Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants • Hacker News Board

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#251

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 1:24 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #219

unclebucknasty wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you find anything odd about the timing of the release of this information, which so perfectly overlays with Trump's unverifiable charge and provides ammunition for reaching a conclusion such as yours? I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know? There is a…

I think you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump. My intent is only to highlight that a surveillance system that is designed to circumvent accountability is ripe for abuse. This includes abuse of power, but also abuse such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.

>you mistake my intent as being to defend Trump.

From this and your other comments, you undertake a lot of mental gymnastics to let Trump off the hook. And your assertions go well beyond decrying potential abuse by intelligence agencies.

>such as making a fictitious claim about wiretapping having occurred.

Not really. Or, more specifically, only when people willfully use it in a disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt, and others promote that it is a legitimate basis for that doubt. The people behind the most recent Wikileaks dump seem to understand this, wouldn't you agree?

Thinking people still understand that implausible is not the same as actually happened, and that actual proof is required when a president charges a former president with breaking the law.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#252

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 1:53 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #233

willstrafach wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify s…

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly ac…

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric.

And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.

Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy experts, and pretty much anyone whose job it is to assess these things. It's easy to find. But, you honestly don't seem to believe anything from those who express concern for U.S. national interest in this matter, unless it comes from Trump, of course.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#253

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #233

willstrafach wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication of CIA having high confidence and NSA having moderate confidence was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. This makes it more difficult to show proof. What kind of proof would be sufficient enough to be convincing, without burning the source? I cannot think of a good answer to that question, although I truly wish they did figure out a way to declassify s…

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly ac…

> My read of it

Here's some reading material that you missed:

https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE...

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be...

> One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking escalation over.

Or that he wanted to delegitimize the Clinton presidency.

> It seems likely that if someone like HRC or McCain had been in office, retaliatory military action by the US might have occurred.

Nonsense. Increased economic sanctions are more effective against Russia's failing petroeconomy.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#254

Post by mythrwy » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

youdontknowtho wrote: post #245

mythrwy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone else said it first isn't really a good excuse for that kind of rhetoric though. I understand you feel strongly about your beliefs but you really are out of line. Everyone else is not evil nor wrong for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do.

That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm not saying that people are Evil for not supporting the Democratic party in all they do. I'm saying that the Democrats are the only option for change. The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making. My point is that Rand Paul is not a moderate because he's got a good position on this one issue. On other issues he's extreme. Without some strategy to deal with…

"The Republicans are opposed to evidence based decision making."

Ok then. When this is the axiom there isn't much discussion to be had. You are free to paint with as large brush strokes as you like. I'd just request you stop making extremist and insulting comments please. I come here to read interesting articles and commentary. Not see juvenile ideological flame wars.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#255

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 6:23 PM UTC

willstrafach wrote: post #250

grandalf wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly ac…

Personally I do not have enough knowledge on the circumstances to credibly argue one way or another with regards to the alleged meddling. > My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. This is not the case. The declassified…

> this would have been far better for critical discussion if they figured out a way to declassify actual evidence.

True. I think it's very important in situations like this to recall how the alleged evidence for the Iraq war turned out not to exist. The methods used by intelligence agencies are far from infallible.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#256

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #252

grandalf wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly ac…

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy expe…

> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable.

I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east.

All that was needed, as HRC was days away from being sworn in, was the right triggering event. I think HRC's team began the high intensity Russia-blaming while still under the impression that HRC would be commander in chief very soon.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#257

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #249

grandalf wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was evidence, as repeatedly and publicly corroborated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. This is one of the false statements that gets repeated over and over. There was not evidence presented to the public, only an assessment in which the NSA felt it was only marginally probable that meddling had occurred, and it was only from a small number of agencies. The document was also an informal, unusual concoction th…

I have heard this critique repeated frequently and was pretty sure it would be trotted out here. I am not referring specifically to that document, but to the repeated public assertion that the intelligence agencies had reached a consensus, combined with the reality that the assertion itself went unchallenged by those agencies. They could have easily denied those claims. Yes, I am aware that this area was not the spec…

> you assail the document, but do you expect them to divulge sources and methods?

Of course! After the multi-Trillion dollar fiasco in Iraq I absolutely think that the raw evidence for grandiose claims about foreign threats must be disclosed without artifice to the people.

We learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs that our leaders classified information not to protect people or methods but to hide aspects of the war effort from the American people. This is a high and vicious crime, and nobody was held accountable for it.

You are advocating placing blind trust in people who have not only been wrong, but have been intentionally wrong in an attempt to mislead and misdirect us.

> Via raw common sense alone,

The mistake you make here is to assume that we can apply comnon sense when the landscape of "facts" we are considering has been contrived and heavily influenced by people who want a specific outcome.

I'm not arguing that Russia did not meddle in the election or any making any specific claim about Russia, just making the point that common sense is not something we can rely on, and so our default judgement should be to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions with a nuclear power.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#258

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #235

grandalf wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government had already stated the program would be replaced. Has the program been replaced? How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture? What justification exists for such a program to be created without any public debate? Why should we believe that clearly illegal programs don't also exist? Considering that there is outrage about Trump c…

> Has the program been replaced? Yes. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/29/457779757/... > How do comments from high level officials denying that US citizens were being surveilled en mass fit into the picture? There was a comment, singular, from a high-level official, singular, denying collection of data on US citizens en masse. There was never surveillance en masse, so any denying that would be complete…

> As long as in-house counsel says it is probably fine, the programs go ahead.

Yes, I know that all agencies have a John Yoo who is ready to write a learned legal argument for why their actions are within the law. This means nothing.

> The difference is in how the data is used. One is used to harass Muslims and their acquaintances. The other is used solely to find affiliates of a known threat to national security

Not true. The muslim watch list was created after 9/11 and was not shut down until late in Barack Obama's first term. It was only shut down because the metadata program came online and offered a more comprehensive version.

Both programs have the same goal, which is to find threats to national security. Both were created with good intentions in mind. The problem with both, in my opinion, is the potential for abuse.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#259

Post by grandalf » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #253

grandalf wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was that the intelligence came more from humans sources rather than signals intelligence. My read of it was that there was not any human or signals intelligence, only that the idea that Russia meddled in the US election fit with an established notion of what Russia might wish to do, so there was not really any need for evidence. The closest thing to evidence was blaming an individual in the Ukraine for allegedly ac…

> My read of it Here's some reading material that you missed: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE... https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack-fancy-be... > One must believe not only that Putin meddled, but that he saw Trump's victory as a sure thing and worth risking es…

The attribution of those hacks did not implicate Russia and especially did not implicate Putin. There may be other, secret evidence that does, but it was not revealed to the public for scrutiny.

I think it goes without saying that Russia engages in mischief around the world in ways that hinder the US, and the US does the same to Russia.

Nothing about this is a sudden, triggering event that calls for military strikes (as McCain has called them an "act of war").

The notable aspect of all this is not that it happened, but that it is being framed with the same "we must unseat Saddam immediately" urgency that we have seen before when warmongers try to manipulate our judgment.

A lot of people risked their lives to end the cold war. I can think of few things more irresponsible than fanning the flames of a minor incident to the point where someone like McCain is calling for military retaliation (which he effectively did).

It could be argued that a stronger bluff was needed against Russia over the Caucuses or Crimea, but that ship has sailed and the opportunity was lost. We can count on US hawks to try to turn any event into a trigger, but that doesn't mean it is a big deal or that it represents a threat to US national security.

Re: Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants

#260

Post by unclebucknasty » Tue, Mar 14, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #256

unclebucknasty wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a reasonable conclusion. It seems clear that Russia felt it didn't have much to lose, given their behavior prior to the election, including their own fiery rhetoric. And, the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. Russia's strategic mindset and their method for waging war has been oft-repeated by the intelligence community, foreign policy expe…

> the notion that we would have "likely" engaged militarily is not only unfounded, it is highly improbable. I think you are mistaken about this. There was great disagreement between Obama and HRC on how to handle Russia, and many such as McCain (and HRC) felt that the US lost a key opportunity to forcefully stop Russia from conducting mischief in Europe and the middle east. All that was needed, as HRC was days away f…

Possibly. If you ignore the fact that your claim is pure conjecture that departs sharply from our history of dealing with Russia. Moreover, confronting Russia militarily over election-hacking would have been a strikingly disproportionate response.

On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring Russia's rhetoric and posturing at the time. And, also the fact that they'd already invaded a sovereign nation.

Instead, you've managed to turn it all around to paint those in the U.S. who expressed concern over Russia's agression as the actual aggressors.

And you've combined that stance with intense scrutiny of U.S. intelligence conclusions that seem to perfectly explain Trump's otherwise inexplicable behavior.

Now, why is that?