NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 12:52 AM UTC

singold wrote: post #54

fein wrote: post #3

Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications. This is probably the best tell the US government has for sniffing out the bullshit. If they don't explicitly deny the event occurring in the past, it happened. Reminds me of a Spaceballs scene: Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now. D…

When I heard the "is not monitoring and will not monitor" I thougth "We didn't, and we will not do it again"

Post by ojbyrne » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:09 AM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #61

conductor wrote: post #19

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers . They went after members of congress . The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms . Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges . One of the judges is now sitting…

The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is being collected, but who's the audience? And what is their agenda?

Post by r00fus » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:27 AM UTC

slashdotaccount wrote: post #68

r00fus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is being collected, but who's the audience? And what is their agenda?

Information has become the most valueable thing. Whoever controls it, they surely do have much more power than any elected leader.

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #36

conductor wrote: post #19

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers . They went after members of congress . The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms . Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges . One of the judges is now sitting…

I remember this post being made here on HN around when the revelations first started coming out and we were still trying to collect ourselves and adjust to the new realities of omnipresent surveillance. It was on the front page and had a ton of upvotes. I really hope that Snowden has evidence of this. Whether he does or not is just about make-it-or-break-it for whether we'll see any real reform.

Post by jlgreco » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 2:06 AM UTC

pyoung wrote: post #77

differentView wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean an unknown person or group that has control of the NSA intelligence is effectively running the United States?

No, it means that the NSA can, and has, collected data on just about anyone. What they do with it, my guess is not much unless there is an actual national security threat, is still up for question.