This is VERY disturbing.

[Ishmael]

The use of the NSA to spy on American citizens for what seems to be political purposes.

Big Brother is Watching


Now, Obama started this bull shit but I could give a rats ass in the long run. Replace his name with any name you want and it's still distressing. If Obama can get away with it, so can Trump, and the president that follows Trump. And unless congress steps in and FORCEFULLY puts a halt to this each successive administration, no matter what the political party, will move to gather "just a little more" until no one will be secure in the person, possessions, or correspondence in the future.

So if you think this is all Kosher, no matter what your political leanings, a pox on your house.

Ishmael

 

[Rightguide]

The use of the NSA to spy on American citizens for what seems to be political purposes.

Big Brother is Watching


Now, Obama started this bull shit but I could give a rats ass in the long run. Replace his name with any name you want and it's still distressing. If Obama can get away with it, so can Trump, and the president that follows Trump. And unless congress steps in and FORCEFULLY puts a halt to this each successive administration, no matter what the political party, will move to gather "just a little more" until no one will be secure in the person, possessions, or correspondence in the future.

So if you think this is all Kosher, no matter what your political leanings, a pox on your house.

Ishmael

Did you see my thread at 7:33AM ?

 

[Lancecastor]

Hopefully they're keeping an eye on Butters.

 

[SyKoKo]

Obama told you BEFORE he was elected in 08

He would use the IRS against his enemies

Why are you surprised?

 

[hashtag46]

Apparently Snowden released some new documents just recently.

As much as I'm with everybody else on privacy issues,
I keep wondering who he was working for all along.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Apparently Snowden released some new documents just recently.

As much as I'm with everybody else on privacy issues,
I keep wondering who he was working for all along.

Not, I think, the Russians, and who else could it be?

 

[hashtag46]

Not, I think, the Russians, and who else could it be?

God knows who and why.
Wikileaks as well, seem to be unilaterally focused on US.

 

[Ishmael]

Did you see my thread at 7:33AM ?

No, I was out running errands (spending money) at that time. Got in and started to review the news and stumbled on the linked article.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

No, I was out running errands (spending money) at that time. Got in and started to review the news and stumbled on the linked article.

Ishmael

Yes, I know; saw you on the sat feed.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for my government, what is the motivation for this so called privacy intrusion if NOT for national security purposes?

People don't do things without a reason, most particularly massive surveillance of innocent Americans, so if it is not for legitimate national security purposes, for what specific illegitimate purpose is it for?

Show me.

Where are the hordes being hauled off to FEMA camps? Dramatic increases in criminal prosecutions? Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump's perverse hobby?

EXACTLY what do you fear, and WHEN can we expect that fear to come to its intended and obvious manifestation?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[KingOrfeo]

God knows who and why.
Wikileaks as well, seem to be unilaterally focused on US.

Assange, now, he might well be working for the Russians.

 

[Conager]

The apparatus is constructed to get Tuna, not Dolphins. if you know for a fact you're going to get Dolphins also, anyone who wants to enjoy some delicious dolphin meat mearly needs to go to the already existing tuna ntes and gather all the dolphin they wish.

The point is, we have allowed the NSA to gather everything and make it earchable for legitimate reasons, to curiousity, to a rogue contractor.

There is no way to put this Genie back in the bottle. Anyone in power can abuse this at any time they wish the way it is structured.

 

[KingOrfeo]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for my government, what is the motivation for this so called privacy intrusion if NOT for national security purposes?

One theory appears to be that whichever party holds the WH uses the data for political purposes.

 

[pensivepoet]

I'm actually considering trolling isis sites and making prank calls to Afghanistan to get the men in Black to tail me.
My life is too boring

 

[SyKoKo]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for my government, what is the motivation for this so called privacy intrusion if NOT for national security purposes?



What's the frequency, Kenneth?

to get DIRT and to manipulate and blackmai

it was spelled out by Obama in 2008.....you missed it?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Anyone counting on legislative action to stop the surveillance state better get comfortable.

We're all responsible for our own privacy. If you've seriously got something to hide, then you had better know your opsec.

In my opinion, anyone who puts their life out there on social media is a fool, but I'm just a paranoid perv with a 2007 flip phone.

 

[Miles]

The apparatus is constructed to get Tuna, not Dolphins. if you know for a fact you're going to get Dolphins also, anyone who wants to enjoy some delicious dolphin meat mearly needs to go to the already existing tuna ntes and gather all the dolphin they wish.

The point is, we have allowed the NSA to gather everything and make it earchable for legitimate reasons, to curiousity, to a rogue contractor.

There is no way to put this Genie back in the bottle. Anyone in power can abuse this at any time they wish the way it is structured.

Thanks, Bush Jr!

 

[KingOrfeo]

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

-- Scott McNealy

 

[about_average]

The use of the NSA to spy on American citizens for what seems to be political purposes.

Big Brother is Watching


Now, Obama started this bull shit....

From the article you apparently failed to read.

But the intelligence community fought hard over the last decade starting under President George W. Bush and continuing under Obama to gain greater access to NSA intercepts of Americans overseas, citing the growing challenges of stopping lone wolf terrorists, state-sponsored hackers, and foreign threats.

Obama continued the legacy.

 

[hashtag46]

Assange, now, he might well be working for the Russians.

I'm the "conspiracy theories" type.

So I doubt that so much information about the Establishment (not talking only about the US here, more like at the level of the UN or Brussels, so to speak) was leaked against their will. A large part of it - maybe.

But my theories are:

1. that we're either pawns in a campaign of manipulation or reshaping of public views
- stop the public from being too forward or an uprising sortof, through creating a climate of paranoia (the Panopticum),
- or introduce us and desensitize us to other Police Statemeasures that would be harder to swallow in other conditions.

2.or that all these leaks are coming from a faction within Higher Up, that they're fighting each other for power.
(They showed that they're capable of it when they releasd Hillary's emails on a whim when they wanted her to lose, didn't they?)
Hard to conceive that any average John Doe could get away with so much.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm the "conspiracy theories" type.

Most such theories fail to account for human frailty and fallibility. It would be impossible to keep such a conspiracy secret in the long run, someone would become disaffected and talk. Conspiracies do exist, of course -- the common law of criminal conspiracy predates American independence -- but huge all-controlling conspiracies enduring for generations are impossible.

Conspiracy theory checklist

"Once you're forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you've stepped into the realm of magic. It demands a deep and abiding faith in things you cannot know."

—sgcollins[19]

We don't count on being able to "convert" conspiracy theorists. However, we have some very basic (read: kindergarden-level) questions which any self-respecting conspiracy theorist should really take the time to reflect on. These include:

Logistics

1. How large is the supposed conspiracy?
2. How many people are part of this conspiracy?
3. Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
4. What infrastructure and resources does it need?
5. How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
6. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
7. Where are the secret conferences held?
8. How do they keep track of membership?
9. If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?

For instance, the Nazis pulling off the Reichstag fire only required a handful of men and minimal amount of money, while something like faking the Moon landing would require tens of thousands of co-conspirators and untold sums of money to pull off; the rock samples alone might require a decade to forge.

This is not to say that a massively large project cannot remain secret: the Manhattan Project created a whole multimillion-dollar industrial infrastructure and managed to remain outside of the public eye basically until the people running it decided to go public in the most explosive way imaginable. But even that required massive resources to keep secret, was amenable to the kind of compartmentalization that makes keeping large things secret comparatively easy (even if you are running a factory with thousands of employees, if they aren't told why they're doing what they're doing, then they can't spill all that much), and in the end wasn't even secret to the people it needed most to be kept secret from (i.e. foreign powers like the Soviets)—to say nothing of the fact that you could probably have pieced together its existence from a number of open sources (e.g. noticing the significant drop in the number of American nuclear physicists who published articles during the period—a sign they had been reassigned to Manhattan). The Soviets were aware of this, as it happens, and at about the same time their own publications in the field started not to be published in accessible journals—a sign that they knew.

Benefits

1. Who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price?
2. Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way?
3. If it is an old conspiracy—who gains what from maintaining it?

Again, the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to scapegoat the communists, it is considered an important factor in their rise to power, and it is hard to imagine that there was an easier way to do it. Conversely, while faking the Moon landing might have been a way to have something to show for the Apollo project, the simpler solution would have been to actually land on the Moon. Also, Richard Nixon is dead, and no one in power has any reason to care about making sure everyone thinks we went to the Moon while he was president.

Exposure

1. How likely is it to remain covered up if it has gone on for a long time?
2. If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected?
3. Why have none of them leaked the story?
4. If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
5. There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the United States government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (if all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?

It should be noted that with government-based conspiracy theories one can have issues with the fact there are things about WWI, 100 years ago, that are still classified and therefore unknown to the general public, nullifying these types of questions even with a skeptic—however, these involve what might be termed "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" and usually there is significant supporting evidence from other sources.

Plausibility

1. Does belief in this theory require accepting inherently contradictive premises that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized, clever, and hopelessly incompetent—all at the same time?

A notorious example: Chemtrails. If the U.S. government wished to use chemicals to have effects at ground level, high-altitude dispersion would be the most expensively, stupidly ineffective approach imaginable (as well as readily detected by, say, spectrographs and air sampling). So this theory would require believing in an entity (the U.S. government) that is well-resourced, competent, clever, well-advised, and at the same time hopelessly stupid.

Other examples are "secrets" simultaneously well and carefully kept by extremely powerful and aggressive entities, and known to one or (especially) more "bozos on the bus," who know all about it and talk about them openly on the Web and in real life. Apart from chemtrails a common example is the highly organized and thoroughly secret system of concentration camps operated by FEMA, an agency famous for its amazingly chaotic, clumsy, and ineffective handling of rescue and recovery after Katrina. Alternatively, use any other intensely secret program that could be easily discovered and verified by anyone with a common piece of scientific equipment (or Google).

 

[someoneyouknow]

Now, Obama started this bull shit b

No, he didn't. This started in earnest with Bush after he allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to take place because he ignored months of daily warnings about the impending attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_%282001%E2%80%9307%29

He also forced phone companies to install illegal tapping devices at their switching stations so the various intelligence agencies could listen in on all phone conversations, without a warrant. This was done in secret but obviously word leaked out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

As to Obama expanding who saw NSA intercepts, it was done to make sure as many people were aware of Russia's collusion in the campaign as well as the con artist's collusion with Russia. The administration feared all the evidence would be swept away, just like all the scientific evidence for climate change has been removed from the EPA web site and other government sources.

So, as usual, the article is pure bullshit for the simple fact it cherry picked unrelated pieces and tried to smoosh them together to make dimwits believe it's all Obama's fault.

And one final thought on this pile of shit. The "unmasking" of people in such communication intercepts is perfectly legal and has been done by every administration since the program started. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't political and Susan Rice had every right to see the connections. If one reads the article correctly, it only says the number of requests increased. It does not say if those requests were honored because the intelligence agency, not the national security advisor, has the final say on whether to unmask as U.S. citizen's name in these intercepts.

“Part of her job as national security adviser is to pay attention to what foreign governments are doing,” Rebecca Lonergan, a former federal prosecutor who handled foreign surveillance cases, told TPM. “If she’s asking for specific names to be unmasked in order to understand what Russia may be doing to influence the U.S. political system and influence our elections, presumably in a way they thought would benefit them, she’s doing her job.”​

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/surveillance-experts-swat-down-susan-rice-unmasking-hysteria

 

[Ishmael]

From the article you apparently failed to read.
Obama continued the legacy.

I missed NOTHING. I fully understand that the meta-data scoop ups started with Bush.

The searches ultimately resulted in 3,134 NSA intelligence reports with unredacted U.S. names being distributed across government in 2016, and another 3,354 reports in 2015. About half the time, U.S. identities were unredacted in the original reports while the other half were unmasked after the fact by special request of Obama administration officials.

Among those whose names were unmasked in 2016 or early 2017 were campaign or transition associates of President Trump as well as members of Congress and their staffers, according to sources with direct knowledge.

You don't have a problem with this?

Ishmael

 

[rocket_surgery]

No, he didn't. This started in earnest with Bush after he allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to take place because he ignored months of daily warnings about the impending attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_%282001%E2%80%9307%29

He also forced phone companies to install illegal tapping devices at their switching stations so the various intelligence agencies could listen in on all phone conversations, without a warrant. This was done in secret but obviously word leaked out.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

As to Obama expanding who saw NSA intercepts, it was done to make sure as many people were aware of Russia's collusion in the campaign as well as the con artist's collusion with Russia. The administration feared all the evidence would be swept away, just like all the scientific evidence for climate change has been removed from the EPA web site and other government sources.

So, as usual, the article is pure bullshit for the simple fact it cherry picked unrelated pieces and tried to smoosh them together to make dimwits believe it's all Obama's fault.

And one final thought on this pile of shit. The "unmasking" of people in such communication intercepts is perfectly legal and has been done by every administration since the program started. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't political and Susan Rice had every right to see the connections. If one reads the article correctly, it only says the number of requests increased. It does not say if those requests were honored because the intelligence agency, not the national security advisor, has the final say on whether to unmask as U.S. citizen's name in these intercepts.

“Part of her job as national security adviser is to pay attention to what foreign governments are doing,” Rebecca Lonergan, a former federal prosecutor who handled foreign surveillance cases, told TPM. “If she’s asking for specific names to be unmasked in order to understand what Russia may be doing to influence the U.S. political system and influence our elections, presumably in a way they thought would benefit them, she’s doing her job.”​

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/surveillance-experts-swat-down-susan-rice-unmasking-hysteria

The article doesn't say Obama started it nor does it say anything was illegal. In fact it points out that a court had said it was ok. Just says he did it.

 

[rocket_surgery]

I missed NOTHING. I fully understand that the meta-data scoop ups started with Bush.

Then why did you say Obama started it?