211–220 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was a middle manager decades ago. Literally most intelligence people are in a better position to know about NSA surveillance activities.
"Binney was the agency official responsible for automating much of the NSA’s worldwide monitoring networks." https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies-nsa/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This was for extracting email envelope metadata to build a graph of who was contacting whom, a program that Snowden's leaks showed had already been shut down. "According to Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a limited hangout is "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrec…
> "According to Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a limited hangout is "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the trut…
That's funny, because there's a full slide deck from NSA about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#The_slides
Notably, all the glossy corporate logos pictured are of American companies with predominantly American users. Not foreign ones. "Its existence was leaked six years later by NSA contractor Edward Snowden"
> Then why didn't Snowden's doc show any illegal use of that data?
"Snowden's subsequent disclosures included statements that government agencies such as the United Kingdom's GCHQ also undertook mass interception and tracking of internet and communications data – described by Germany as "nightmarish" if true – allegations that the NSA engaged in "dangerous" and "criminal" activity by "hacking" civilian infrastructure networks in other countries such as "universities, hospitals, and private businesses", and alleged that compliance offered only very limited restrictive effect on mass data collection practices (including of Americans) since restrictions "are policy-based, not technically based, and can change at any time", adding that "Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications", with numerous self-granted exceptions, and that NSA policies encourage staff to assume the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty."
https://web.archive.org/web/20130626032506/http://news.yahoo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170103043118/https://www.thegu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20170103043118/https://www.thegu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Binney was the agency official responsible for automating much of the NSA’s worldwide monitoring networks." https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies-nsa/
That doesn't in any way contradict what I said. Both technology and the law changed significantly since he was a middle manager in the NSA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, that he did the right thing at the right time.
No, he violated a trust given to him, he deserves to be in jail, and if he had an ounce of moral character he'd come back and face trial like a man. Unlike the movies there aren't secret death squads out to get him, just a courtroom where he can face the consequences of his actions like an adult. Instead, he's hiding out playing the victim in a country that's actively genociding Ukrainians to a degree beyond anything…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "According to Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a limited hangout is "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the trut…
> There was no record of mass domestic surveillance in Snowden's docs. That's funny, because there's a full slide deck from NSA about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#The_slides Notably, all the glossy corporate logos pictured are of American companies with predominantly American users. Not foreign ones. "Its existence was leaked six years later by NSA contractor Edward Snowden" > Then why didn't Snowden'…
Did you look at the slides you linked to? They describe targeted surveillance on specific foreigners outside the U.S.
> "Snowden's subsequent disclosures included statements that government agencies such as the United Kingdom's GCHQ also undertook mass interception and tracking of internet and communications data – described by Germany as "nightmarish" if true
Not a U.S. domestic surveillance program.
> allegations that the NSA engaged in "dangerous" and "criminal" activity by "hacking" civilian infrastructure networks in other countries such as "universities, hospitals, and private businesses",
Not a U.S. domestic surveillance program.
> and alleged that compliance offered only very limited restrictive effect on mass data collection practices (including of Americans) since restrictions "are policy-based, not technically based, and can change at any time", ...
The single U.S. mass data collection program in Snowden's leaks was phone metadata collection. Use of any data collected by the government is policy-based. In this case, use was limited to finding associates of foreign targets, and the query interface was limited to that. If it had changed, that would have been breaking the law, but Snowden showed no evidence of that. One more time: that single possibly illegal U.S. program Snowden leaked was then shut down anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was no record of mass domestic surveillance in Snowden's docs. That's funny, because there's a full slide deck from NSA about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#The_slides Notably, all the glossy corporate logos pictured are of American companies with predominantly American users. Not foreign ones. "Its existence was leaked six years later by NSA contractor Edward Snowden" > Then why didn't Snowden'…
> That's funny, because there's a full slide deck from NSA about it here: Did you look at the slides you linked to? They describe targeted surveillance on specific foreigners outside the U.S. > "Snowden's subsequent disclosures included statements that government agencies such as the United Kingdom's GCHQ also undertook mass interception and tracking of internet and communications data – described by Germany as "nigh…
Many times. They detail methods and partners used in mass surveillance on US soil involving US corporations and US routed internet backbone connections. No independently verifiable proof is provided that US persons are not targeted by this program.
Instead we're gifted such lovely terms as LOVEINT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT in which the NSA admits to warrant-less domestic spying for the most trivial of reasons. Further demonstrating a lack of appropriate controls or process around such capabilities.
And testimony from "the agency official responsible for automating much of the NSA’s worldwide monitoring networks" indicating that mass surveillance infrastructure is used domestically: "After 9/11, they took one of the programs I had done, or the backend part of it, and started to use it to spy on everybody in this country. That was a program I created called Stellar Wind. That was seperate and compartmented from the regular activity which was ongoing because it was doing domestic spying. All the equipment was coming in, I knew something was happening but then when the contractors I had hired came and told me what they were doing, it was clear where all the hardware was going and what they were using it to do. It was simply a different input, instead of being foreign it was domestic." - William Binney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc
> Not a U.S. domestic surveillance program.
"However, in recent years, FVEY documents have shown that member agencies are intentionally spying on one another's private citizens and sharing the collected information with each other."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't in any way contradict what I said. Both technology and the law changed significantly since he was a middle manager in the NSA.
It is, in fact, a direct contradiction of what you've said. There is no independently verifiable proof that NSA mass surveillance has stopped or even slowed. And a great deal of evidence to the contrary. EFF maintains a lovely list of primary sources: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/nsadocs#main-content
Mass surveillance outside the U.S. is not illegal. There is no reason for that to have slowed. The documents showed no mass "surveillance" inside the U.S. The only mass collection was phone metadata collection, which wasn't used for surveilling anybody, only to spit out possible associates of specific people under surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, in fact, a direct contradiction of what you've said. There is no independently verifiable proof that NSA mass surveillance has stopped or even slowed. And a great deal of evidence to the contrary. EFF maintains a lovely list of primary sources: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/nsadocs#main-content
> There is no independently verifiable proof that NSA mass surveillance has stopped or even slowed Mass surveillance outside the U.S. is not illegal. There is no reason for that to have slowed. The documents showed no mass "surveillance" inside the U.S. The only mass collection was phone metadata collection, which wasn't used for surveilling anybody, only to spit out possible associates of specific people under surve…
"email, chat, video, voice, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications, social networking details, and the ever ominous "Special Requests""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#/media/File:PRISM_Collec...
You will claim this program does not target US persons. To which I have already responded in another comment that "They detail methods and partners used in mass surveillance on US soil involving US corporations and US routed internet backbone connections. No independently verifiable proof is provided that US persons are not targeted by this program."
NSA self-reporting of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT incidents seems to indicate that warrant-less surveillance of US persons does, in fact, happen. As does testimony from "the agency official responsible for automating much of the NSA’s worldwide monitoring networks": "After 9/11, they took one of the programs I had done, or the backend part of it, and started to use it to spy on everybody in this country. That was a program I created called Stellar Wind. That was seperate and compartmented from the regular activity which was ongoing because it was doing domestic spying. All the equipment was coming in, I knew something was happening but then when the contractors I had hired came and told me what they were doing, it was clear where all the hardware was going and what they were using it to do. It was simply a different input, instead of being foreign it was domestic." - William Binney
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, that he did the right thing at the right time.
No, he violated a trust given to him, he deserves to be in jail, and if he had an ounce of moral character he'd come back and face trial like a man. Unlike the movies there aren't secret death squads out to get him, just a courtroom where he can face the consequences of his actions like an adult. Instead, he's hiding out playing the victim in a country that's actively genociding Ukrainians to a degree beyond anything…
He had 2 conflicting trusts, one from the people and one from the government. He chose to honor the people over the government, which is why there's so many bots in this thread who seem very angry with him.
If you read his autobio he was raised with very conservative beliefs, the issue was unlike most conservatives he wasn't able to ignore those beliefs in the furtherance of the state.
>Instead, he's hiding out playing the victim in a country that's actively genociding Ukrainians to a degree beyond anything the Trump or Netanyahu administrations can be accused of.
He would come back if you guys let him. Its not like he has a long list of safe places to go.
>Even if you believe the law is unjust, MLK Jr still had the balls to go to jail for what he believed.
I vastly prefer my anti authoritarians out of jail living their best life with their ~300 kids somewhere in the south of australia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's funny, because there's a full slide deck from NSA about it here: Did you look at the slides you linked to? They describe targeted surveillance on specific foreigners outside the U.S. > "Snowden's subsequent disclosures included statements that government agencies such as the United Kingdom's GCHQ also undertook mass interception and tracking of internet and communications data – described by Germany as "nigh…
> Did you look at the slides you linked to? Many times. They detail methods and partners used in mass surveillance on US soil involving US corporations and US routed internet backbone connections. No independently verifiable proof is provided that US persons are not targeted by this program. Instead we're gifted such lovely terms as LOVEINT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT in which the NSA admits to warrant-les…
Clearly not.
> They detail methods and partners used in mass surveillance on US soil involving US corporations and US routed internet backbone connections.
PRISM is a data ingestion system whereby the NSA ingests data collected by the FBI Data Intercept Technology Unit that gets data from specific accounts under court order. The DITU is clearly labeled in the diagram on the slide showing how it works. The NSA has no integration with the companies at all. The "Internet backbone" has nothing to do with PRISM.
> No independently verifiable proof is provided that US persons are not targeted by this program.
If the FBI gives a section 702 court order to a company for an account that isn't for a foreigner outside the U.S., they are not going to comply. The FBI wouldn't even ask. The very idea that you think "verifiable proof" is needed shows you believed the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the NSA could directly fetch any account's data, which was supported by neither the law nor the leaked documents but only by Greenwald's fever dreams
> Instead we're gifted such lovely terms as LOVEINT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT in which the NSA admits to warrant-less domestic spying for the most trivial of reasons.
Yet another document that you claim to have read but didn't. The cases where they were able to surveil the person they were stalking were foreigners outside the U.S. The domestic cases involved querying for associates using the metadata. Neither one is "domestic spying" and certainly don't show any evidence of domestic mass surveillance.
> "However, in recent years, FVEY documents have shown that member agencies are intentionally spying on one another's private citizens and sharing the collected information with each other."
Once again, if you bothered to read the source documents, you would find that this quote is not supported by the citations. The first citation shows that the U.S. The first is about how the U.S. is allowed to use UK phone numbers in its metadata collection for chaining analysis, not to share that data or analysis with the UK as the quote claims. The second is about how Australia is allowed to share data it collected outside the U.S. and the U.S. with the U.S. without first looking for and removing the data of Australians who happened to be abroad whose data was collected, not for the U.S. to spy on Australians as your quote claims.
Lesson: If you see a claim that describes something that is clearly illegal, you should verify it before you repeat stuff that is very clearly nonsense and come off as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
