Our Country is dying FAST!

[rrhill]

[h=1]Before PRISM there was Total Information Awareness[/h]
The PRISM program— in which the NSA is able to collect and then search Americans’ internet data—did indeed begin during the Bush administration. And the program’s ancestry is both fascinating and infuriating. The roots of it stretch all the way back to a program called Total Information Awareness.
Now if that name rings a bell, it should. Because when it was proposed, in the wake of 9/11, it got a huge amount of press.

(...)

There was a huge backlash against the idea of just collecting everyone’s data. From left, right and center, it sounded to a lot of folks like the kind of data mining that treats everyone in America as a potential terror suspect. So Congress used the 2004 defense appropriations bill to defund Total Information Awareness.
But that was not the end of the story. Because allowing a program that’s being rejected by the American citizenry to die off is not the only option when you happen to be working on surveillance. Option number two is just doing it anyway, but secretly...
read more: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/02/before-prism-there-was-total-information-awareness/

 

[joninliverton]

Jon, I'm surprised that Chile isn't on the list. During the Falkland war, Chile backstabbed Argentina quite mightily. Chile allowed UK jets to overfly the country and prepare a base in southern Chile (!) The politicians want people to believe that all is well and that the two countries are "sisters". BS. They all know what really happened, that's one of the reasons why Argentines tend to dislike Chileans, there's a very strained rivalry there.

Well good for Chile supporting their British friends and indeed Mrs Thatcher supported General Pinochet. But France also stabbed the UK by supplying Argentina with Exorcet missiles that sank our ships. Countries politicians will do anything for money.

 

[andy]

I guess that's why France is in unconfirmed in the asylum list you posted And, lookie, Venezuela is there too!!

 

[rrhill]

The only places where Edward Snowden would be safe are Tehran and North Korea... (Shoot the messenger if you must)

Tonight the US ordered France, Spain, Italy and Portugal to block their airspace for the airplane of a president of an independent country. The presidential plane got searched in Austria - with permission of the president Austrians cried... This is unheard of in diplomatic relationships. (How could the US intelligence agencies be wrong? Did president Obama sat down in his war room, as back then when they killed Osama Bin Laden?)

After Mondays revelation the EU countries are spied upon, their privacy laws broken... What does it tell you when they stop and search a diplomatic flight? The EU countries are marionettes from the US... At first Ecuador dared to step up, and now? Bugs are found in their London embassy... and the country had to took back their asylum invitation.
read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/hidden-microphone-ecuador-embassy-assange
and: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/ecuador-rafael-correa-snowden-mistake?INTCMP=SRCH

The US threatens all countries including China and Russia... remember the strange remark from Putin? Asylum if Snowden would stop harming the US... Now, that's new...

In their fight against terrorism, the US and the UK are rapidly becoming totalitarian states themselves. Snowden told us nothing we didn't already knew or feared, did he? All the spying on Americans is done under the Federal Intelligence Act; and fully statutory authorized. That does not mean it's not in conflict with the US constitution. But till Edward Snowden delivered us the proof on paper, this spying on Americans could not be proven. Till now the trials by the ACLU's got blocked, protected by the States Secret Privilege Act. Now this policy of spying on all Americans can - and should - be challenged before the US Supreme Court.
read: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/aclu-nsa-edward-snowden-surveillance-lawsuit

 

[joninliverton]

Interesting that you should constantly choose the Guardian as a source of information. It is one of the most unpopular papers in the uk. I doubt if France would listen to anything that the US said if it was dubious such as this subject. Robert your rants sound rather worrying and I would be careful not to sound out too much in public, albeit that you live in Holland. Lesser motivated people have bombed planes, tubes and buses in the past. Just saying.

 

[Ambivalent]

I've known a few techies in my life and I think I see why Robert is so worked up over this. Among those who are well trained and highly skilled in the computer field there are 2 views on computer hackers. Somebody who is deemed to be hacking for what he perceives to be noble cause, even if he is breaking some laws in the process, is considered a "white hat" hacker. That kind of person might for instance probe the security systems of major companies looking to see if bad guys could get in to do harm. If a weakness in the security system is found, the white hat hacker would inform the company. Because he sees himself as doing this for the public good.

The company in question can respond in at least 2 ways. They can take action to close the security weakness discovered by the hacker and thank him. Or they can press charges against the hacker for breaching the security of a private company and then try to get him put away. Some companies refuse to see a difference between "white hats" and "black hats" and will prosecute both with equal vigor. Sometimes a white hat might find illegal doings against customers by the company itself and then report the company to the authorities. In which case the company might still try to press charges against the hacker for illegally accessing company info.

A hacker who is out to enrich himself and steal from others is of course the worst kind. He will hack into companies for instance to steal credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank account info, etc. In the industry those are called the "black hat" hackers. Their motivation is only illegal personal gain.

I'm guessing that Snowden was being asked to do all of this intrusive intelligence gathering and in the beginning at least he felt that if he was doing anything illegal, that he was doing it for the public good. Then he became disenchanted by everything he was doing because most techies believe that all information should be free...and that private internet (and telephone) activities of individuals should remain just that.

I believe that among computer geeks around the world that most of them (though not all of them) view Snowden as wearing the white hat. In the course of the ongoing and sure to be upcoming debates on this massive domestic intelligence gathering...the general public at large will be deciding (among other things) if Snowden is wearing the white hat or the black one.

***************************

Tampa -

Snowden has publicly acknowledged that he sought employment at Booz Allen to access information about NSA programmes. Just because of that, the debate about his motives will continue - but, it does seem clear that he sought this employment to make the headlines, he is now making ;-) http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/usa-security-booz-snowden-idINDEE95N0GH20130624

"A" XOXOXOXO

 

[Ambivalent]

Well,

This is a very interesting discussion, and I know it is one that won't be done, soon. I am mostly on Jon's side in the analysis of all this - though, Jon, I have no problem in anyone's using The Guardian as a source, as long as that reference refers to simple reporting, rather than its editorial pages. . . and I also think what you doubtless intended as a friendly joke, in RRhill's direction, was a serious breach of courtesy. One is entitled to disagree vehemently with various governments' security policies ~ as RR clearly does, without being tarred as someone with seditious sentiments. I heartily disagree with much of what RR has put forth, in this thread, but still, I regard him as a thoroughly honourable person, in expressing the opinions, he has.

This present debate is a very difficult one, and involves so many "grey areas" in matters of the delicate balance between civil rights and essential security - leading legal experts in the U.K., the U.S., and Canada (not to mention, everywhere else) are very much at odds about all of this. So let us, please, extend the basic intellectual courtesy of allowing an intelligent friend to "agree to disagree" ~ I believe that this is essential. Humorous sallies, notwithstanding!

I do disagree with "RR", on a number of points:
* While it is clearly not COMPLETELY POLITE that the U.S. spies on the E.U. - as they surely also spy on Canada - (Of course, WE all spy back on the U.S., you can be sure of it ;-): this is simply a fact of international relations, which will only end at some distant future moment, when, as the Utopian Socialist Charles Fourier speculated: the North Pole will become milder than the Mediterranean; every woman will have four lovers; and all the oceans will turn to lemonade. . . .
* "RR's" depiction of the U.S.A.'s, and the U.K.'s, intelligence-gathering programmes is, I think, not entirely correct. I believe that he greatly overestimates either the interest or the CAPACITY of intelligence services to turn ACCESS into PERSECUTION - especially in societies which are growing (ever-so-gradually) more tolerant, at the behest of public opinion. (Witness, for example, the United States' Supreme Court's decisions on Proposition 8, and the "Defense of Marriage Act", this past week or so. . . )
* We live in a new, and very difficult age - not only in the Anglo-Saxon nations, but also in The Kingdom of the Netherlands (which I love - my brother-in-law is Dutch, you know). Terrorists of all sorts now regularly make contact with one another, and contract their schemes, via the Internet. The NSA claims that it has been able to foil up to 50 terrorist plots using the information to which they have access - and, just this weekend, a couple of disturbed individuals who planned to bomb the British Columbia legislature, in Canada, were disrupted in their attempt, by police: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/07/02/bc-victoria-bomb-motivation.html
* Therefore, I am not hugely exercised by the fact that, when given a lead, police services in democratic countries have access to search e-mails. Of course, there ought to be checks and balances in place, and, to this extent, "RR's" posts do us a service, in reminding us of this.
* I think, personally, that "RR's" posts comparing President Obama to former President Nixon, are just SILLY. Nixon used the power of his office, directly and unabashedly, to persecute his political enemies. This is a matter of historical record. There is no evidence that President Obama has ever done this. Not to mention: Obama is the author of historic initiatives to benefit the poor, and bring greater justice and equity to gay people living in his country. If you are looking for an historical demon, "RR" - I think you could find a worthier one ;-)
* I also think, personally, that "RR's" posts suggesting that the U.S. is more a danger to China and Russia, than vice versa, are entirely risible. China's hacking of U.S. industrial and military secrets has been proceeding at a monumental pace, for quite some time: and any U.S. defensive efforts in this regard, are to be lauded, rather than condemned.
* As far as poor Mr. Putin - well, RR - if you believed Putin's schtick that "Snowden must stop hurting our American partners, in order to STAY". . . then, I'm afraid, I must reluctantly toss you a free voucher to the kindergarten of foreign relations ;-) Vladimir Putin is not QUITE the nice man you seem to believe he is. . . . in fact, he is an autocrat, who has gradually degraded ALL nascent democratic institutions in his country. . . . he has gradually degraded and devalued and SET BACK all aspects of civil society in Russia, over the past decade or so - - - including the prospects for gay people in that country: AND, his playing with Snowden (like a tiger, with a little mouse) has been a clear ploy to USE the Snowden incident to bolster his own people's sense that HE is a democrat, while others are not, and to bolster his own regime's waning legitimacy, based on Russians' traditional xenophobia. This is what Garry Kasparov has to say about the West's obeisance to Putin ;-) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ama-as-syria-burns-and-snowden-runs-free.html

*****************************************************

So, no, "RR", I don't agree with you, about your judgements regarding Snowden, the NSA, the U.S.A., the U.K., Obama, or all the rest of it. I think you are mostly incorrect. And perhaps (if you will forgive my saying so, and I know you won't, and shouldn't;-) a little naïve about international politics, as well. (It wasn't "niceness", and "sweetness" that saved Western Europe from Soviet occupation - or which eventually freed Eastern Europe, either - it was toughness, large expenditures on armaments in the face of HUGE opposition from hundreds of thousands of protesters in West Berlin, and Munich: and yes, quite a little bit of SPYING, too ;-)

"RR", where I think your argument is well-taken is, in this regard: it is not such a bad thing that democratic countries should have a public debate about the limits of public surveillance, to ensure that the broad limits are well-demarcated. (Though this is never an easy thing.) Perhaps Mr. Snowden has brought us to the threshold of such a debate a little more quickly than would otherwise have happened - though I think it would have happened, anyway. (And, if he had been a patriotic citizen, there were OTHER GOOD and LESS PREJUDICIAL means for him to have raised this debate, than the one he chose.) But this is precisely why I shan't fault you for your substantive opinions (with which I disagree): even though I share your concern about some of the procedural questions, in this matter.

Hugs,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

P.S. A good spy story is always amusing ;-))))) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEsWi88Qv0

P.P.S. Being a defector isn't always fun - just ask Kim Philby's son ;-) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9818727/Kim-Philby-Father-husband-traitor-spy.html

 

[rrhill]

Interesting that you should constantly choose the Guardian as a source of information. It is one of the most unpopular papers in the uk. I doubt if France would listen to anything that the US said if it was dubious such as this subject. Robert your rants sound rather worrying and I would be careful not to sound out too much in public, albeit that you live in Holland. Lesser motivated people have bombed planes, tubes and buses in the past. Just saying.

The Guardian is one of the two newspapers that Snowden provided with his documents. The Guardian is the source... and the newspaper to read!

The EU already shares extensive data of their citizens with the US, legally by two treaties. Next Europe works close together in the fight against terrorism.

Are you still thinking that massive spying by the US and UK on the EU has anything to with terrorism? This is economic spying!

"I doubt if France would listen to anything that the US said if it was dubious such as this subject."
US admits contact with other countries over potential Snowden flights – as it happened
The US government has admitted that it had been in contact with other nations about potential flights involving Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower. The State Department would not comment on whether it had made any specific respresentations over Morales's flight.
read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

Listen to what the conservatives say:

 

[rrhill]

Restore the Fourth protesters stage rallies against NSA surveillance

San Francisco protest to target Senator Dianne Feinstein as part of demands for reform of Patriot Act across the US

Protesters plan to rally across the US on Thursday, to demonstrate opposition to sweeping National Security Agency surveillance programs.
The events are being organized under a newly hatched organization called Restore the Fourth, named for constitutionally guaranteed protection against illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Rallies and marches are expected to take place in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, New York City, Washington DC and dozens of other US cities.

Ryan Brown, a regional leader for the San Francisco Bay protests who has been coordinating with national organizers, said his participation in Restore the Fourth stemmed from concern over excessive governmental power implied by the spying programs. "I see it as ethically disgusting that the government has both the opportunity and the ability … to collect the data on us individually, without a given reason other than quote-unquote 'protecting our freedoms'," he said.
Restore the Fourth describes itself as a "grassroots, non-partisan, non-violent movement", according to its website. Its central demands are to ask Congress to enact reform of the Patriot Act, which has been used as legal justification for the surveillance programs, to call for the formation of a special committee to investigate the extent of the spying programs, and to hold public officials accountable if they are found to be responsible for unconstitutional surveillance efforts.
read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/04/restore-the-fourth-protesters-nsa-surveillance
and: http://www.restorethefourth.net/

 

[joninliverton]

Ambi - I'm not here for people to take sides and it is not a Robert vs Jon battle as you may think. People should realise that without intelligence surveillance then Bin Laden would not have been caught, many of the current terrorist leaders that have been bombed by the drones would still be running around plotting against their hated Western world.

And by the way, these are my own thoughts and not those of the Guardian or other quoted interviews.

 

[Ambivalent]

Hey, Jon ~

I realize that you are not asking people to take sides; I recognize that your thoughts are your own, and not parroted from some newspaper; and I have simply stated my OWN thoughts on this matter, to the best of my ability - as I am sure you and Robert both have done. I realize fully that you both are offering sincere perspectives, upon an important issue which matters to all of us. I seek to diminish or demean, neither of you - nor do I discount the possibility that there may be areas in which your positions may overlap - or occasion further questioning or revision, from either one, or both of you. (As my notions might require revision in the light of fact, also.)

My studies, and my subsequent work, have made me a rather conservative person (with a small "c") - and I do believe that democracies must be vigilant at their borders, and with respect to internal sedition, and home-grown terrorism: especially in the Internet age. I am fully apprised of, and sympathize with, the cautions you expressed in your last letter. That is why I (in large measure) agree with your take on this incredibly complex problem, Jon.

However, I am also keenly aware of the tendency even rather well-functioning democratic governments, with the best of intentions, have, to OVERREACH their mandates, when it comes to issues of national security: and that is why I think that Robert's cautions (though overstated, to my way of thinking) deserve a listen, also. Because small excesses in the exercise of governmental authority can become larger ones, in an augenblick ~ so educated and caring electorates must keep a wary eye out, for these, too.

Aristotle famously observed that every virtue subsists mid-way between two vices. So it is, in the always perplexing art of government: one of the few arenas in which (contra Mae West, and her disciple, Liberace) too much of a good thing is NOT NECESSARILY wonderful. And that is why, except in great crises, the best democratic leaders are often not Inspiring Admirals: but rather, quite cautious little sailors, who tack back and forth, as the prevailing winds demand.

I hope this suffices, as clarification, Jon!

"A" XOXOXOXOXO

P.S. You are one of the dearest and FUNNIEST guys I know, and you are really tugging at my heartstrings, lately; for, even when we AGREE, we DISAGREE!!! I never cease to marvel at how different our perceptions of the world are ~ but, knowing you a little better, I have really come to love this, about you ;-)

 

[Ambivalent]

Ahem - - -

THIS JUST IN: APPARENTLY ~ former Russian spy, "Anna Chapman", has proposed (via Twitter) to Edward Snowden, asking him, "Snowden, will you marry me???" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ex-russian-spy-hots-snowden-article-1.1389534

And, why the hell NOT? His treasonous proclivities aside - I think Snowden is really pretty cute! (I wouldn't mind seeing him on Broke Straight Boys, bottoming for Paul Canon, that's for sure ;-) http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/snowden-teenage-photos/66180/

And, Anna has a pretty button nose, and. . . wouldn't they make the most ADORABLE children???

Just saying,
"A" ;-))))

P.S. I think there's a beautiful romance novel, in it all, somewhere ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZoU3nwbfw

 

[rrhill]

It reminds me of another novel:

 

[rrhill]

Part II of the Snowden interview:

 

[broadbander]

I'm just happy that Perry isn't running again for Governor of Texas.

 

[angelone]

I suggested that the Europeans let the Americans run their currency and government. Now I think that the Europeans should intervene in US politics and bring some sanity to our dead-lock Congress. The Europeans must be scratching their heads everytime our Republicans open their mouths on the economy and for that matter on any subject. Europe may not be perfect but at least they're civilized, that is to say, they take care of the vulnerable in society and try to equalize the wealth.

 

[joninliverton]

I suggested that the Europeans let the Americans run their currency and government. Now I think that the Europeans should intervene in US politics and bring some sanity to our dead-lock Congress. The Europeans must be scratching their heads everytime our Republicans open their mouths on the economy and for that matter on any subject. Europe may not be perfect but at least they're civilized, that is to say, they take care of the vulnerable in society and try to equalize the wealth.

Make your mind up dude. You stated that America saved us all twice in the last century, which I dispute. Now you are saying that we are more civilised. I don't think America running our currency and government is a good idea considering it was America that started the worldwide banking crash, due to the sub prime markets and the likes of Enron. Similarly I don't think America would be happy with the British immigration police at present. We could of course advise you on a free health service.

 

[tim114114]

I am currently reading a book, The Great Deformation, by David Stockman. I am about half way thur it. It is a tome of about 750 pages. This guy may be right. He is a free-market guy and a fan of the gold standard.

 

[rrhill]

[h=1]Fascist America, in 10 easy steps[/h] From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. George Bush and now this Obama administration seem to be taking them all.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

 

[tampa24]

I'm just happy that Perry isn't running again for Governor of Texas.

So Will... Do you think Snowden is a black hat, a white hat or a gray hat?