51–60 of 157 posts
now that the gag order is not in place, can we learn who the FBI was spying on? was it legitimate? if not, who approved it? this is a pointless victory unless we use it for accountability.
It seems to me that only that person themself should reveal that, or not, as they choose.
This is reporting that Nick Merrill, who was under a gag order restricting his ability to talk about a subpoena he received in 2004, is no longer gagged. It links to an editorial he wrote (anonymously) about that gag order, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... , in which he writes: > "Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspe…
Which is good. He deserves his privacy, and only he should decide if to reveal himself. (Unless he's actually charged with something in court.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail? My suspicion is that the FBI and various three-letter-agencies have dirt on most of the elected representatives. The mass surveillance apparatus is the perfect tool for collecting blackmail material on current and future leaders.
That is certainly the most amusing and dramatic explanation of what's happening. A simpler explanation might just be that Congress broadly supports what DOJ is doing, and cares a lot less about the integrity of specific online services than they do about DOJ's role in combating terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and foreign intelligence services.
I think the case of Jane Harman is the creepiest example of this -- a case where the DoJ withheld prosecution of a surveillance "friend", derived from NSA surveillance, so that she could continue to support an NSA surveillance program.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-dang...
now that the gag order is not in place, can we learn who the FBI was spying on? was it legitimate? if not, who approved it? this is a pointless victory unless we use it for accountability.
> can we learn who the FBI was spying on? It seems to me that only that person themself should reveal that, or not, as they choose.
Based on the redacted latter, it appears the subscriber's email address is about 23 or fewer characters.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/4610_001...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still a hero though.
Agreed. There has to be a place for principles in this world.
All in all, nothing but good intentions and with a bit more foresight it would have ended quite differently. I sincerely hope that if I'm ever the subject of such pressure that I'll do half as good, hopefully better but definitely no guarantees there.
And trying to protect Edward Snowden was - especially at that moment in time - something that was a very hot issue as an American citizen well within reach of the arm of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is certainly the most amusing and dramatic explanation of what's happening. A simpler explanation might just be that Congress broadly supports what DOJ is doing, and cares a lot less about the integrity of specific online services than they do about DOJ's role in combating terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and foreign intelligence services.
I personally think it's a combination of things. Sometimes Congress is just on board with what's happening. Sometimes they don't have an idea what's happening. Other times, the surveillance state has their finger on the scale. I think the case of Jane Harman is the creepiest example of this -- a case where the DoJ withheld prosecution of a surveillance "friend", derived from NSA surveillance, so that she could contin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President has all the power to curtail these abuses. Unfortunately, reducing your own power is not something that comes naturally to most people. Additionally, any reduction in the national security apparatus will be a political disaster if another terrorist attack happens, so inaction is the prudent political course. It’s a tough problem to deal with and currently it seems a majority of Americans are more concer…
This. Reducing the size of the security apparatus is a very politically costly move. Politicians sometimes do politically costly things, e.g. Merkel and the refugees, but it really has to be tremendously important for them to do that thing for them to put their political life on the line. Few politicians has hitherto had privacy as their personal favorite value and therefore few politicians has been willing to put hi…
For some reason, I am regularly downvoted when I make comments like this. The key thing is that people don't think about how something in the media affects them directly. It's like shark attacks. The risks are negligible, yet they captivate the imagination. The mental images and pictures that they are exposed to on a regular basis by the media, both news and fictional tv shows and movies, are specifically chosen to get a response out of them, like a bully getting a rise out of taunting his victim. People don't think they can be manipulated, because they don't like to think they are that stupid, yet it ridiculously common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail? My suspicion is that the FBI and various three-letter-agencies have dirt on most of the elected representatives. The mass surveillance apparatus is the perfect tool for collecting blackmail material on current and future leaders.
It's somewhat shocking that smart people will believe this with the only proof being a man who died over 40 years ago.