General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere's something Orwellian here, but it's not what you think.
It's that a journalist has now twice released documents that say the exact opposite of what he claims they say, and yet still gets the attention of a large part of the media and American public.
At this point I'm kind of enjoying the ride, and am very eager to see Greenwald's touted next release.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)K&R
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)I mean, you'd think that'd kind of be a big deal that other people would notice.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)However, yes, I always consider that possibility when I have an opinion.
Romulus Quirinus
(524 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)However, WaPo's reporting was basically in agreement with how I'm reading it.
think
(11,641 posts)as Snowden is
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)but specifically and almost perversely backwards.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We're listening . . .
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Columbus proved the world was round when everybody thought it was flat"
No, everybody knew it was round and also knew how big it is; Columbus lied and said he had proof it was smaller
"The Boston Tea Party was against increased taxes"
No, it was against a law that lowered taxes and made the uncustomed smuggled tea less competitive
"We live in such a violent time today"
Violent crime is at the lowest level it has been in the past century -- and probably the lowest level in history. You were more likely to be murdered in 1913 than 2013.
etc.
It's something I keep noticing.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It seems that people are pretty gullible in your book. Is that why you endorse the NSA's 51 percent approach to "reasonable articulable suspicion" that someone is a terrorist - roughly the same as flipping a coin?
Also, you probably have concluded that $80 billion a year isn't too much to spend on the NSA, even if there isn't a single case of foreign terrorism that's been actually shown to have been prevented inside the US by this internal surveillance program that's been collecting data on all of us for more than a decade?
I guess you think we just wouldn't notice little things like that, and even if we did for a moment, we'll eventually lose interest and wander off toward the next side show act. About the last point, I'd say there's about a 51% chance you're right.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though 51% is also called preponderance of the evidence.
Also, you make a few more unjustified assumptions.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)To guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed United States in 1791 ratified the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states:
I really don't see why 9/11 should have changed any of that. Off to bed. Good night.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)eShirl
(18,505 posts)a.k.a. a smart-ass
NoPasaran
(17,291 posts)Should I be outraged?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)the exact opposite of what he claims.
You seem to think that you, an anonymous poster on a discussion, merely saying so, makes it true.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But obviously the person pointing that out is who gets accused of it.
Like i said, I'm enjoying the ride.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I know it must be difficult when you can't even be bothered to type the man's name.
Orwellian, indeed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Showing how the slides he released say the opposite of what Snowden claimed. I consider that case made.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)You can't have it both ways. The slide you point to actually shows that under a loophole in the PATRIOT Act, NSA analysts have 72 hours to freely comb through US Person content before they even have to request a warrant, and that the FBI does not supervise that initial profiling process (SLIDE 1). You indicated that you now recognize that fact, and agree the loophole should be plugged. What's changed?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And saying "the slide supports this" but never saying where on the slide you see that. I've granted it for argument's sake, and asked whether the profile data had been previously cleared by FESC, et al, and received no response from you.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)the later targeting stage. Look again at Flow Chart 1 - the profiling stage (which involves no oversight) is everything from the top down until the second from bottom line after the PRISM manager decides the subject is to be targeted and the FBI confirms the subject is a non-US person.
That process is explained in more detail my previous OP, which I already linked.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And I don't see a link from you anywhere in this thread.
EDIT: found it on the old thread.
You say,
indeed, it is virtually certain that large amounts of US person data are available without warrants to NSA personnel, at least in the files of other agencies that analysts and contractors may access in the process of profiling suspected terrorists and other NSA targets. Under the law as it was changed by the PATRIOT Act, analysts have 72 hours to examine US person content before they have to seek a warrant.
Yes, I keep asking: are they analyzing lawfully-obtained data from other agencies (in which case I don't care) or actually conducting active surveillance on their own authority for 72 hours (in which case I do)? Your own language seems to suggest the former.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and disseminated intel based in raw data intercepts that either predate FAA or are based on foreign intel sources that don't discriminate between US and NUSPs. The safeguards thus don't apply to the profiling step, just the content of recently acquired domestic voice and some email data acquired from the Providers.
Please clarify FESCU
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The FBI Electronic Communications and Surveillance Unit, which is tasked with keeping USPERs out of NSA analysis and in the chart stands between the data and its release to the NSA (and, as far as I can tell, does the actual gathering).
I have yet to see any document avowing that the NSA is doing any primary gathering to begin with, though obviously that's what the term "upstream" implies -- I'd like to know more about that, but I haven't seen any document that shows what you keep asserting.
Are we at least in agreement that they are searching through a database of historical intercepts, not intercepting live data, for that 72 hours? Yes, I agree that if those data were illegally obtained, that's problematic, and the database should be scrubbed for that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for today. This post says the opposite from that one, but both highlight your lack of comprehension of Orwell's 1984, his other works (bet you have not read any) his own politics and life.
They do have home study courses for this sort of thing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I love Orwell, though I think he got some things wrong that Huxley got right
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to make a point opposite yours. It was astonishing to read 'meaningless science fiction....form 1948....today's world....Greenwald!!!!!'
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Since I read 1984 and think, "well, Winston actually was willing to throw acid on a complete stranger's face at O'Brien's command; shouldn't he be locked up?"