This morning we have yet another article detailing a warrantless surveillance program by the National Security Agency that contradicts representations made by President Barack Obama and members of Congress. You may recall how Obama has tried to get citizens to embrace a new surveillance-friendly model of privacy after the disclosure of massive surveillance of citizens, including programs acquiring every call made by citizens. Various Democratic members came forward to admit that they knew of such programs and not to be afraid . . . they have our backs. Yet every story that has surfaced has contradicted claims that such programs are limited and do not involve the content of communications in emails and messages. The latest program being reported is called XKeyscore and is described as scouring emails, chat rooms, and browsing histories . . . all without a warrant. In the meantime, citizens in polls are saying that they are more concerned with the threat of their own government to their privacy than the threat of terrorism. Once again, citizens learned of this program not from their representative or their media but largely from the foreign press and the disclosures of Edward Snowden.
Of course, media allies of the President are expressing exasperation with people like Snowden in keeping them from moving on to other subjects and away from the eradication of privacy in America.
The NSA for its part has denied reports “of widespread, unchecked analyst access to NSA collection data are simply not true.” Something tells me it is the “unchecked” that the agency is stressing. The Obama Administration is infamous for replacing due process and privacy guarantees with its own self-evaluation and monitoring guarantees.
This program is described as allowing the agency access to “nearly everything a typical user does on the internet” in “real time.”
As these reports mount, the Democratic Party remains largely silent. While there was a highly orchestrated vote on the surveillance program recently (that predictably failed by just a few votes), the Democratic Party has now joined prior Bush supporters in attacking the most fundamental protections of U.S. citizens. The winner is a growing security state that employs hundreds of thousands and pours hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of agencies and their contractors. Citizens have become the subjects of such programs like raw material for an insatiable and unstoppable surveillance machine.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald has detailed how low-level employees have access to such material. My guess is that the NSA will focus on that issue rather than the existence of these programs. It is now a common technique of the Obama Administration: focusing on the procedures rather than the privacy concerns. We are likely to hear about criteria and internal reviews as part of the “trust me I am Obama” approach to authoritarian powers. After all, they got away with that in announcing a policy allowing Obama to vaporize U.S. citizens based on his sole authority.
With Congress now fully supporting this surveillance state, citizens are left with a dangerous vacuum in our constitutional system. The federal courts have created a blind spot where they bar judicial review on the basis of increasingly narrow standing rules and classification barriers. Even reading about these issues is difficult. As we have been discussing, the U.S. media has largely yielded to demands of the White House not to call Snowden a whistleblower and we often have to read about these programs from foreign sources like the Guardian.
How did we come to this point as a nation?
ap,
That last article that you quoted is scary and is evidence of what is really happening to our emails.
The problem with the maxim “If you aren’t doing anything wrong…” is failing to realize exactly what falls into the category of “wrong” for people with power and money: Threatening their power and money!
Which includes anything one might try to do to make things better, in business, in industry, in academia, in the military, in the government.
I would ask them, is there anything in society, in the law, in business that you believe should be different than it is? Because if there is, chances are that changing it will compete with the interests of somebody powerful, or somebody rich that has a lot of influence with the powerful. The difference between your friends spying on you and the rich and powerful spying on you is what they can do to you with the results. Trust them with that information at your peril, because they will abuse it if you ever get in their way.
New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online
Long Island resident said her web search history and ‘trying to learn how to cook lentils’ prompted a visit from authorities
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker
Excerpt:
Still, she was left worried by the visit, which she attributes to her family’s internet history.
“I felt a sense of creeping dread take over. What else had I looked up? What kind of searches did I do that alone seemed innocent enough but put together could make someone suspicious? Were they judging me because my house was a mess (Oh my god, the joint terrorism task force was in my house and there were dirty dishes in my sink!). Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety. This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.
All I know is if I’m going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I’m not doing it online.
I’m scared. And not of the right things.”
From the Government Accountability Project (GAP):
“In late July, members of the press and public gathered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to watch a GAP-produced panel comprised of experts, journalists and whistleblowers discuss the current state of US national security, the NSA’s surveillance programs, and the future of whistleblowing and journalism in a surveillance state.
The first panel – moderated by nationally syndicated columnist David Sirota – focused on the stories of four whistleblowers: NSA truth-tellers Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe and telecom whistleblower Babak Pasdar, all GAP clients. They were joined by experts from the Cato Institute, Electronic Privacy Informationc Center (EPIC) and GAP National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack.
A video of that discussion can be viewed here.
The second panel featured moderator James Risen from the New York Times and focused on the future of the free press in a country where surveillance issues are tantamount and national security whistleblower rights are slim. Risen is revered for his outspoken protection of his sources’ anonymities among a mainstream media that is increasingly anti-whistleblower.”
http://youtu.be/lY-75_j0BNw
CMICMOMCOM needs something to calm her down …Kraaken:
“I think Dr. Jefferies was correct; we DO get the government we deserve.”
I have to agree.
Nope, nevermind. Thanks.
Lost a posting to the moderation filter…
Bron/Louise, That is also my experience. People under ~30 or so are much better than our generation in many aspects, including but limited to, gay issues, race, etc. They come up short on privacy. They don’t see the difference between them giving up their privacy via social media and the govt. “spying” on you. However, as they advance in their careers they do see the problems w/ social media vis a vis their employers or prospective employers “spying”. They have not made the connection to govt., and won’t until there’s a big story showing the dangers. Not a Snowden, something bigger. Like the government spying on Taylor Swift!!
Dredd @ 10:43: “How did we come to this point as a nation?
One thing is quite clear to me: it is not the fault of the people.”
I think, Dredd, on this point we’re going to differ. Years ago in a PS class, I remember the profs favorite motto was: ‘The People get the government they deserve.’ After class one day I asked him exactly what that meant. He told me that since the officials were elected by the people, when someone like, say, a Reagan is elected, we only have ourselves to blame. At that time in my life I thought that was a bit cynical. Now, twenty + years later, I’m not so sure. In Arizona we have plenty of examples starting with Jan Brewer. There was a movement to recall Joe Arpaio, and though everyone I talked to and work with was in agreement that he needs to go, the movement couldn’t even garner enough signatures to have a recall election. Look at Wisconsin as another example. Over one million signatures on petitions to recall Scott Walker. Yet, the majority of people in Wisconsin kept him in office. Even the million people that signed the petitions didn’t come out to vote. After it was over, the common cant, even among those that signed the petitions was ‘Well, I don’t like the governor, but I don’t think things should have been handled this way.’ We get the government we deserve. The entire country saw in the preceding four years, the stubborn, obstreperousness of the Republican party. Who retained control of the House after the elections? We get the government we deserve. Tony C. @ 1:50 wrote “maybe a campaign contribution or signing a petition.” We’re going to ‘petition’ the very government that doesn’t give a damn about what we want, just what THEY get? Most of the people in the country would like to see this surveillance state dismantled. I’m sure many of those people signed the petition going around the internet before the NSA vote. Did it make any difference? No. We get the government we deserve. No, Dredd, although I would love to be able to agree with you (as I do most of the time) I think Dr. Jefferies was correct; we DO get the government we deserve.
A itchBay in time, saves nine. Notice that the article “A” is not An. You keep the article in tune with the original word. Also, I before e except after c.
But seriously, it is important to convey that which you mean. Even if the words are a bit mean.
I think it was Anonymously Posted above who was complaining about WordPress. If you wish to say a cuss word then employ Pig Latin. I started it because although I have as my first name a perfectly safe, non cussword, I can not get it by WordPress. So, if Y’all don’t know about Pig Latin you simply drop the first later, ad it to the end of the word with an “ay”. igPay atinLay.
So, on this blog you can say itShayhead and everyone knows you are talking about Dick Cheney.
Please use Pig Latin to circumvent WordPress. uckFayin ullBayitShay thing for a blog to adopt. I bet itchinBayDog chimnes in on this one.
The government has dirt on every person in Amerika. It does not matter which party is in power. The government is a separate entity from the Government. So, take Al Franken. You do not hear him complaining about WordPress or everything being in moderation, or NSA spying. They must have photos of him with his pants down with an orangatang. So far there are about two Congress people, house or senate, speaking out against NSA. Walter Jones was one and Ayn Rand’s son was the other.
Another one lost…
lottakatz, Yep. That’s it, in a nutshell.
I think that this is a reposting, but will throw it out again, as it relates:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden
Exclusive: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ
• Secret payments revealed in leaks by Edward Snowden
• GCHQ expected to ‘pull its weight’ for Americans
• Weaker regulation of British spies ‘a selling point’ for NSA
The US government has paid at least £100m to the UK spy agency GCHQ over the last three years to secure access to and influence over Britain’s intelligence gathering programmes.
The top secret payments are set out in documents which make clear that the Americans expect a return on the investment, and that GCHQ has to work hard to meet their demands. “GCHQ must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight,” a GCHQ strategy briefing said.
The funding underlines the closeness of the relationship between GCHQ and its US equivalent, the National Security Agency. But it will raise fears about the hold Washington has over the UK’s biggest and most important intelligence agency, and whether Britain’s dependency on the NSA has become too great.
In one revealing document from 2010, GCHQ acknowledged that the US had “raised a number of issues with regards to meeting NSA’s minimum expectations”. It said GCHQ “still remains short of the full NSA ask”.
Ministers have denied that GCHQ does the NSA’s “dirty work”, but in the documents GCHQ describes Britain’s surveillance laws and regulatory regime as a “selling point” for the Americans.
The papers are the latest to emerge from the cache leaked by the American whistleblower Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who has railed at the reach of the US and UK intelligence agencies.
Snowden warned about the relationship between the NSA and GCHQ, saying the organisations have been jointly responsible for developing techniques that allow the mass harvesting and analysis of internet traffic. “It’s not just a US problem,” he said. “They are worse than the US.”
As well as the payments, the documents seen by the Guardian reveal:
• GCHQ is pouring money into efforts to gather personal information from mobile phones and apps, and has said it wants to be able to “exploit any phone, anywhere, any time”.
• Some GCHQ staff working on one sensitive programme expressed concern about “the morality and ethics of their operational work, particularly given the level of deception involved”.
• The amount of personal data available to GCHQ from internet and mobile traffic has increased by 7,000% in the past five years – but 60% of all Britain’s refined intelligence still appears to come from the NSA.
• GCHQ blames China and Russia for the vast majority of cyber-attacks against the UK and is now working with the NSA to provide the British and US militaries with a cyberwarfare capability.
and it continues…
Lost a posting to the moderation filter.
anonymously posted, I am not surprised to read that the fruits of the information gathering is being shared among with a handful of English speaking countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
I think that this is part of an old alliance and meant to, as a primary aim, counter any economic or political advantage the formation of the European Union. The world is being carved up into specific domains and keeping the citizens in them in line is necessary to making those kingdoms internally functioning smoothly and in a unified manner.
JT: How did we come to this point as a nation?
Success. Money. Comfort. Relative safety. Power. Good food and entertainment.
All the things that make the middle class have more to lose by refusing to go along, than they have to gain by refusing to go along.
Change for the better comes with desperation; it was people getting killed and severely exploited in manufacturing that led to unions, and that required risking violent confrontation.
The more satiated we are, the less we will engage, until the point most people would rather watch a TV show than endure the hardship of voting, protesting, or educating themselves on the issues.
The Roman’s knew it thousands of years ago; if the rulers pay the “tax” of providing bread and circuses, they can do whatever they want.
Put another way, the vast middle of people are primarily motivated to make confrontational demands by pain, be it physical, psychological, or financial pain. Alleviating pain is worth taking a risk. Without the pain the problem becomes an intellectual exercise and for most that is not worth risking much at all; maybe a campaign contribution or signing a petition.
Mike Spindell at 11:46 am:
“Mike, you can hide out at my house when the shite hits the fan.”
Seamus,
Thank you, but who says they won’t be coming for you too?
__________
That’s the question you’re supposed to ask, of yourself. Ubiquitous spying and a legal system so stuffed with laws you never know when you’re a lawbreaker (as well as official harassment under color of law ala being arrested for walking by a police stop) is meant to intimidate and cause self-censorship.
JT comes in for a lot of criticism for being twitched up about the looming security state and it’s misplaced criticism IMO.
The way I see it there is now a standing army of militarized state and local police conditioned to work closely with federal agencies including the intelligence community. The FBI is the conduit through the fusion center program. They are for keeping the rabble in check. Most of us are the rabble.
The 1% or 10% don’t have to worry. They are pulling the strings and have everything to gain from support and collaboration.
Then there’s the 15% that will need to be controlled, brought to heel. Some of you here are in that group. JT sure is. They are the constitutional lawyers and activists that take the unpopular cases and take up the unpopular causes. Now their calls and electronic communications (with even their clients) can be collected and listened to/read. They are the public interest organizations and their workers and donors, the ACLU and that segment of public interest activists: the environmentalists, the civil rights groups, the women’s rights groups, the laborites, the student organizers and organizations, etc.
And investigative journalists and journalism, a task that like news presentation, is assumed more and more often online
If you want to suppress or oppress these groups of troublesome citizens then all that info is going to be very helpful. It’s the high-tech equivalent of Hoover’s files. It will be used to ruthlessly enforce the property rights of the 1% and stifel all other dissent through chicanery, blackmail and prosecutorial overreach- to both dry up all sources of information the government (or/and 1%) doesn’t want known, to stifel organized dissent and individual activities and to punish any push-back for those policies. Laws have and will be changed to accommodate this suppression/oppression.
I don’t know that it can be turned around without the kind of activism we saw most recently in the 60’s and 70’s. But I’m not sure that kind of activism is possible anymore.
Question:
What do Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Eva Braun, Emmy Göring, Martha Mengele, Rachel Kaganovich and Jiang Qing have in common?
Answer:
They all married Mass Murderers / War Criminals
Man…. I seem to have missed anyone supporting Obama and his continual dedicating on the American people…..