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

Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

investigations.nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#71

Post by AsymetricCom »

digisign wrote: post #69
AsymetricCom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my job to help you reason with logic. If you can't appreciate that circular reasoning is a distraction, then what is my explaining going to do other than waste my time? I'll just have repeat myself as you spout more and more meme-like troupes and purposeful misunderstandings. I'm not hear to proselytize or market. I'm hear to figure out the truth for myself, if others happen to be convinced in the process, t…

Then quit wasting everyone's time.

I see what you did there.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#72

Post by AsymetricCom »

jgg wrote: post #70
AsymetricCom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ad hominem

You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewin…

I see the issue here. You think your rights extend outside of your body and your property. Not sure where you got that idea, but insisting so does not make it true.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#73

Post by AsymetricCom »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #64
AsymetricCom wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see evidence that he has lied. Keep in mind that the personal data being mined by these systems was already recorded, legally and gathered legally with the contracts you agreed to with these companies. I've read the EULA and every single one of them states they will cooperate with authorities for data requests. Without evidence of abuse, there is no lie here. >How is that coherent with your first senten…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... The question you have to ask yourself, whether you think that would have come out without the Snowden revelations. Evidence that the govt. broke rules to do their job (after Obama explicitly denied the powers are abused): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-c... Evidence that chec…

Parallel construction is legal because the source of the data is legal, They need to do parallel construction to hide the source of intelligence for tactical reasons. i.e. when it was revealed that NSA had power to tap cell phones with a warrant, criminals stopped using cell phones or used 'burners'.

The emails being grabbed beyond the warrant NSA had was a result of encryption being used by GMail, so they had to grab emails by screenshot and keyword only, which caused collateral collection, but the amount of collection here is trivial.

I already addressed LOVEINT, and you're arguing against yourself. LOVEINT is a perfect example of NSA cracking down on abuses then addressing them in open court so that they can legally take action, or if they can't take action, that it's known about so that bigger reforms can be made.

I just gathered these facts by reading your article. It's clear that there are always two sides of the story, but nowhere here do I see NSA doing anything it didn't have permission to do.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#74

Post by eliasmacpherson »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #73
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... The question you have to ask yourself, whether you think that would have come out without the Snowden revelations. Evidence that the govt. broke rules to do their job (after Obama explicitly denied the powers are abused): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-c... Evidence that chec…

Parallel construction is legal because the source of the data is legal, They need to do parallel construction to hide the source of intelligence for tactical reasons. i.e. when it was revealed that NSA had power to tap cell phones with a warrant, criminals stopped using cell phones or used 'burners'. The emails being grabbed beyond the warrant NSA had was a result of encryption being used by GMail, so they had to gra…

Parallel construction is being investigated because it's probably not legal.[1]

In the NSA's own words "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate." [1]

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm...

There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first:

1:

a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision)

b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on)

c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal)

d. d:a) no evidence is found.

   d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins.
2:

a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway.

other steps as above.

I take issue with this: "the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for)"

The FISC found NSA overstepped their remit, broke the fourth amendment, announced that the FISC did not have sufficient oversight, and said that the NSA misrepresented facts repeatedly. The NSA initiate programs and depending how they feel about it present them to the FISC after the fact. In addition this contradicts what Obama said about there being no abuses. The only way that Obama could not be a liar here is if he did not know about it. Is Obama misinformed?

In your own words: "the amount of collection here is trivial.", the government broke the law however 'trivially'. This is an admission on your part there is evidence and that you have seen it.

You have not addressed LOVEINT. You seem to be missing how the LOVEINT stuff came to light, it was self reported by staffers, not uncovered by the NSA. Voluntary handover of information is not a check or a balance. Would you think the police were doing a good job if they only dealt with cases where the perpetrator made a statement on their own actions and turned themselves in without an investigation? Would you consider such behaviour a crackdown by the police? If there were sufficient checks, the NSA would know well before the culprit volunteered the information. In addition this contradicts what Alexander said about there being no abuses.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#75

Post by jgg »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #72
jgg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewin…

I see the issue here. You think your rights extend outside of your body and your property. Not sure where you got that idea, but insisting so does not make it true.

What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said it was a "perceived" right. I used that adjective for a reason. However, your faux-argument is a convenient excuse to ignore my rebuttal to your points.

But to address your point directly, about how I only have rights to my body and property, your statement is meaningless without defining "property." Did you even know what you meant when you wrote that? Would you care to elaborate?

However, if we define a right as something legally-sanctioned, I actually have a lot of rights that aren't strictly body or property related. Further, any government that fails to enforce or violates these rights is in the wrong. Check this out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

If you mean in an absolutist, natural sense, nobody has any goddamned rights, because a right is a man-made concept. Which system are we arguing within?

Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#76

Post by AsymetricCom »

jgg wrote: post #75
AsymetricCom wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the issue here. You think your rights extend outside of your body and your property. Not sure where you got that idea, but insisting so does not make it true.

What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said…

>Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.

the only "foundation" I'm forming is that you need to be aware of who you trust your data to, that you can't assert rights to data which you willingly handed over to third parties with a licence to use that data.

>quietly extorted

No business, that I've seen, has ever been "quietly extorted" I would love to see you prove me wrong.

a) The cases where there are NDAs to be signed, then the data gathering is constrained to one user. The purpose of such NDAs is obviously needed in such cases. And I'm sure that if the business in question was cooperating with criminals willingly, they'll break their NDA to let their buddies know that The Man is on to them. Even in the case of Lavabit, they've never stated otherwise and are transparently using the event for personal publicity.

b) In the cases where metadata is gathered such as business records, the businesses say this in their EULA where they say "we cooperate with government requests for data" along with "we respect your data privacy"

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#77

Post by stcredzero »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #61
stcredzero wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It looks like the NSA is using RBAC in some form, but with a big gaping hole that Snowden just walked right through. Presenting that as "impersonation" to the general public is deceptive, regardless of whether it is intended to be or not.

deception is what Snowden used to gain roles he couldn't have otherwise. It perfectly fits the definition of impersonation. By using someone else's credentials he broke the separation of duty enforcement of the RBAC model, thus he could probably escalate his privileges once he had that access. The superior who gave out his credentials probably didn't comprehend RBAC and thought he was just cutting out some red tape t…

I thought that Snowden's whole point was that, "cutting out some red tape to chase down terrorists" could also enable bad actors in the agency to do bad things.

Re: Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say

#78

Post by jgg »

AsymetricCom wrote: post #76
jgg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said…

>Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though. the only "foundation" I'm forming is that you need to be aware of who you trust your data to, that you can't assert rights to data which you willingly handed over to third parties with a licence to use that data. >quietly extorted No business, that I've seen, has ever been "quietly extorted" I would love to see you prov…

I don't want to play games with you anymore, Mr. Government Troll. The moving goalpost you keep presenting is quite annoying. If you wanted to find the information you request, you could open your mind and do a Google search.

But you're here to mitigate and marginalize thought. You don't care about facts or logic. You can cynically muse about the populace at large, but you help foster the stupidity you decry.

Have a nice day.

Post reply on HN