Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#21

Post by manmal »

lukeschlather wrote: post #19
falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

Please, take the time to read the article. > “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.” They've essentially admitted that Greenwald'…

But, "two or three years ago" is a strangely broad phrase to use for something as huge as monitoring emails. Why did they not say "that stopped in the middle of 2011" or something like that?

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#22

Post by manmal »

northwest wrote: post #6
monsterix wrote: post #5

I have a feeling that everyone having this tool is a better situation than only few-at-the-top having it. Older people who sit at the top tend to elicit a different and often machine-like behaviour [1] on emotional or privacy matters. Their decisions are likely to be blind to what people in their privacy want - that is emotional freedom. And their micro-decisions could be worse. Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM sear…

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically : If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#23

Post by northwest »

manmal wrote: post #22
northwest wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically : If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

That's what Zuckerberg had in mind, originally (reportedly).

I'm not convinced somebody thinks for humanity when they say things like: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#24

Post by malandrew »

falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

As a very smart former lawyer, I have no doubt that he's going to ask every question, knowing full well the answer to the question and that those testifying on behalf of the NSA are going to be left with no choice but to lie either directly or through some sort of doublespeak. They should assume that everything he asks or talks about is backed up by evidence.

Only one of two things are likely to happen on Wednesday. He discusses the truth and they admit it or he discusses the truth, they deny it, he provides evidence to the contrary that confirms both the truth and that those at the NSA blatantly lied to Congress. Either way, there is no way this can go down well for those protecting these abuses of Constitutional rights.

I'm really looking forward to this hearing.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#25

Post by malandrew »

lukeschlather wrote: post #19
falk wrote: post #4

This is how I think the Congressional committee hearing will go down Wednesday. Or perhaps some variation of this. 1. Greenwald testifies and talks about all the awful things the NSA has been up to. 2. NSA offials will deny any and all claims made by Greenwald. 3. Greenwald will release documents that directly refute the NSA's testimonial.

Please, take the time to read the article. > “In fact, we don’t monitor emails. That’s what kind of assures me is that what the reporting is is not correct. Because no emails are monitored now,” [Senator] Chambliss said. “They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. So I feel confident that there may have been some abuse, but if it was it was pure accidental.” They've essentially admitted that Greenwald'…

Snowden left the NSA a few months ago. If the monitoring of emails had truly ceased 2-3 years ago, I would have expected that information to already have been aired since Snowden and the classified material he has is likely to be current enough to corroborate this claim.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#27

Post by marquis »

northwest wrote: post #6
monsterix wrote: post #5

I have a feeling that everyone having this tool is a better situation than only few-at-the-top having it. Older people who sit at the top tend to elicit a different and often machine-like behaviour [1] on emotional or privacy matters. Their decisions are likely to be blind to what people in their privacy want - that is emotional freedom. And their micro-decisions could be worse. Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM sear…

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically : If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

The core issue for me in the privacy debate is not about our personal life choices - we as humans are becoming more and more tolerant every day, witness the rise of gay marriage rights and marijuana acceptance. For me it's about needing privacy between you and the power structure - restrictive laws are constantly being proposed and overturned thanks to our ability to organize in private. To go back to gay marriage as an example: there was a time when homosexuality was illegal. We'd never have gay marriage if we had the ability to shuffle through everyone's innuendo and crosstalk in the last decades and put restrictions on that activity, or know that a group of people regularly gathered at certain locations.

Take civil rights: imagine Rosa Parks calls MLK while she's waiting to get on the bus (she was a community leader, not a random instant-activist). If she made and communicated that decision to sit at the front before she got on she could have been arrested, significantly delaying historical change.

We need privacy from the power structures to maintain those rights to organize and protest and change laws, and I honestly don't see why those who are yelling about not giving up their guns because of the right to keep arms against government overrule aren't applying exactly the same concept to their right to privacy.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#28

Post by malandrew »

a3n wrote: post #10
northwest wrote: post #3

“I was back out at NSA just last week, spent a couple hours out there with high and low level NSA officials,” Chambliss said. “And what I have been assured of is that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.” How _dumb_ must one be to continue to trust these agencies for just about anything, now? After they blatantly lie in Congre…

Another possibility is that Chambliss is either lying, or acting as a PR functionary for the NSA.

Actually I would suspect a third possibility. It's the same problem that happens when a general visits a military base and makes rounds. Everything that is dirty will be swept under the carpet ahead of his visit so that he only sees what those on the base want him to see.

This is such a common social phenomena that it should be obvious to everyone, especially those in positions of power and administration.

If he showed up unannounced at the NSA, with a bunch of pointed questions and could talk to any NSA employee at will one on one, then he would be much more likely to learn the truth. But to show up announced, meeting with specific people on a predetermined schedule with a previously announced goal, he will only be told what they want him to know.

credit: Hanlon's Razor.

Re: Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have Powerful and Invasive Search Tool [video]

#29

Post by sanderjd »

marquis wrote: post #27
northwest wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather I'd suggest that the PRISM search tool be made available to every citizen on the planet. Of course you are joking. But if you think about it: If humanity is forced to give up privacy, the only way we could achieve this would be by giving it up symmetrically : If everybody is naked, it's normal and not a problem anymore, provided we can then evolve our culture to completely drop the "judging".

The core issue for me in the privacy debate is not about our personal life choices - we as humans are becoming more and more tolerant every day, witness the rise of gay marriage rights and marijuana acceptance. For me it's about needing privacy between you and the power structure - restrictive laws are constantly being proposed and overturned thanks to our ability to organize in private. To go back to gay marriage as…

I think many gun rights activists are applying the same concept to privacy. One of the most encouraging things I've experienced in this debate is that while it certainly seems divisive, the divisions don't seem to be along party lines, or even particularly obvious ideological lines. I've argued with people I almost always agree with and agreed with people I almost always argue with. It is actually refreshing that there is actually a debate happening and that the debate seems to involve more individual opinions and less of the usual blocs.
Post reply on HN