decades. Maybe we intelligence agents should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method", with a respectful eye towards our citizen's privacy. Maybe this privacy could be extended to other branches of government: medicine, the IRS, lawmaking, social services, law enforcement. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!...Naaaaaahhh!"
I believe this, absolutely (Score:2)
And if you do, too, then I have this *great* little moneymaker for sale, I just can't move right now, but there's this bridge that you can set a tollbooth up on, in a northeastern city.....
mark