421–430 of 465 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on earth would it be a good idea to reveal highly classified information to the entire planet during a televised hearing?
Why on earth would it be a good idea to classify highly important policy decisions that affects the rights of everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One of the presidential candidates wants to tear down all the stuff you pointed out. Biden is not going to change anything NSA-related, do not delude yourself and do not mistake electioneering frenzy for policy.
Under Biden's vice presidency, the NSA's collection of Americans' data reduced. Email metadata collection stopped in 2010 before the Snowden leaks, and phone metadata collection reduced after. He seems consistent on this issue. Prior to his stint as VP, he complained about metadata collection by the GWB administration. https://youtu.be/h2qgU8kJt-0
So the question is not whether Joe Biden ever grandstanded on the topic - I'm sure he did, as every politician would. The question is what he had done about it when he was Senator and VP - specific actions attributable to him? Because if he has been consistent to paying lip service to the issue while not doing anything in practice - it is prudent to expect the same consistency to extend into the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are multiple liars, unfortunately: https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2013/06/07/video-di... Also http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/nsa-director-alexan...
Your second link doesn't work. The first link shows some answers from Keith Alexander, but none of them were lies. It seems the author of the first article thought that PRISM is something different from what it was revealed to be.
In an exchange from March 2012, Johnson had an opportunity to question NSA Director Keith Alexander about precisely the kind of concerns that the exposé of PRISM confirms — that the signals intel agency can spy on content coming through American Internet servers.
I think it's pretty accurate description of what PRISM and other NSA programs allow NSA to do. Also:
Alexander categorically denied more than once in this clip that NSA even had the capability to conduct surveillance in the manner Wired reported
We now know not only they have the capability, they are actively using it. If claiming such capability does not exist is not a lie, then what it is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the FBI has been trained to hide the source of information, probably because it is illegal in many cases (maybe comes from NSA)... they call it parallel construction but it probably should be called something much worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
So in the end they only convict people based on legally permissible evidence that shows they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? How horrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, want to hear something else a little tinfoil hat crazy and also 100% true? - Checking out on Amazon was always encrypted. - Browsing on Amazon was not encrypted until quite recently. Add To Cart wasn't encrypted. - High end network equipment includes support for monitoring your browsing on the guest wifi to send URLs from you browsing Amazon to price-compare or buy. See, for instance, Cisco Analytics for Retail.
> Browsing on Amazon was not encrypted until quite recently. Add To Cart wasn't encrypted. What do you mean by this? HTTPS has always been supported for browsing and adding to cart.
HTTPS was only experimentally supported by one browser when Amazon launched so this is clearly not the case, is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/egypt-steps-u...
So you just have the word of one activist? Sorry, that's not enough evidence for me to believe it. If the NSA wanted to unlock a random journalist's phone, they would be able to hack it.
It also links to another similar account a few days before that. And why would Egyptian activists make that up?
Plus, even if the NSA isn't regularly doing the kidnapping, torture, and killing themselves, they certainly help our other organizations do these things. Things like the disposition matrix, black sites, and locally with parallel construction all rely on their surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I invite you to consider Hannah Arendt's words on institutional pressures driving unethical patterns of behavior. These she referred to as "the rule of Nobody" and also "the banality of evil". In this frame, "business decisions / climate" are exactly the driving forces which perpetuate such structures and outcomes.
Business decisions and climate are also the driving forces behind literally everything a company does . The banality of evil doesn't forgive laziness in the construction of hypotheses, unless you're Fox News. To spell it out, what leak / disclosure would constitute proof of GP's belief? A memo from the WaPo editorial staff which says "Pursuant to Mr. Bezo's comments on X, please assign Y to story Z, so that reporting…
This is the extent of the "conspiracy" in Chomsky's opinion. When things like the Amazon firing of a union organizer happen, the reporter set to cover it is going to have more connections to the corporate side and a be accustomed to writing stories that will please corporate sponsors.
If a reporter is overly critical, the story will likely get a less favorable placement and that reporter won't get similar assignments in the future. There is no overt conspiracy, but there is editorial pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your second link doesn't work. The first link shows some answers from Keith Alexander, but none of them were lies. It seems the author of the first article thought that PRISM is something different from what it was revealed to be.
From the article: In an exchange from March 2012, Johnson had an opportunity to question NSA Director Keith Alexander about precisely the kind of concerns that the exposé of PRISM confirms — that the signals intel agency can spy on content coming through American Internet servers. I think it's pretty accurate description of what PRISM and other NSA programs allow NSA to do. Also: Alexander categorically denied more t…
The part you quoted is correct, but he didn't claim otherwise. He said that they could not get Americans' data in that manner, which is true. Reread his exchange with Johnson in the article. ("Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?") In other words, he did not lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under Biden's vice presidency, the NSA's collection of Americans' data reduced. Email metadata collection stopped in 2010 before the Snowden leaks, and phone metadata collection reduced after. He seems consistent on this issue. Prior to his stint as VP, he complained about metadata collection by the GWB administration. https://youtu.be/h2qgU8kJt-0
Of course he complained about data collection by the administration his political enemies are running. The question is what happened when he was running it. So far you said "reduced" - reduced how? PRISM still exists, doesn't it? And there are many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_survei... So the question is not whether Joe Biden ever grandstanded on the topic - I'm sure he did, as every p…
I told you in the GP post. The email metadata program was shut down, and the phone metadata collection was reduced.
> PRISM still exists,
PRISM does not collect Americans' data.
> The question is what he had done about it when he was Senator and VP - specific actions attributable to him?
Again, I told that to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why on earth would it be a good idea to classify highly important policy decisions that affects the rights of everyone?
Because if that information were released it would cause significant damage to the country. Why on earth is my company's TLS private key kept a secret from all the employees?
A far more adequate analogy would be a company spying on all of its customers and employees, and then lie when asked about it.