No really trust us.



Let the plebs eat yellow cake.

the article in the OP is full of shit and they're lying through their teeth.

Hey NSA, list the names of the nations involved or it's bullshit.

Got it?

Good.

Hell, why not say you stopped a hundred, or a thousand--as long as you're making up numbers that will never be substantiated by fact, just throw a really large one out there.

And how many of those were here in the U.S.?

And how many of them were supplied, and planned by FBI or CIA operatives, stirring something out of a bunch of miscreants just spouting off?--from nothing to something, thanks to the agent?

Of course he never released the list.

we prevented 50,000 pre crimes, plus really we take all the stuff we got on you out of your dossier after it is five years old. Well yes we do have a file on every person. After all this is Stasi State 2.0, but we are the good guys and you need to be very afraid and then we will keep you safe.

I like that.

The show was called "Talk Germany". Their guest was the (at the time) director of the Stasi archives.

It was very informative, and put the lie to the words and claimed impossibilities of ALL the detractors on DU, the ones claiming it isn't possible, no resources, not enough storage, no interest, etc.

Everyone claiming those things is a LIAR, a paid propagandist for the NSA etc., or both.

....the Detroit underwear bomber.....the Time Square bomb plot.....the Boston Marathon bombing..... OOOooooooo, I feel so safe. Hear that, NSA eaves droppers? "as I quickly glance out my window, to make sure I'm not getting droned"

for a long time now, that by taking in every bit of Internet, phone, and credit card data, that we're actually "hurting" our security.

And on Chris/ w Steve K., this weekend, finally someone made this point. He said the military is beginning to see that by collecting so much on everyone, that they have neither the software, or manpower to actually analyze it all.

Plus the whole idea that we either do it and be perfectly safe, or not do it and it becomes chaos is ridiculous anyway. As someone pointed out, we had events, like the Boston bombing that Russia actually warned us about, probably ignored while they were looking at someone surfing porn, so it hasn't given us security anyway.

True security is impossible. That leaves us with giving up our privacy for nothing.

And hey, here's an idea--let's actually try to figure out why we're pissing off so many people who're willing to kill themselves to strike back at us, and stop doing it!!

Oh right, we want their oil, or minerals, or whatever--we want it, and we're willing to give up all of our rights to get it, and put the rest of us in danger too!

We wouldn't lie to you

again.

in the media talking about it, how few "cases" of it there were, and how fast it vanished from the airwaves?

I did.

Makes you wonder what we missed, doesn't it?

the deal? They break em up and send em straight to Gitmo? I'm struggling to understand what that's supposed to mean.

Yep, that's quite effective I hear.

And post it on the DU.
Not a good use of your evening

This has been admitted to time and again, the President has confirmed it, there is no doubt about this. How do I do them any disservice by thinking maybe they targeted drones using their surveillance intelligence? Doesn't that make them sound better than presuming they sent the drones in with poor intelligence? (To be sure, the collateral damage has not been good in either case.) I think I'm extremely fair to them, far fairer than they deserve I be.

It's called conjecture, my friend. Since they are not going tell us, regardless, why don't we have the right to suspicion? If we presume the worst when they hide things from us, perhaps they'd be far more reluctant to hide things from us.

So, what do they mean by "broke plots"? Have you heard of trials being done from this program? You're welcome to your best shot, and I doubt you can be fairer with them than I was.

I didn't make the drone assassinations up. Why is it somehow worse if a program of surveillance were linked with a program of assassination? It's still an assassination. And unconstitutional surveillance is still what it is. I haven't made it sound worse. I just reminded you of the drone program, and you don't like how the two of them sound together. Tough shait.

...As long as claims don't need any proof.

It was nice of them to warn us about those Iraq WMD's too. That's the problem with lying to the public, it's almost impossible to restore trust.

The US intelligence community has written to Congress to confirm the existence of two sweeping surveillance programmes revealed by the Guardian, but defended their legality and usefulness in preventing terrorism.

In the fullest official account yet of how the US gathers domestic telephone data and overseas internet traffic, the document sent on Saturday claims that both programmes were authorised by Congress under section 215 of the Patriot Act and section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.

This has been disputed by a number of senators and congressmen, including one of the authors of the Patriot Act, who say it is more sweeping than they envisaged, but the document details a number of internal checks put in place since that seek to minimise the exposure of private data obtained inadvertently from citizens who are not terrorist suspects.

Referring to the gathering of US telephone records, it says: "The metadata is segregated and queries against the database are documented and audited. Only a small number of specifically-trained officials may access the data; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews the program every 90 days; and the data must be destroyed within five years."

full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-the-nsa-files

his impeachment?

I'll wager both answers are no.

As Hillary said when questioned (about Bengazi)...What difference does it make?

I'll also wait to see what is released and evaluate the information rather than draw inferences on only preliminary bits of info.

If I were advising the president, I would advise him to release whatever information is necessary to verify the claims that the NSA's surveillance program has disrupted actual plots. I think the politically necessity to do so at this point outweighs any short-term diminution in the program's effectiveness. We'll see.

Regarding your question, I was wondering the same thing. I'll side with your wager.

terrorists were no longer jealous of our "freedoms".

Hey NSA, it was just a radio show..

I can't give you the details, because of course, tigers are very adept at using hte internet, and I wouldn't want them to catch wise.

It is the only sensible way to analyze the effectiveness of the programs -- a cost-benefit analysis if you will. These numbers indicate that less than one phone number a week is Queried, which is close to what I would have expected. Missing is what percent of those resulted in actionable intelligence. Now if this kind of data holds up then I think we have been hit by another non-scandal scandal. Frankly, I am getting tired of this crying wolf all of the time because some day there could be a real wolf. Like I said the other day, Glenn Greenwald meet Jonathan Karl. And I might add, Washington Post meet ABC News.

Yes, Snowden had PC access to the network that had the PowerPoint presentation on these programs and that exposed an internal security issue with PC access but Snowden has not backed up his other claims with any kind of detail extracted from the actual databases. Yes, he likely has more PC based data that was not properly secured but that is not likely that critical.

I can't believe I am seeing ppl on this board thinking that big brother is just OK! Decided in secret, with secret orders that no one can ever verify or talk about.

But privacy advocates, such as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), said the intelligence committee on which he serves needs “straight answers” to do vigorous oversight.

He added: “The typical person says, ‘If I am law-abiding and the government is out there collecting lots of information about me — who I call, when I call, where I call from’ .?.?. I think the typical person is going to say, ‘That sure sounds like it could have some effect on my privacy.’ ”

...

"The NSA calls Internet metadata “digital network information.” Sophisticated analysis of those records can reveal unknown associates of known terrorism suspects. Depending on the methods applied, it can also expose medical conditions, political or religious affiliations, confidential business negotiations and extramarital affairs."

"Earlier on Saturday it was revealed that one of the Congressman present at a secret briefing given by intelligence chiefs on Tuesday claims he was told that agents did not have to obtain extra approval to listen to the content of calls."

(Ummm - if they're only collecting metadata, how can they listen to content unless all that is being saved as well?)


You can trust "policy" if you want, but I think the country needs to see the Constitution observed, and that does not include following its citizens around so that they can dig dirt on anyone they see as threat, politically or to the status quo

And that's all I have to say because I am going to run off to another thread or another forum

I don't give a damn how effective it is! IF they just put a tracker in us when we were born, or wore the ankle bracelets all the time we would certainly be able to find the scofflaw quicker, because they'd know where everyone had been all the time. The phone and internet data is the same - following you around all the time. This is how police states operate, not free societies.

Because they are reading this. And at this point don't put anything past them.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Which would have made your post either really funny or really scary.

we will keep trying until some shit sticks to the wall.