President Barack Obama assured the American people yesterday that the NSA warrantless surveillance programs are entirely “transparent.” He then promised to extradite and prosecute the man who told the public about it. None of that causes any pause for the White House or its supporters. It makes perfect sense. Indeed, it helps explain how Obama promised the “most transparent” Administration in history and proceeded to expand a secret security state. It turns out that “transparent” simply means something different with Obama, just as the noun “war” is left to his definition. It turns out that transparent means that the government can see it — and see us. Total transparency in our new fishbowl society.
Obama’s interview with Charlie Rose is indicative of how disengenuous this discussion has become. Democratic members have joined Obama in carefully parsing language to avoid the obvious rollback on privacy. They have focused on the question of whether the government is “reading” the content of emails and calls as opposed to gathering a wide array of information on who you are calling, how long, and from where. They ignore the obvious danger in such databanks in giving the government the ability to follow citizens in realtime. It is part of the effort, discussed earlier in columns, to redefine privacy in a new surveillance friendly image. After doublethinking privacy, Obama has moved on to doublethinking transparency. It is no easy task, particularly to convince a free people:
to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
Despite the fact that civil libertarians have scoffed at the distinction, Obama continues to pretend that the only danger is actually reading such calls and emails.
To add to the obvious evasion, Obama continues to refer to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or secret court, as if it were a real court or had some meaningful powers of review. Obama told Rose, “That’s why we set up the FISA court.” Of course, he did not set up the FISA court which has been around for decades and widely ridiculed as an absurd rubberstamp for the intelligence agency. Only a couple applications have been denied in the history of that “court.” When I had occasion to got into the court as a young intern with NSA, it set in place a lifelong opposition to it as an insult to the very concept of legal process. For Obama to cite this “court” as the guarantee of transparency is nothing short of insulting. This is the court that classifies (at the demand of Obama’s Administration) the very legal interpretations used to justify massive warrantless searches of citizens.
Obama then returned to the same evasive approach to the programs: “We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place … that their phone calls aren’t being listened into; their text messages aren’t being monitored, their emails are not being read by some big brother somewhere.” First, Obama is saying that he will ask a rubber-stamp court to read any communications as if that is an assurance of any kind. Second, he is again falling to even acknowledge the wide array of information that they are collecting without such an order. Third, we do not have to fear of “some big brother somewhere.” We know where to find big brother. He is the one assuring us that he has a secret court to guarantee transparency.
In the meantime, Obama wants to put the man in jail for life so told the public about the secret program. That is not part of the new transparency or any part of the new privacy of the Obama era.
This type of logic was explained before as Orwell “doublethink”:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Here is the full interview and is guaranteed to make you stop worrying about the police state:
I hope all this “transparency” does not mean that JT is going to be investigated since he was a former intern of NSA:
(ibid). Sounds like they are seeking sympathy and really stretching it.
You, kinow, transparently.
Gene H. 1, June 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“Firstly, TRANSPARENCY (in a social behavioral sense) does not mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean you can SEE everything I do when I do it. It means that I will explain to you what I did AFTER I did it. It means accountability, openness, etc. It doesn’t mean that you will be able to violate operational security and look over my shoulder during NSA listening to suspected terrorist chatter.”
Gibberish legally speaking.
======================================
Sorry about the comment above, it was the gibberished.
And gibberish when the merits come up perhaps.
The FISC order that was leaked is mystifying the “transparency” challenged government:
(Daily Beast). Sounds like it is so transparent that no one can see how it got out to the whole wide world:
(ibid) O, In the Sky!, this transparency is so loud, so open, that it is causing them to sweat reality:
(ibid). This transparency is so powerful … it makes them suspect FISC itself:
(ibid). Well, that explains how clear it is that this is the most transparent thingy in all of thingy history.
Gene H. 1, June 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“Firstly, TRANSPARENCY (in a social behavioral sense) does not mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean you can SEE everything I do when I do it. It means that I will explain to you what I did AFTER I did it. It means accountability, openness, etc. It doesn’t mean that you will be able to violate operational security and look over my shoulder during NSA listening to suspected terrorist chatter.”
Gibberish legally speaking.
======================================
And gibberish when the merits come up perhaps.
The FISC order that was leaked is mystifying the “transparency” challenged government:
The FBI is investigating whether the highly protected and segregated computer systems that store the secret court warrants authorizing electronic surveillance inside the United States have been breached, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. Thirteen days after the Guardian published a top-secret court order from the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court disclosing the National Security Agency’s collection of all phone records from Verizon’s business customers over a three-month period, the U.S. intelligence community has yet to determine how the warrant, one of the most highly classified documents inside the U.S. government, was leaked.
(Daily Beast). Sounds like it is so transparent that no one can see how it got out to the whole wide world:
Those who receive the warrant—the first of its kind to be publicly disclosed—are not allowed “to disclose to any other person” except to carry out its terms or receive legal advice about it, and any person seeing it for those reasons is also legally bound not to disclose the order. The officials say phone companies like Verizon are not allowed to store a digital copy of the warrant, and that the documents are not accessible on most NSA internal classified computer networks or on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, the top-secret internet used by the U.S. intelligence community.
The warrants reside on two computer systems affiliated with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. Both systems are physically separated from other government-wide computer networks and employ sophisticated encryption technology, the officials said. Even lawmakers and staff lawyers on the House and Senate intelligence committees can only view the warrants in the presence of Justice Department attorneys, and are prohibited from taking notes on the documents.
(ibid) O, In the Sky!, this transparency is so loud, so open, that it is causing them to sweat reality:
“The only time that our attorneys would have gotten to read one was if Justice Department lawyers came over with it in a secure pouch and sat there with them when they read them,” said Pete Hoekstra, a former Republican chairman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “There was never one in the intelligence-committee spaces, never one left there without someone from the Justice Department. It would not have been left there overnight.”
(ibid). This transparency is so powerful … it makes them suspect FISC itself:
U.S. intelligence officials were careful to say investigators have not yet concluded there is a mole inside the FISA Court or that the secure databases that store the court warrants have been compromised, only that both prospects were under active investigation.
If the secret court has been breached, it would be one of the most significant intelligence failures in U.S. history
(ibid). Well, that explains how clear it is that this is the most transparent thingy in all of thingy history.
“I kinda’ think none of this has actually happened to any of you nor has the MSM reported it.”
I have also never had my front door kicked in, a flash-bang tossed in and my house shot up… I have never had a prosecutor withhold exculpatory evidence… I have never been prevented from assembling at a demonstration or speaking out in public… I could go on.
But I am definitely concerned about these kinds of things. And I think every citizen should be.
We should all be concerned about the legality.
Even if certain acts are legal, we should all be concerned about reasonableness based on things like assessment of the threat and proportionality.
When it comes to our liberty, the most dangerous thing of all is for citizens to turn their back thinking ‘I have not done anything so I don’t need to worry.’
Constitutional rights were never intended to protect the guilty.
Constitutional rights protect ordinary citizens from over zealous government agents and unlimited government power.
Why do I have the impression that oil in Iran is the ultimate goal?
pt. 2
Ditto mespo on Nicks comment about Orwellian…..
JK,
You’re gonna get in trouble if you bash Hillary the Hessian and Obama the King of Hawaii in the same sentence…..
sonofthunderboanerges
1, June 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm
= = =
Mr Obama’s job IS to take care of us Americans.
= = =
At what point does his oath allow the president to violate Amendments in order to preserve them? At which point is it protecting the law when it’s been shredded? And how is defending the values of the Constitution by ordering it violated?
HIs Oath is to the Nation is that he WILL protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. Collecting copies of ALL your personal papers and effects just so that I know that who you talk to, write to, meet, etc. isn’t a bad guy? So you’re leading me to the bad guy? As if you’re a bad guy too?
Gene warns, “Obama nor Bush are/were the King of this country but you sure couldn’t tell by their prime facie unconstitutional actions.”
Add Hillary at this rate.
Bron weakly fights ancient, lost battles with, “but I imagine you and others see a lot of stuff that isnt in there that has been promoted by progressives for the last 120 years.”
Privacy is not a partisan issue. Please pay closer attention.
And please stick to what I have said, not what you imagine my position to be.
“Firstly, TRANSPARENCY (in a social behavioral sense) does not mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean you can SEE everything I do when I do it. It means that I will explain to you what I did AFTER I did it. It means accountability, openness, etc. It doesn’t mean that you will be able to violate operational security and look over my shoulder during NSA listening to suspected terrorist chatter.”
Gibberish legally speaking. The 4th Amendment doesn’t state that your rights can be violated so long as someone explains it to you afterwards. Not to mention, if they – meaning the government – hadn’t been publicly exposed in the media, the chances of getting any explanation of a process “approved by secret courts” is a number so close to zero as to be indistinguishable.
Also, the difference between personnel interpreting data and a machine interpreting data to spy on you is a difference without distinction.
As for “it’s his job to protect us!”? To a degree, certainly, but when the cost of that protection is civil liberties and treating the Constitution (as Bob, Esq. likes to say) like urinal puck, then the cost of that security is too high and the admonishment of Franklin applies.
Obama should be impeached for this and the Bush Administration should be brought to trial for their role in creating this tyrannical police state monstrosity (among other things like treason and war crimes).
Our Founders did not back the Declaration of Independence, fight the War of Independence or draft an enact the Constitution so we could trade the unjust tyranny of the English monarchy for the tyranny of an unjust “serial monarchy” disguised as a Presidency. Obama nor Bush are/were the King of this country but you sure couldn’t tell by their prime facie unconstitutional actions.
I hate to be the antagonist here but most of you, including Jonathan, are WAAAY out in left field on this one. Firstly, TRANSPARENCY (in a social behavioral sense) does not mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean you can SEE everything I do when I do it. It means that I will explain to you what I did AFTER I did it. It means accountability, openness, etc. It doesn’t mean that you will be able to violate operational security and look over my shoulder during NSA listening to suspected terrorist chatter.
You people are so worried about your silly little phone calls, emails, and other social media communications; like sex-talk, surfing porn, Facebooking, Twitter, discussing minor business deals, talking to mom, etc. IMHO you have nothing to worry about unless you’re talking to a suspected terrorist on a watch-list. Didn’t you know that AT&T (aka Bell Telephone) has been doing this for decades dating back to beyond WW2 by calling it “routine maintenance monitoring”? Yes they listen in on THEIR lines (since they are the actual owners not you) to insure you aren’t misusing them. And yes they record some with portable tape recorders to share with others as humor. Illegal? Not really (except for the tape recorder for humor part).
Yes I think the intelligence collection systems are sucking in data like a huge vacuum cleaner like a reverse fire hose. But who is listening to it all? Is it an actual human being? Or is it acres and acres of Cray/Titan supercomputers? Arguably this is a no-brainer. I think the system simply listens for a plethora of audio or text keyword combinations. Then when hit it files a follow-up report with a special ID for the operational research analyst to go actually listen to the audio to verify that you are actually a POI (person of interest).
The “meta-data”, as they are calling it now, must simply be the particulars of the communication, like time-stamp, phone numbers, IP addresses, names & addresses (from providers’s CN&A (customer names and addresses) online database), etc. If you are NOT on the watch-list, if you are not typing or saying the correct combination of suspicious phrases, and you are not conversing/communicating with a known watch-list person, then what’s the big deal? You would just be passed over for something more suspicious in nature. (SPECIAL NOTE: it probably NEVER hits on one-word keywords. It must be a combination of keywords that someone like you would probably never use UNLESS you were actually guilty of something).
The only part where you should be worried and politically outraged (of course knowing you are COMPLETELY innocent) is when you see the surveillance trucks sneaking around your home area, suspicious joggers, bikers, and door-to-door cold canvassers trying to sell you ridiculous stuff trying to get in your house. Also the phone, cable, or utility guy who you let in for whatever reason and you loose track of what he is doing for a few minutes. Knocks at the door from badged federal agents with acronym-ed emblazoned windbreakers, actual search warrants for your house, and/or some sort of subpoena for you to appear in Federal court over some homeland security issue.
I kinda’ think none of this has actually happened to any of you nor has the MSM reported it. So as Shakespeare said: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Mr Obama’s job IS to take care of us Americans. If he prevents one terrorist from pulling another Boston Bomber situation then he is doing his job! Nobody in the IC cares about you sex-texting your mistress… unless you’re not a POI that is… (LOL)
Fear not, JT. he’s not convincing anybody of anything:
http://rt.com/usa/obama-rating-surveillance-scandal-830/
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Kudos, nick.
Dredd, LOL, thanks.
Obama’s position on this = Balderdash!
Our “We the People” govt has been overrun by Merge of the Govt & Big Biz Fascist.
We the people are under continued heavy violent attack by them everyday & they want us all dead or in prison left to die.
We know this because the Modern Nazis Wallst/Dem/Repub Parties running this dimocide are poisoning us with poisons in air/water/food/vaccines/geoengineering.
While we work to correct their treason we can at least attempt to laugh at it.
** NSA Agent Caught SNOOPING on Video by Tom Mabe
Prison Planet.com
June 18, 2013
Government NSA Agent caught red handed eavesdropping on cellphone users. **
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nsa-agent-caught-snooping-on-video-by-tom-mabe.html
Find the interview with Greenwald at Democracy Now: “Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who broke the NSA surveillance story earlier this month, joins us one day after both President Obama and whistleblower Edward Snowden gave extensive interviews on the surveillance programs Snowden exposed and Obama is now forced to defend. Speaking to PBS, Obama distinguished his surveillance efforts from those of the Bush administration and reaffirmed his insistence that no Americans’ phone calls or emails are being directly monitored without court orders. Greenwald calls Obama’s statements “outright false” for omitting the warrantless spying on phone calls between Americans and callers outside the United States. “It is true that the NSA can’t deliberately target U.S. citizens for [warrantless] surveillance, but it is also the case they are frequently engaged in surveillance of exactly that kind of invasive technique involving U.S. persons,”